Respond coming to my estate, what to expect?

Adventure1

Hi guys,

I live in an estate that currently has around 40 houses which are built and are currently being lived in. There are available sites for a further 25 houses which run opposite/alongside the existing houses. We have just been told that these remaining sites are to be given to Respond who are going to build the houses and use them for social housing.

Needless to say its caused quite a stir among the existing residents. There is some resentment that most of us are working to pay off decent sized mortgages while others will be handed similar houses for free. There are some people here who paid (and are still paying) nearly €400k for their house and they are now going to have approx 33% of houses in the estate on social housing. There are also a couple of really rough social-housing estates in the town - we have a nice quiet community here and there is a concern that this will be disrupted.

Personally, I'm trying to keep an open mind. I have tried to do research on Respond and there does at least seem to be some sort of a vetting/interview procedure. They also talk a good game on their website around building communities, dealing with anti-social behaviour etc but as they say, talk is cheap and Im not sure how much these blurbs reflect the real situation

Does anybody have any experience of Respond housing, how they operate and what we are likely to expect out of this?

Mrs OBumble

You will get social housing tenants, like any other. 90% will be lovely people who are unfortunate in some way (sick, low-skilled, in low-paying jobs due to geography, etc). 5% will be rough around the edges, but OK to have in the neighbourhood. 5% will be the a**holes from hell, and you will be united in praying that they go to prison soon. (Approximate %-ages only).

Respond are a social housing agency, like any other. They will try to build community etc but really they can only do as much as budgets allow and their tenants are interested in. Many tenants will not be interested, because they are too busy working and raising their own kids.

Heart Break Kid

From a social housing area via council myself. They genuinely do take anti social begavior seriously if reported and eviction is a consequence.

The_Conductor

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

From a social housing area via council myself. They genuinely do take anti social begavior seriously if reported and eviction is a consequence.

They have featured via third party complaints, and continue to do so- at the RTB. They are fully aware that they, as an organisation, are responsible for the actions of their tenants- and as they are increasingly being hit in the pocket for anti-social behaviour, whereas in the past they might have turned a blind eye- it is no longer considered acceptable by them, and there are consequences for any tenants who cause trouble in communities- up to and including eviction.

They're a hell of a lot better at dealing with antisocial behaviour- even in the last 6 months- than they were previously.

Feckofff

How soon can you move?

I would be very careful, every town needs a dumping ground for thier difficult tenets.

Existing homeowners need to stand up for what they are effectively working their whole lives for.

Everybody knows the theory but the reality could be very different.

judeboy101

If you are not in negative equity, you soon will be, so sell up asap. 10% social is bad enough but what you are saying is a disaster.

The_Conductor

judeboy101 wrote: »

If you are not in negative equity, you soon will be, so sell up asap. 10% social is bad enough but what you are saying is a disaster.

Judeboy does have a valid point.
Having 25 social housing units opposite- will seriously affect the value of the other housing stock. People might like to suggest this isn't the case- however, it most certainly is...........

AlekSmart

judeboy101 wrote: »

If you are not in negative equity, you soon will be, so sell up asap. 10% social is bad enough but what you are saying is a disaster.

It is a sad example of how deep Irelands Social Issues have become,that the thread has immediately focused on what many view as an inevitability.

As noted above,the theory of this is well known and publicised,but the practice in Irish terms,has largely been shown to be very wide of the mark.

This is not the fault of the Landlord (in this case Respond),but to a culture of misplaced belief in the dominance of personal freedom without any regard for personal responsibility.

This culture has even been recognized and supported by the decisions handed down by our highest Law Courts,which has facilitated violent,anti-social and downright evil individuals to walk away from their crimes without as much as a backwards glance.

It may well work out for the OP,but as in so much of what constitutes Irish society these days,it all depends on how much of a Betting-Man the OP is.

McGrath5

My heart goes out to you OP.

I'm sure the vast majority of the prospective tenants will be honest, decent people, but unfortunately it only takes 1 family to wreak the place.

If I was in your shoes I would seriously consider selling up, if that is a viable option for you.

jamesthepeach

I have a relative who lives in a lovely little estate.
The cc bought one of the houses there and the family they moved in destroyed the place.
By destroyed I mean destroyed the lovely little neighbourhood with anti social behaviour.
People started to sell and the council eventually got another 2 houses at knockdown prices. You should see the state of the place now. And the relative still lives there as they are in negative equity.

It went from a place they loved to one they hate. They often tell me if they could go back to the day that crowd moved and sell up they would do so in a shot

Mrs OBumble

The_Conductor wrote: »

They have featured via third party complaints, and continue to do so- at the RTB. They are fully aware that they, as an organisation, are responsible for the actions of their tenants- and as they are increasingly being hit in the pocket for anti-social behaviour, whereas in the past they might have turned a blind eye- it is no longer considered acceptable by them, and there are consequences for any tenants who cause trouble in communities- up to and including eviction.

