New council house

corks finest

cloneslad wrote: »

As I said, I won't care as long as they aren't a$$holes and keep the place tidy. Neither of these fall in your description.

Not everyone who has a council house is a scumbag and not everyone who could afford to buy their own house makes a great neighbour.

Well said

ELM327

Eric Cartman wrote: »

those areas are areas you wouldn't like to live in because of other people living in council houses.

other factors
alcoholism, drug addiction, a criminal record and many other factors that are the persons fault and their fault alone. There are obviously disability and low income reasons people would be in council houses but it certainly seems like those are minority cases these days.

This is why council houses should be in those areas on an ongoing basis.
Middle Ireland needs an incentive to pay punitive taxes to fund the cans of dutch and the johnnie blues in addition to the houses and the dole.


If we're funding houses on a level (or superior) to our own then what's the incentive for our 50% tax rate?

paintinglasses

3 months after we bought our house, the house next door was bought by the council. It was empty for 6 months and then the tenants moved in.
The garden is absolutely ruined with dog poo, they have rubbish bags in the front and back garden. They never leave the house. The poor kids are filthy and screamed/cursed at constantly.
It's so sad, I can see how the cycle is just so unbreakable.

I also don't find it fair, there's so many people who would be so grateful for that house. And they have no respect for the house or their neighbours.

neonsofa

Tbh,as someone who has been saving for a house for years and has basically given up on that dream now, I'd love to be given even a ****hole in the middle of nowhere that needed work and I'd put all my savings into it.

Tow

Pkiernan wrote: »

No-one cleaned up or repaired my apartment when the Social tenant trashed it to the tune of 4 grand.

Your luck it is only 4k, our current repair bill is looking to top 200k after a tenant fell asleep with lighted candles... They did a runner and the insurance will not cover it all.

fg1406

There is one council house in my estate and although the people are relatively quiet, the house is a disgrace. There are 7 kids and the parents in a 3 bed. The house and gardens are full of rubbish. They seem to hoard a lot of junk like broken fences, bicycle parts, broken toys etc.

cloneslad

Eric Cartman wrote: »

those areas are areas you wouldn't like to live in because of other people living in council houses.

other factors
alcoholism, drug addiction, a criminal record and many other factors that are the persons fault and their fault alone. There are obviously disability and low income reasons people would be in council houses but it certainly seems like those are minority cases these days.

I'm not saying that there aren't truly useless people who get council houses given to them, I know there are because I'm related to some.

There are however some people that need a leg up in life to help them along, hopefully by moving away from traditional council estates, becoming friends with kids from other backgrounds and being surrounded by neighbours they see going to work each day then the kids may get a better chance at getting out of the cycle that they tend to get stuck in.

My grandparents lived in council housing which they then bought, my parents never finished school but owned their own house and worked. Seeing my dad slog in out in a factory all his life pushed me on to finish school, go to college, get a masters etc. I know it can be a foolish/naive thought to some but f*ck it, I would like to try to give people a chance to do something with their life rather than let them constantly have easy excuses to fail.

Eric Cartman

cloneslad wrote: »

I'm not saying that there aren't truly useless people who get council houses given to them, I know there are because I'm related to some.

There are however some people that need a leg up in life to help them along, hopefully by moving away from traditional council estates, becoming friends with kids from other backgrounds and being surrounded by neighbours they see going to work each day then the kids may get a better chance at getting out of the cycle that they tend to get stuck in.

My grandparents lived in council housing which they then bought, my parents never finished school but owned their own house and worked. Seeing my dad slog in out in a factory all his life pushed me on to finish school, go to college, get a masters etc. I know it can be a foolish/naive thought to some but f*ck it, I would like to try to give people a chance to do something with their life rather than let them constantly have easy excuses to fail.

And id agree with you that there are people who just need to he helped, its what the welfare state was established to do, sadly we have a one size fits all model for council housing , if you put a council house or 2 into a private estate its a complete dice roll as to whether or not its going to he a family who works or the kids integrate and are hetter for it or if its going to be a layabout family having the gards round every day, damaging property etc...

I think a system of vetting is the easiest way, build the 10% social housing in private estates and make potential tenants prove that they deserve to he there, be in a rented house at the start, keep up perfect attendance in school for the kids, getting full time work for atleast one of the adults, no criminal records, clean , random, periodic drug tests for a year, all forms filled out on time and submitted, house kept intact with no damaged furniture etc... good references from neighbours, then you deserve to live for free (30 a week is free) next to people who also know how to work hard.

