Respond coming to my estate, what to expect?

votecounts

Plenty of people working get social houses, a fella i know works for paddy power and he got one a few months ago. Although i think the whole estate is social housing, it looks well and no trouble, just people getting on with their lives

chicorytip

votecounts wrote:

Plenty of people working get social houses, a fella i know works for paddy power and he got one a few months ago. Although i think the whole estate is social housing, it looks well and no trouble, just people getting on with their lives

This is unfair, in my opinion. A working person - albeit on a low wage - can obtain virtually free accommodation for life yet an unemployed or disabled person will be refused if he/she has assets valued in excess of thirty thousand euro - money which could be either savings or inherited.

CruelCoin

somefeen wrote: »

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

Typically €50 p/w

In this market that's as close to free as makes no difference.

We have ghost estates in Leitrim/Roscommon/Carlow but the poor lambs don't want to move too far from mammy, so the state must pony up 4/5 times the value.

On an equal spend, there would be no homelessness crisis if those empty houses were settled instead of letting them rot.
Beggars who feel like they should choose have created that particular crisis.

Seriously, those empty houses were essentially paid for by the average taxpayer when they were subsumed into NAMA.
Far as i'm concerned, i've already paid for sufficient social housing stock to solve the current issues.

CruelCoin

somefeen wrote: »

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

Nobody wants to keep "the poors" at arms length.
The problem is that a higher than normal slice of poor people tend to be ****birds, whether you want to admit it or not.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread. It takes one ****ty family, one, to ruin a neighbourhood, and people have the right to be concerned over what they work hard to pay for.

Graham

Mod Note let's not turn this into a social housing/tenant bashing.

uck51js9zml2yt

CruelCoin wrote: »

Typically €50 p/w

In this market that's as close to free as makes no difference.

We have ghost estates in Leitrim/Roscommon/Carlow but the poor lambs don't want to move too far from mammy, so the state must pony up 4/5 times the value.

On an equal spend, there would be no homelessness crisis if those empty houses were settled instead of letting them rot.
Beggars who feel like they should choose have created that particular crisis.

Seriously, those empty houses were essentially paid for by the average taxpayer when they were subsumed into NAMA.
Far as i'm concerned, i've already paid for sufficient social housing stock to solve the current issues.

Move them to Leitrim and then what?
Do those who are working give up their jobs in Dublin and become unemployed in kinlough or ManorHamilton?

CruelCoin

Eric Cartman wrote: »

is there any kind of vetting procedure etc.

Proper vetting takes a long time to do. and as is the case for ANY state or semi-state, if they do not spend their entire budget, then they often don't get the same budget for next year.
State bodies go into a spending spree in the second half of the year, most of it utter waste to try ensure equal funding the following year.
What this means for vetting, is that it's often rushed to ram people into houses and spend them bucks.

jamesthepeach

People who have actually bought their houses tend to care about they value of that house and so would not do anything that might hurt that value of the value of the general area.

People who haven't ..... Well we all can have a drive around and figure out which houses in any areas are lived in by those who actually bought them and which ones aren't.

Mrs OBumble

Eric Cartman wrote: »

is there any kind of vetting procedure etc.

There is garda vetting, so that Respond etc know what convictions a person moving in has.

But I suspect there are no real rules about what crimes (and how long ago) disqualify someone from getting a house. Because it's just too hard eg is murdered one person 15 years ago (lover's rage, assessed by probation as low risk of re-offending) better or worse than 5 recent convictions for possessing cannabis? Is either bad enough that they don't get council housing - in which case, where do they go?

A cynical person might think that the vetting is mainly so the guards can check that mutually incompatible families aren't housed in the same estate - since they know the troublemakers far better than the council do.

Involvement of a voluntary housing organisation like Respond can mean a slightly better overall tenant profile. But there is always the risk of getting one family who have been so bad that they're being kicked out of a council house - and because they cannot be directed to sleep under a hedgerow any more, they have to be put in a house somewhere and there's a deal that the voluntary housing company will take them in return for something else.

somefeen

Alright so I'll leave you all to your snobby ignorant opinions.

Opinions which I am sure you formed using the same mental faculties that you used to decide that buying a house, in a housing estate was a good idea while you have so much concern about who your neighbours might be and how they might affect your property value.

Jesus Wept

Commoner garden snobs. Buy a house with a long driveway or get on with your life.

The_Conductor

somefeen wrote: »

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

30 out of 65 properties are to be 'social housing units'.
There are 40 properties thus far- 4 of whom were given to the council as social housing units, and one of which was purchased by the council on the open market. The second phase of the development- a further 25 units- are being handed over to 'Respond' to build and manage. So- its roughly half the estate that is going to be social housing units.

This is in breach of Department guidelines- and goes against statements from the housing organisations (where they explicitly state that social housing should not comprise more than 20% of any given estate and should be integrated in the estate, rather than in a contigious block).

This *is* creating a ghetto situation- its not that people are unfairly looking at the situation- it is quite incredibly hard not to view a 50:50 mix as ghettoisation.