They're a hell of a lot better at dealing with antisocial behaviour- even in the last 6 months- than they were previously.

End of the day, though, they can only evict if a judge will support them. Many judges won't after the case in Galway years ago where the to-be-evicted tenant took an extreme step.

So the social housing orgs are getting fined but all that does is reduce the cash they have for housing.

Donal55

Plenty of private landlords renting out to scumbags too. I'd feel a bit more reassured if it was Respond or a local authority renting out the properties.

Wheeliebin30

How did it come to this?

The people who contribute nothing are a law to themselves and are ruining good neighbourhoods and people's lives.

Country is going down a hole quickly.

somefeen

Jesus some amount of snobbery in this thread.

They wont be getting 'free' houses. They still have to pay rent.

What do you want, keep all the poor people away from you and keep making ghettos?
Absolutely unreal.

Eric Cartman

OP, I'd sell up , tbh its not the nicest thing in the world to say, but not a hope I'd buy a house in that estate with that much social housing in it, and I'm clearly not alone in that, people who don't mind will still use it as a bargaining tool too.

As said above, 90% of them could be lovely , but it only takes a few horror tenants to ruin the whole thing, sure look at moyross, the estate belongs to 2 families because they chased everyone else out.

All you need is one scrote who's gangland or doesn't care that his kid puts bricks through windows or steals cars and in 5 years time you'll be opening your door to something resembling detroit.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

somefeen wrote: »

What do you want, keep all the poor people away from you and keep making ghettos?

If necessary, yeah. The estate I was brought up in was 90% social housing, only a handful were privately owned. I decided it wasn't the sort of place I'd choose to raise a family, so I got qualified and climbed the career ladder. I can afford something nicer. And I'd be mightily pissed off if the council bought the place next door and handed it to a social housing tenant.

Eric Cartman

somefeen wrote: »

Jesus some amount of snobbery in this thread.

They wont be getting 'free' houses. They still have to pay rent.

What do you want, keep all the poor people away from you and keep making ghettos?
Absolutely unreal.

you put 30% social housing in an estate - it will probably become a ghetto, only takes a few bad eggs.

you build an estate of 100% social housing - it will probably become a ghetto , only takes a few bad eggs.

the only real difference is that in the first case, it robs hard working people like the OP of the quiet, safe existence that they saved hard to afford and knocks hundreds of thousands if not more off an estates value. Its the lesser of two evils but I'd just rather not have hardship forced upon hard working people to convenience others who don't contribute (be it intentional or through hard luck)

eviltwin

I live beside a Respond estate, never had an issue. Most of the residents seem to be good people, there hasn't been any problems in the 7+ yrs it's been there. The place is very well maintained, it's clean and tidy. Just my experience. I'm a home owner and it's made no difference to my house value from what I can see and I'm happy they are there.

EmoCourt

I'd rather endure a lifetime of sulky racing up and down my road than be called a snob.

The stress of being called a snob would actually ruin my life.

Eric Cartman

eviltwin wrote: »

I live beside a Respond estate, never had an issue. Most of the residents seem to be good people, there hasn't been any problems in the 7+ yrs it's been there. The place is very well maintained, it's clean and tidy. Just my experience. I'm a home owner and it's made no difference to my house value from what I can see and I'm happy they are there.

is there any kind of vetting procedure etc. I really think we would clear up a lot of problems if we started triaging social tenants. If these mixed use developments were exclusively handed out to families that might be in social housing due to only low income / disability who had a history of work and nobody residing there with any criminal convictions then people wouldn't have a problem up to 10% social housing id say. In your case it has obviously worked out well, but all it takes is one nightmare family and it could all come crumbling down.

SCOOP 64

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

If necessary, yeah. The estate I was brought up in was 90% social housing, only a handful were privately owned. I decided it wasn't the sort of place I'd choose to raise a family, so I got qualified and climbed the career ladder. I can afford something nicer. And I'd be mightily pissed off if the council bought the place next door and handed it to a social housing tenant.

This is happening more and more, my sister inlaw lives in a private estate for years, nice 4 bed detach houses, neighbour put their house up for sale ,was for sale for some time, then sold sigh went up, they sold it too the council, they are now just waiting to see their new neighbours move in.

Eric Cartman

EmoCourt wrote: »

I'd rather endure a lifetime of sulky racing up and down my road than be called a snob.

The stress of being called a snob would actually ruin my life.

Id much rather take some leftist calling me a snob than be anywhere near the type of people who engage in sulky racing, Ill take one word on a screen over my house being burned out for copper any day.

somefeen

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

If necessary, yeah. The estate I was brought up in was 90% social housing, only a handful were privately owned. I decided it wasn't the sort of place I'd choose to raise a family, so I got qualified and climbed the career ladder. I can afford something nicer. And I'd be mightily pissed off if the council bought the place next door and handed it to a social housing tenant.

