44 new social housing units in Waterville, D15

Mrs OBumble

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

These are quite high end modern houses with good floor space which raises the question why should social housing families (lovely or not) be entitled to separate rooms for their kids which the working class family can't afford?

Because the rules about what is acceptable housing say that children beyond a certain age should not be sharing a bedroom with an opposite gender sibling.

Also, most working class families in Dublin do qualify for social housing. It's the squeezed middle class ones who don't.

K_P

MayBea wrote: »

I saw this article, K_P, this is a lovely family, great to see smiling faces.
This is why the council could have made Christmas merrier for more families, by selling some units and using the proceeds buying another 20 houses here and another 20 there - a brand new houses in a private estates, instead of concentrating 44 council units in one place.

Look MayBea, we differ on this issue but you're asking a question I know a lot of people would be asking in the same situation. But please don't be so disingenuous as to say your concern is around value for money and how the council could have "made Christmas merrier for more families" by conveniently developing and buying housing away from this estate. Government policy on social housing is that it will be mixed tenure for the foreseeable future. That includes expensive high end estates. If you genuinely have an issue with that, express your concerns next time there's a public consultation on housing policy. Not just when it affects you.

I'll admit I'm biased as my work involves social housing. But I see this argument all the time. Snobbery and fear disguised as concern for the disadvantaged:
- I've nothing at all against this person with mental health support needs being housed next to me. But the services here are terrible and he wouldn't get the support he needs.
- I'm sure they're a lovely family but they just wouldn't fit in here, some other neighbours wouldn't accept them.
- Wouldn't it be better for these families to be housed in XYZ nearer their families, they won't know anyone here, won't they be lonely?!

MayBea wrote: »

My question was not about whether they can object based on "property devaluing"

MayBea wrote: »

I guess they look for advice whether they can object the scheme. Their main concern is the value of their home, could it devalue?

Seriously now, get your story straight.

What it comes down to is that it's hard to present the anti social scroungers argument or fear about property devaluing when faced with that news story and pictures of delighted homeless children being given a home. But those are the kinds of people and families who will be housed in this estate. Chances are the properties will be well managed and the council will be on high alert for any trouble as I'm sure they're aware how controversial this is with the community. Your friends will know who to complain to if there are any issues which is something they wouldn't if the house was owner occupied or possibly if it was privately rented.

There's no way of knowing if it will affect property values, you'll have to see how it all pans out once all the units are allocated and things settle down. From experience, my feeling is that it will have no effect on your friends' property or quality of life.

Azrel

April 73 wrote: »

The person renting it from the council will never own the property.

You could be wrong there, (as has happened before in a lot of ex-council estates in Dublin) some short-sighted future government could decide to buy a few hundred thousand votes by thinking it's a good idea to "sell" the tenants the council houses they are living in at a knock down price.

April 73

Azrel wrote: »

You could be wrong there, (as has happened before in a lot of ex-council estates in Dublin) some short-sighted future government could decide to buy a few hundred thousand votes by thinking it's a good idea to "sell" the tenants the council houses they are living in at a knock down price.

Yes you're right actually. It has happened in the past.

PolaroidPizza

buying a house is no different to buying shares or a racehorse, you have to take the risk the value can go down as well as up. if your friends are so seriously worried about the value going down, then they shouldn't have gone buying a house in the first place.
buying a house doesn't entitle you to any say in what the council does with your neighbours. buying a house is an investment, nothing more. if the value goes up, then good for you, if it goes down and you're in trouble, then you really should have been smarter about where you invested.

MayBea

K_P wrote: »

There's no way of knowing if it will affect property values, you'll have to see how it all pans out once all the units are allocated and things settle down. From experience, my feeling is that it will have no effect on your friends' property or quality of life.

Thanks for the last paragraph, K_P. The question was and is about property value.
Again, the statement "My question was not about whether they can object based on "property devaluing" and emphases the "based on property value" part. There were no ambiguity on "object" part, the family in question will object, based on percentile.
I don't understand the accusations of my being untruthful part?
Overall, the rest is a blob of emotions, probably caused by your occupation (look up professional deformation on wikipedia).

colm_mcm

April 73 wrote: »

Except that the person paying the mortgage on the property owns it at the end of the mortgage. They are left with an asset.
The person renting it from the council will never own the property.

So you can look forward to not paying a €1200 mortgage in a few decades time.

Mrs OBumble

athtrasna wrote: »

No they won't. They'll have one vote.

Section 15 of the Multi-Units Developement Act 2011 suggests otherwise. It says (bolding mine)

"one vote shall attach to each residential unit in the multi-unit development to which the owners’ management company relate"

Ref: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/enacted/en/pdf

K_P

MayBea wrote: »

Overall, the rest is a blob of emotions, probably caused by your occupation (look up professional deformation on wikipedia).

I'm grand for the condescending referrals to the Wikipedia, thanks. :rolleyes: I'm the one who said "I'll admit I'm biased as my work involves social housing." So of course I have a more positive view of social housing than the average person who hears and sees nothing of it but the horror stories they hear about on Liveline. But I also know a hell of a lot more about it beyond the fear and scaremongering.

I'll tell you again, your friends cannot object based on the possibility of their property devaluing. That's just a non-runner. Maybe the value will drop, but you cannot prove it's the result of the social housing in the area, especially with house prices and the housing market in such a volatile state. Even if you could, that has no legal standing whatsoever. No one has the right to have their property value remain at the same rate at which they bought it.

As regards the proportion of social housing, someone else on the thread mentioned s/he was told the developer had paid money to the council in lieu of their Part V (social and affordable housing) requirements. This might have been an out and out lie on the part of the estate agent, or it might have been correct. The council may have bought them directly from the developer completely independently of the Part V process.

If the estate agent was lying maybe they could take a case against them for damages. To do so, that brings us back to being able to prove a property has devalued because of social housing. They could claim the house was sold to them under false pretences. I'm not a solicitor so I've no idea how this would go but it seems like a massive and expensive headache.

I've come across objections to social housing when it's in the planning stage - some objections are successful, some are not. Of course your friends can object to the council now, but as the houses have already been built and bought, it looks like it's a done deal. Their objection is therefore likely to end up being no more than a strongly worded letter of complaint so I don't fancy their chances of succeeding.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Section 15 of the Multi-Units Developement Act 2011 suggests otherwise. It says (bolding mine)


Ref: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/enacted/en/pdf

My understanding is that this is correct. The council will have 44 votes on the Owners Management Company.

April 73

colm_mcm wrote: »

So you can look forward to not paying a €1200 mortgage in a few decades time.

I don't understand the point? Yes, it's expensive to purchase your own house, but you own something at the end of it.
Alternatively you can pay rent all your life. It's a free choice.

athtrasna

Mod note K_P and Maybea please familiarise yourselves with the A&P charter before posting again on this forum. Attack the post not the poster.

athtrasna

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

All aparent lies now given the above and a very high concentation of 44/130 (33.8%) social housing.

Rossan Court is a stand alone cluster of 44 houses, all purchased by the council, according to an email I've seen from the county manager. Making it 100% social housing.

The exact quote from the email that was shared with me:

I confirm that Fingal County Council have recently purchased the entire 44 units housing development at Rossan Court