Respond coming to my estate, what to expect?

Mrs OBumble

circular flexing wrote: »

How do you know the repayments are crippling?

To the OP, Tuath bought some houses in the estate I own in. They paid slightly above market value for them and put vetted tenants in. There was a dedicated liaison officer assigned from Tuath for the tenants in the estate and any problems with them were dealt by her. There were a few minor niggles at the start but since then there's been no issue. I doubt Tuath would mess around if someone was being disruptive.

So far, you've been lucky.

But it's social housing. Eviction is next to impossible. All it takes is one feral family who don't respond to normal threats, and the housing association is between a rock and a hard place.

Vetting simply says "gardai have no concerns about XYZ living in ABC", and "Mr X has convictions for M, N and O in 20xx".

A family cannot be denied social housing because someone in the family has convictions. Especially not ones they've served the sentence for.

Feckofff

steddyeddy wrote: »

Listen. We'll never agree. I also represent women and minorities in science. I learned that if someone has prejudices they're never going to change by disagreeing with them.

Yes some estates are worse than others but associating social housing with criminality is indicative of deeper seated beliefs.

To be fair you have based your entire argument on a single council estate that you were intimately familiar with.
Since you work science I'm sure you can see why this is a weak arguement. If you want to provide some figure to support your concept of a council estate as being the norm, please do, but I suspect no such figures exist for a reason.

SJWing is grand an all, but this is the OP important decisions. Sometimes reality is more important than lofty ideals and the moral high ground.

steddyeddy

Feckofff wrote: »

To be fair you have based your entire argument on a single council estate that you were intimately familiar with.
Since you work science I'm sure you can see why this is a weak arguement. If you want to provide some figure to support your concept of a council estate as being the norm, please do, but I suspect no such figures exist for a reason.

SJWing is grand an all, but this is the OP important decisions. Sometimes reality is more important than lofty ideals and the moral high ground.

As I say I worked with students. Part of that was a mentoring scheme were I worked with students from these areas. They faced discrimination based on where they were from. I had the same arguements when we got them scholarships to private schools ect.

Sure there's crime in poorer areas. Guess what changes that? Oppertunities. Access to housing. What makes them more likely to become criminals? Lack of oppertunity and people labelling them based on where they're from.

The OP's life? People here are comparing people in social housing to animals (feral).

steddyeddy

OP the sensible thing to do would be to contact response and state your concerns. Although ~38% dedicated to social housing seems a bit untrue. Who told you this and what % of the sites will be built on?

EmoCourt

MysticMonk wrote: »

it's a horrible area,row upon row of souless estates,laneways,sparse grass verges and lots of traffic..nothing in the place to enjoy.

Soulless? The Donaghmede i grew up in was surrounded by friends, we didn't spend too much time worrying about the grass verges or the traffic levels on the main road. We knew our neighbours. We organised sports days. We celebrated halloween with bonfires. We stood at our doors on new years eve to wish each other a happy new year. My experience of Donaghmede wasn't 'soulless' and i'd say the majority of people who grew up there are the same.

You must have been a very unhappy child growing up there. I hope you have moved to somewhere bursting with soul since then...

I'll leave it at that.

Graham

Mod Note: This is not the thread to debate particular areas

steddyeddy & feckoff take it to PM.

Loon E. Tick

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I say I worked with students. Part of that was a mentoring scheme were I worked with students from these areas. They faced discrimination based on where they were from. I had the same arguements when we got them scholarships to private schools ect.

Sure there's crime in poorer areas. Guess what changes that? Oppertunities. Access to housing. What makes them more likely to become criminals? Lack of oppertunity and people labelling them based on where they're from.

The OP's life? People here are comparing people in social housing to animals (feral).

Access to housing isn't necessarily a solution to anti-social behaviour. Some people can be just scumbags who get off on terrorising people. That's just the reality.

steddyeddy

Loon E. Tick wrote: »

Access to housing isn't necessarily a solution to anti-social behaviour. Some people can be just scumbags who get off on terrorising people. That's just the reality.

Yep everyone can be scumbags. That's not confined to a demographic.