That attitude is sickening to be honest. Social housing tenant does not equal criminal.

And its not 'handed' to the tenant. They still have to pay rent and their lease will have conditions, same as if a private landlord bought the place next door.

EDIT: Social housing tenant doesn't also equal not working. people have a bizzare notion that only the unemployed live in social housing

Eric Cartman

somefeen wrote: »

That attitude is sickening to be honest. Social housing tenant does not equal criminal.

And its not 'handed' to the tenant. They still have to pay rent and their lease will have conditions, same as if a private landlord bought the place next door.

EDIT: Social housing tenant doesn't also equal not working. people have a bizzare notion that only the unemployed live in social housing

working or not, if 100% social housing causes ghettos as you mentioned before, at what percentage does it not cause ghettos and why.

ED E

somefeen wrote: »

That attitude is sickening to be honest. Social housing tenant does not equal criminal.

And its not 'handed' to the tenant. They still have to pay rent and their lease will have conditions, same as if a private landlord bought the place next door.

EDIT: Social housing tenant doesn't also equal not working. people have a bizzare notion that only the unemployed live in social housing

No, its not the same.

If Mr Landord has a crappy tenant, he evicts him and he's eventually gone. If a Council evicts a tenant they then have to go back and house them again. Problem doesn't go away. Thus the council is far less motivated to do anything.


Social housing at anything above 10% is lunacy.

uck51js9zml2yt

Where would people like these people to live?
I'd assume many of them are working and unable to get a mortgage...let's think positively for a change as not everyone needing social housing is out of work and not every unemployed person is antisocial.
I know a few working people who are!


Edit: just to point out that the op has 4 posts in 4 months and makes unverified statements and hasn't been back on thread in 2 days! The result is a lynch mob!

Donal55

Devon Stale Roadblock wrote: »

Where would people like these people to live?
I'd assume many of them are working and unable to get a mortgage...let's think positively for a change as not everyone needing social housing is out of work and not every unemployed person is antisocial.
I know a few working people who are!

Plenty here equate those as track suit wearing single mothers or hand bag snatchers.

Eric Cartman

Devon Stale Roadblock wrote: »

Where would people like these people to live?
I'd assume many of them are working and unable to get a mortgage...let's think positively for a change as not everyone needing social housing is out of work and not every unemployed person is antisocial.
I know a few working people who are!

if you could guarantee just the working ones without shady pasts or families then I doubt anyone would ever complain about them being there.

The baby factories with 7+ kids and boyfriend off the books, intergenerational never worked a day in their lives, drug addicts / alcoholics , gangland affiliated or career criminals should all be sent to live in some heavily monitored fenced off (for our safety) community in rural leitrim.

As I said above, triage them and give different units depending on what they're doing. The stereotypes didn't come from nowhere.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

somefeen wrote: »

That attitude is sickening to be honest. Social housing tenant does not equal criminal.

And its not 'handed' to the tenant. They still have to pay rent and their lease will have conditions, same as if a private landlord bought the place next door.

At a rate equivalent to what it would fetch on the open market, or would it be linked to the tenants income?

somefeen wrote: »

Social housing tenant doesn't also equal not working. people have a bizzare notion that only the unemployed live in social housing

I didn't specify.

eviltwin

Eric Cartman wrote: »

is there any kind of vetting procedure etc. I really think we would clear up a lot of problems if we started triaging social tenants. If these mixed use developments were exclusively handed out to families that might be in social housing due to only low income / disability who had a history of work and nobody residing there with any criminal convictions then people wouldn't have a problem up to 10% social housing id say. In your case it has obviously worked out well, but all it takes is one nightmare family and it could all come crumbling down.

No idea but from what I can see most people work. It seems to be largely eastern European living there but nice families, a lot would go to the same school as my son and they are very respectable. They are not scum just because they live in social housing, just people not in a position to buy homes or pay rent around here.

Grolschevik

Devon Stale Roadblock wrote:

Where would people like these people to live? I'd assume many of them are working and unable to get a mortgage...let's think positively for a change as not everyone needing social housing is out of work and not every unemployed person is antisocial. I know a few working people who are!

The general answer from the keyboard wannabe libertarians around here is 'move them to a ghost estate in Cavan, free up valuable city space for middle-class workers'.

Then they'll complain (because their quasi libertarian ideology is internally inconsistent and often muddled up with anti immigrant rhetoric, too) that they can't find an Irish cleaner, or barista, etc and that "dey tuk ur jobs" sort of rhetoric.

A healthy city and society requires a diversity of class, skills, and ethnicity. Enough of the NIMBY "I'm in negative equity in my 400k house and the social tenants next door are getting a free gaff with a gold-plated toilet."

I swear to Christ, I've never met anyone in real life who holds the sort of views that seem disproportionately represented on Boards.