It is possible that there may be lovely tenants in the properties- and hopefully that is the case- however, it only takes one shower to ruin it for everyone else.

At very least the Department guidelines should be implemented (everywhere)- which is min 10% social housing units, max 20%- and no two contigious units should be social housing units- i.e. they must be integrated in the development.

The_Conductor

somefeen wrote: »

Alright so I'll leave you all to your snobby ignorant opinions.

Opinions which I am sure you formed using the same mental faculties that you used to decide that buying a house, in a housing estate was a good idea while you have so much concern about who your neighbours might be and how they might affect your property value.

Playing devils advocate here- the prescribed mix of property types- has inevitably tipped the owner occuppiers into significant negative equity situations. I accept that you don't think this is an issue- however, from a financial perspective- it will go against any of them if/when they ever look for a loan for something- or indeed, if they ever try to sell their property.

I don't have any issue with social housing per se- I do have an issue with the creation of ghettos (I'm old enough to remember when Tallaght was built- and indeed the council estates in Clondalkin and Lucan during the 60s and 70s). The current proposal is a 50% social housing level- which tramples willy nilly over the concept of integration of socially deprived tenants in the community (and esp. if they are in a single contigious block- as 25 of the 30 units in the OPs estate are going to be).

Social housing- is a common good- however- lumping it together- has been tried and acknowledged to be an awful idea- yet, this is what we keep revisiting.

PAKNET

Grolschevik wrote: »

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.

Well is it any wonder you don't come across opinions like that when that's your attitude in response.

People know damn well if they dare even question any aspect of social housing like this they'll be immediately labelled a snob, a NIMBY, capitalist pig, or whatever buzzword chant is flavour of the month - your and the other posters reaction has demonstrated this perfectly so why would anyone even attempt to try discuss their view in real life with you!

maynooth_rules

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.

Perhaps its just my county council but they have been hopeless responding to anti social behaviour among some of the social houses in our estate. Our estate committee is being purposely ignored by the CC and despite anti social incidents happening every week or so with one particular house, they do nothing. In fact most of the officials that we have got a chance to speak to don't even know their own anti social policy

The_Conductor

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Perhaps its just my county council but they have been hopeless responding to anti social behaviour among some of the social houses in our estate. Our estate committee is being purposely ignored by the CC and despite anti social incidents happening every week or so with one particular house, they do nothing. In fact most of the officials that we have got a chance to speak to don't even know their own anti social policy

Lodge a third party case with the RTB.
After the council are tied up fighting these cases, someone somewhere will have a flash of inspiration- and cop that its the person they who are defending who is the problem, not the community..........
Maynooth has more than its fair share of social housing (it has the highest number of social housing units per head of population in any major urban centre anywhere in the country- the council need to keep the locals on board- when you have one family spoiling it for everyone else- it needs to be hit on the head, hard.)

Lodge a third party case with the RTB- they can impose a determination order on the council- along with a sizeable fine.

B00MSTICK

Hi all,

Not related to Respond but in a similar vein so looking for thoughts/opinions

We were all set to buy in a new development in Clongriffin, contracts have been provisionally signed but no deposit has been lodged to our solicitor yet.

There is already ~130 social housing units in the area directly adjacent to the development and a friend mentioned to us that at least 1 additional apartment block will be bought by the Iveagh Trust. According to the statement on their website this will add another 84 units. (http://www.theiveaghtrust.ie/?p=3740)

I suppose my question would be do you think we should go ahead with the purchase?

There does seem to be quite a high concentration of social housing in the area and going by the finger-in-the-air calculations this would indicate that we could have ~10 'completely undesirable' families living in the immediate vicinity.
This is on top of outstanding anti-social behavior such as party in the local park and the vandalising of the DART station.

As already mentioned in this thread, if things even start to go down that road I can see the value of our 300k+ home dropping quite quickly.
Although the way prices are going even old houses in traditionally 'rough' areas like Cabra, Crumlin, Clondalkin etc. seem to be hovering around the 250k+ mark and thats just the asking price, excluding any refurbishments and a pitiful BER.

I know it might sounds like I've already made my mind up, but the area I'm currently living in has had 2 gangland related murders in the recent past and certainly has a large percentage of undesirables and I'm still happy enough to stay here. (Herself less so..) If the right property came up for the right price I'd even consider it.

From my side I can see the sense that having one block makes the management a lot easier. I've no idea on the total number of units in the area but given the current climate I doubt the developers would willingly give over the 10% requirement? Unless the Iveagh Trust would be paying top dollar?

Sorry for the long post - just trying to get my head around it all...

The_Conductor

Honestly- with your description- including the 3 recent gangland murders- is this somewhere you would feel safe and happy to bing up children?

B00MSTICK

The_Conductor wrote: »

Honestly- with your description- including the 3 recent gangland murders- is this somewhere you would feel safe and happy to bing up children?

It was only 2 (only!) but point taken.

I walk by the area every so often and never really feel threatened but I guess deep down I do know that I wouldn't want to raise a family here.