Mrs OBumble

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I say I worked with students. Part of that was a mentoring scheme were I worked with students from these areas. They faced discrimination based on where they were from. I had the same arguements when we got them scholarships to private schools ect.

....

The OP's life? People here are comparing people in social housing to animals (feral).

It sucks, but that's reality of life in Ireland (and many other palces)I hope you taught the students how to correctly write their address on application forms (is using neighbouring suburb names) to minimise the issue.


The vast majority of people living in social housing are sound, responsible people and contributing citizens.

But some people in all demographic groups aren't. In poorer areas, they usually exercise their bad behaviour on their neighbours. In wealthier demographics, the targets tend to be further away.

And yes, humans (all of us) are one species of animal. Most are domesticated, not feral. A few aren't.

Carlos Orange

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again I'll state there should be vetting and remov if a tenant is a problem.

Where do the removed problem tenants go?

jamesthepeach

Op I think all you need to know at the end of the day is the answer to this.

If you sell now and move will the amount of money you need to make the move be less than if you wait til respond move everybody in and then you sell to move?

Basically will the value of your house be effected , and how? I think you already know the answer.

steddyeddy

psinno wrote: »

Where do the removed problem tenants go?

If they're bad tenants who cares. It makes it worse for the good tenants that need social housing.

colm_mcm

steddyeddy wrote: »

If they're bad tenants who cares. It makes it worse for the good tenants that need social housing.

They're never gonna make someone homeless.

Carlos Orange

steddyeddy wrote: »

If they're bad tenants who cares. It makes it worse for the good tenants that need social housing.

I imagine the next person lumbered with them as a neighbour cares. Saying bad tenants will be removed comes across as a deflection when everyone presumes they will just be moved on to social housing elsewhere.

spurious

My friend got social housing with a Housing Association. She and her son had to go through a lengthy process including police checks. When people are saying 'social housing' do they mean council/corporation housing, or that managed by Housing Associations?

jamesthepeach

Let's just assume that in the ops estate that every one of the tenants who respond put in are fantastic and there is no bad element at all.

Would the value of the ops house reduce based on the fact that half of the estate is social housing. I think it would.

People looking to buy would prefer a lower social housing ratio in the estate. Especially if it's a small estate. Therefore the demand to buy the ops house will reduce.

So if the op is happy to live in the estate where all social tenants are the salt of the earth then he will probably stay.

If the op is worried about the sale price of his house in the future, then it doesn't matter what lovely people live there, he should sell before the property value goes down relative to where he might want to move to instead.

steddyeddy

psinno wrote: »

I imagine the next person lumbered with them as a neighbour cares. Saying bad tenants will be removed comes across as a deflection when everyone presumes they will just be moved on to social housing elsewhere.

Well my solution would be to move them further away from their desired location. If not it should be on them to try the private sector.

Anyway I'm sure there are bad tenants in social housing but I was unlucky enough to live with a few terrible renters. I rented a room in a house from an elderly lady. She asked me to collect rent from her ect. She ended up getting two girls into the house. On paper she'd satisfy a lot of the people on this thread. Middle class background. Parents paid for her rent (even though she worked), but a complete nightmare tenant. Tried to have parties every night, never cleaned up after herself and wrecked the place. I told the landlady about her and she tried to get rid of her but it took ages. I was doing my PhD at the time so couldn't handle that extra hassle. I made my apologies to the landlady and moved out. When I went back to collect my post the landlady's house was completely trashed with windows broken.

These tenants weren't the only ones from "good stock" to do that. So you can repeat your beliefs, label them facts (like people do with any prejudice ) but that's not proof. I've experienced far more trouble from private, well off tenants. Don't get me started on students from well off backgrounds that I lived with. Saying all that I can't say all students from rich backgrounds lack respect for property. To me these are facts of life. You could equally say rich kids whose parents pay their rent have little respect for property as they didn't earn it. These are also facts. So yes you get good and bad from all backgrounds.

TheDoc

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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.

Would you prefer we gather all the people and families in the country that require financial assistance, all the children innocent in this situations, and put them all on an island, or some squaller out of site?