Any thoughts on the Clongriffin situ? I'm pretty sure even the booking deposit is still refundable at this point.

MysticMonk

Dont do it. New social housing areas will eventually become worse than the old social housing areas ever were. The rough areas you mentioned are in reality now established,settled areas(not all areas by any means..do your research.

They are usually well built three bed houses with free hold title and gardens that are now being bought up by people who recognise the value they can represent..dont be blinded by BER certificates either. Often older houses only require internal insulation as many if not all would have central heating and double glaze windows.

An area with close to 200 new social units is going to become a hotbed of trouble very quickly and you will regret it.

enricoh

Was in a small celtic tiger estate recently. One house had high railings, cctv sensor lights - the works. A gangland head lived in it. His horses were out on the green n had it in bits.
The customer I was calling to told me he'd sell in the morning if he could but no one would buy it. Id say he was right!

MysticMonk

The dregs of X,Y,Z areas moved out to the celtic housing estates once they got married and started having kids.
Lots of trouble council tenants were rehoused further out too,usually into brand new properties.

As for clingriffen itself,the tenants will likely have a connection with the general area..former residents of St Donagh's,Belcamp,Darndale and killbarrack.
I grew up in donaghmede,a horrible area and thats when there was plenty for us kids to do.
I wouldn't live back thete if I was offered a house for nothing.

EmoCourt

MysticMonk wrote: »

I grew up in donaghmede,a horrible area and thats when there was plenty for us kids to do.

Donaghmede never has been, and never will be, considered a 'horrible' area by anyone except those looking to talk up their 'street cred' on the internet.

It has always been working class in the true sense of the word. People with jobs and mortgages.

B00MSTICK

Thanks for the replies, had another thought - from what I've read here I think developers get a smaller profit from selling to social housing schemes?

If this is the case why would a developer decide to hand over 84 units as social housing in the current climate with buyers falling over themselves? It just sounds like bad business no?

I'll try call the developers on Monday and see - I assume there was either a sweetener thrown in or else they made an agreement that their social housing requirements for a number of their developments to be put all in one block.

Mrs OBumble

B00MSTICK wrote: »

Unless the Iveagh Trust would be paying top dollar?

They may be doing so. The estate management savings from having all your houses in the same place and built the same way are substantial.

okiss

Hi broomstick, I would not buy in this area. You have a lot of social housing already and even more coming. I know people who are in social housing and they are decent people but a few bad apples can ruin a place very quickly. You don't want to be in a place in 5 -10 years with a lot of bad neighbours, social problems and you could not give away your house due to the areas bad name. A good number of years ago I knew an Irish couple who moved back from the UK to a certain area of Dublin. After a few years the woman could see a lot of building work in the area and noticed a general change in the area. She was keen to move but her husband was not. She started to look at houses in others areas and brought her husband looking at houses. Eventually he agreed to move. Now X number of years later where they used to live in is on the boarder of several bad areas. One of the posters here who knows the area you plan to buy in and who grew up near it has advised you to not to buy here. The developer of where your thinking of buying could be in trouble with the banks and could be selling a lot of stock to the council/housing agencies to pay off loans and to be in a position to borrow again. They could also by turning to meet social tenants obligation by selling a lot of stock. I know your keen to buy a place but after what you have told us I would not buy in this area as long term I think it would be a bad move.

jamesthepeach

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They may be doing so. The estate management savings from having all your houses in the same place and built the same way are substantial.

Not.to mention the increase power over shaping the estate. And the more units you buy the cheaper the rest get sold for. Eventually you'll get the whole place at knockdown price.

jamesthepeach

enricoh wrote: »

Was in a small celtic tiger estate recently. One house had high railings, cctv sensor lights - the works. A gangland head lived in it. His horses were out on the green n had it in bits.
The customer I was calling to told me he'd sell in the morning if he could but no one would buy it. Id say he was right!

Reminds of someone who was telling g me they viewed a house and they were really interested and liked it. The estate agent was delighted and knew he had a sale.
As they were walking out the door discussing arrangements for what next, load of horses were being tied up on the green and a few more were being ridden down the road towards it.
The estate agent just said "of course there is still room for movement on the price you know."

They bought elsewhere.

MysticMonk

EmoCourt wrote: »

Donaghmede never has been, and never will be, considered a 'horrible' area by anyone except those looking to talk up their 'street cred' on the internet.

It has always been working class in the true sense of the word. People with jobs and mortgages.

I take it you never walked down st donagh's road in the 1980's?

EmoCourt

MysticMonk wrote: »

I take it you never walked down st donagh's road in the 1980's?

I grew up in Donaghmede, so yeah i would have walked up and down all of the roads as a kid. Never had to dive out of the way of feral urban cowboys, or syringe wielding junkies lying in wait.

Donaghmede is far larger than one road anyway. Thousands of people spread across Grange Abbey, Grangemore, The Donahies, Newbrook, Carondonaghm Milbrook etc etc.

Donaghmede was never one of the anti-social hotspots on the Northside. Most people would struggle to point it out on a map.