The attitudes that I assumed I would read when opening the thread, still there, still sickening. It's attitudes like that, that is putting the country in the hole. Country got a bit of money for a few years and all of a sudden people feel they can turn their noses down on others. With that sort of post I query what you are contributing to the world or the forum, bar dribble.

If the OP is that concerned about property value, it's clearly not a home for the long term so maybe yeah, get yourself out at a high price and go somewhere else. I totally appreciate there is bad council estates and rough areas. IT's down to peoples experiences and I guess down to your own open mindness. Clearly there are those that at the sound of a "social house" they expect some absolute demon to move in, when that is, in the majority of cases, not accurate. I don't know, its like some people would be afraid of a fart. There is bad people in the world, and bad neighbours can happen in a millionaire exclusive estate, as much as a council estate. It's the risk that is always there, you don't get to choose your neighbours.

It's a mad suggestion, but you might just even make friends with these new neighbours. You might even just talk to them at some point. You might realise they arn't some peped up junkies getting "freebies" of the state and might just be a normal family like you, that have a mitigating circumstance, or just have some reason they need assistance.

I also get tetchy about social house bashing because my GF comes from social housing, which was a split in terms of council/private owned, in an area you would "assume" residents wouldn't stand for social housing, and the area is perfectly fine, well developed and people still get their 400-550k house prices because of the postcode.

TheDoc

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Let's just assume that in the ops estate that every one of the tenants who respond put in are fantastic and there is no bad element at all.

Would the value of the ops house reduce based on the fact that half of the estate is social housing. I think it would.

People looking to buy would prefer a lower social housing ratio in the estate. Especially if it's a small estate. Therefore the demand to buy the ops house will reduce.

So if the op is happy to live in the estate where all social tenants are the salt of the earth then he will probably stay.

If the op is worried about the sale price of his house in the future, then it doesn't matter what lovely people live there, he should sell before the property value goes down relative to where he might want to move to instead.

OP isn't worried about that. OP first post outlined that people in the area have a bee in their bonnet that they forked out 400k for a house that vacancies in the estate are being sold to a housing agency to setup via a housing scheme. So just the usual bashing on state welfare/assistance receivers, jealousy and snobbery.

OP is basically asking are a load of knackers about to move in and wreck the place.

For all the talk of "reality" by people in the thread, lets at least get real about what the OP is trying to figure out here.

jamesthepeach

TheDoc wrote: »

OP isn't worried about that. OP first post outlined that people in the area have a bee in their bonnet that they forked out 400k for a house that vacancies in the estate are being sold to a housing agency to setup via a housing scheme. So just the usual bashing on state welfare/assistance receivers, jealousy and snobbery.

OP is basically asking are a load of knackers about to move in and wreck the place.

For all the talk of "reality" by people in the thread, lets at least get real about what the OP is trying to figure out here.

Well if there are no "knackers" as you call them, then he won't have anything to worry about if he's happy there. Problem solved.

Michael D Not Higgins

MOD: Can we refrain from using the term 'knackers', please? I don't care if it was meant to mean Travellers or the more non-specific Dublin scumbag, it's not particularly welcome here.

Mrs OBumble

spurious wrote: »

My friend got social housing with a Housing Association. She and her son had to go through a lengthy process including police checks. When people are saying 'social housing' do they mean council/corporation housing, or that managed by Housing Associations?

Both.

The people who go into Housing Association houses are from exactly the same waiting list as the ones going into council houses.

The vetting is a smokescreen: they cannot deny anyone a social house because of a criminal record.

steddyeddy wrote: »

If they're bad tenants who cares. It makes it worse for the good tenants that need social housing.

You are talking as though this is not a zero-sum game. But it is. The council cannot kill them off. So social housing tenants will only be evicted if there's somewhere realistic for them to go to. A person who has just been evicted from a council house is never going to be accepted by a private sector landlord. So they will just end up in another social house - and they know this.

steddyeddy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Both.

The people who go into Housing Association houses are from exactly the same waiting list as the ones going into council houses.

The vetting is a smokescreen: they cannot deny anyone a social house because of a criminal record.




You are talking as though this is not a zero-sum game. But it is. The council cannot kill them off. So social housing tenants will only be evicted if there's somewhere realistic for them to go to. A person who has just been evicted from a council house is never going to be accepted by a private sector landlord. So they will just end up in another social house - and they know this.

Well I'd be in favour of making it harder for the bad tenants and easier for the good tenants. That applies to private and social tenants.

twowheelsonly

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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.

That attitude is incredible, in particular in relation to this thread.

CruelCoin wrote: »

Typically €50 p/w

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

.

Where did you get that figure from because it bears no relation to the rates that most people are paying ??



The snobbery and class distinction on this thread is at it's usually high levels. Plenty of people here that grew up or live on council estates and have spoken positively of their experiences but others attitudes seems to be that they just got lucky. All of them ?? I'm opposite to a lot of people as I grew up in a 'snobby' private area but now live in a council area. The area I grew up in, apart from a few old neighbours, is now a soulless estate full of renters with no sense of community there any more. I'll stay where I am thanks.

Back to the OPs' problem. I wouldn't be getting too excited bout what might and mightn't happen. The question I'll ask is would anyone here employ one of those people that are going to move in to the social housing on that estate ?

ELM327

I think it's ridiculous that the state should be allowed denigrate the OP's area at such a ratio.
40:25 is shocking! The affect on the property value and the area quality is ridiculous.

To the poster who made the laughable comment that they pay "rent" too, in my experience it's less than €70 a week for a 3 bed house. In dublin. You couldnt rent a parking space for that in the real world, let alone a house.

To put it another way, the houses that are being given away and devaluing the OP's area and property and quality of life are, in a horrible twist, being funded from the OPs taxes! This is why I hate our socialist pseudo free market economical system.

steddyeddy

ELM327 wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that the state should be allowed denigrate the OP's area at such a ratio.
40:25 is shocking! The affect on the property value and the area quality is ridiculous.

To the poster who made the laughable comment that they pay "rent" too, in my experience it's less than €70 a week for a 3 bed house. In dublin. You couldnt rent a parking space for that in the real world, let alone a house.

To put it another way, the houses that are being given away and devaluing the OP's area and property and quality of life are, in a horrible twist, being funded from the OPs taxes! This is why I hate our socialist pseudo free market economical system.

Again I'd question the accuracy of 38% social housing. That doesn't seem credible.

ELM327

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again I'd question the accuracy of 38% social housing. That doesn't seem credible.

We only have the OP to go on to be fair

I don't see why we can't just have social housing estates.
I mean, a self funded house should always be better and more desirable than a free one. Otherwise what's the point

That's what's wrong with our bearded lefty government and politics in this country, we give everything away for free to the lifers on the dole and then complain when we have no money left and the working poor like myself have to fund these people through our taxes.

steddyeddy

ELM327 wrote: »

We only have the OP to go on to be fair

I don't see why we can't just have social housing estates.
I mean, a self funded house should always be better and more desirable than a free one. Otherwise what's the point

That's what's wrong with our bearded lefty government and politics in this country, we give everything away for free to the lifers on the dole and then complain when we have no money left and the working poor like myself have to fund these people through our taxes.

Apply the same principles to other people that you do to yourself. Don't blame other poor people for being poor. The poor people taking my taxes scapegoat is a myth you've been sold.

Wabbit Ears

If OP had known they would be buying a house in a council estate they probably wouldn't have bought there.

10% rule didn't make council estates so it was ok but if we're going 30% + then that's where we are at again.

Of course a lot of people who post here only know modern 'council estates' where the vast majority have been bought out privately and are all nice again. They don't remember council estates in the 70's and 80s so have no idea what we're all afraid of.

So yea, those that don't understand what the fear is...You have no idea you sweet summer children, no fcuking clue.

ELM327

steddyeddy wrote: »

Apply the same principles to other people that you do to yourself. Don't blame other poor people for being poor. The poor people taking my taxes scapegoat is a myth you've been sold.

What does that mean?
The vast majority of taxation as a proportion of earned income comes from the squeezed middle.
The rich don't have to worry about it as they (a) have more disposable income and (b) probably have a good accountant to shield their income. The nouveaux riche don't have to worry about it as their free houses are funded by my taxation.