For somebody who's ma was on the take her whole life, whos been on the take their whole life, scumbag kids with convictions, drug problems etc... throw them into a council estate with others like them and tool the place up with enough cctv that getting convictions is easier.

mariaalice

Is the argument that newly built council houses should be of a lesser quality than other new builds? it would be an idiotic thing to do.

GingerLily

mariaalice wrote: »

Is the argument that newly built council houses should be of a lesser quality than other new builds? it would be an idiotic thing to do.

No but the finishing is apparently not always the same, because they're not paying a premium for a luxury finish. Fair enough, as long as the house is finished to a good quality.

BarryD2

trobbin wrote: »

I was in a brand new council house today in north Dublin. All I can say is wow.

Probably fair enough that local authority has to meet same building regs.

However the real test of fairness will come in 20/30 years time? Will this property eventually pass into the private ownership of the local authority tenants for a nominal sum? That is grossly unfair.

But if it stays in local authority ownership and passes from tenant to tenant as required, to help those who can't help themselves, well that's fair enough.

LirW

Aren't many council houses basically left as a shell with the necessities and people have to get their flooring etc themselves (and some get an allowance of like 2 grand for it?).
My neighbour moved into hers 3 years ago, she said the house was a shell with no tiling, flooring etc, she got 900 Euro allowance and the rest she paid from savings.
In general the estate is kept very well, all council tenants do a great job to have their houses and gardens nice or aren't there.
What's annoying is that the empty units are empty for a long time (at least 6 months) before someone else moves in. Also, since we're quite rural, a lot of people turn the house or the apartments (2 houses are split in a 1 and 2 bedroom unit) down because of the location. We see people around sometimes viewing them and they never come back.

cloneslad

LirW wrote: »

Aren't many council houses basically left as a shell with the necessities and people have to get their flooring etc themselves (and some get an allowance of like 2 grand for it?).
My neighbour moved into hers 3 years ago, she said the house was a shell with no tiling, flooring etc, she got 900 Euro allowance and the rest she paid from savings.
In general the estate is kept very well, all council tenants do a great job to have their houses and gardens nice or aren't there.
What's annoying is that the empty units are empty for a long time (at least 6 months) before someone else moves in. Also, since we're quite rural, a lot of people turn the house or the apartments (2 houses are split in a 1 and 2 bedroom unit) down because of the location. We see people around sometimes viewing them and they never come back.

I can only go by the house next to mine (which I assume is going to become social housing) but their finish isn't of as high a standard (cosmetically - smaller kitchen island / no appliances / no room for built-in double oven etc). the house also has no flooring apart from the concrete base downstairs (underfloor heating) and I assume they have the same wooden sheets upstairs. I honestly don't know how someone moving in, who has a low-income level, would be able to afford to fit it out and I don't envy them having to try and do it either.

MSVforever

I would have zero issues with social housing beside me if they were properly allocated to decent hardworking low income people (or sick/disabled people ) who can't afford mortgages or private rentals.

Scummers who drag down whole areas should be dealt with more swiftly. Maybe we can adapt a similar concept as in Amsterdam (NL):

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9719247/Amsterdam-to-create-scum-villages.html

mad m

paintinglasses wrote: »

3 months after we bought our house, the house next door was bought by the council. It was empty for 6 months and then the tenants moved in.
The garden is absolutely ruined with dog poo, they have rubbish bags in the front and back garden. They never leave the house. The poor kids are filthy and screamed/cursed at constantly.
It's so sad, I can see how the cycle is just so unbreakable.

I also don't find it fair, there's so many people who would be so grateful for that house. And they have no respect for the house or their neighbours.

I have rented houses either side of me, their front and back gardens aren’t great either.

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

Probably fair enough that local authority has to meet same building regs.

However the real test of fairness will come in 20/30 years time? Will this property eventually pass into the private ownership of the local authority tenants for a nominal sum? That is grossly unfair.

But if it stays in local authority ownership and passes from tenant to tenant as required, to help those who can't help themselves, well that's fair enough.

I know it's a serious thread but I did laugh at the 20-30 years remark :pac:

You only have to be a tenant for one year to get the 60% discount of the market value and buy it. (discount depends on your income, Social Welfare isn't considered an income).

You have to be working to be allowed to buy it. Catch 22 for many people, but you'll find the average scummer has no interest in home ownership. The councIl fix all your issues when it's their house. If you buy it, you're on your own and johhny-no-good wouldn't want that responsibility.

Paying to service a boiler? Giving someone money to fix your kitchen. You must be mad.

ShaShaBear

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I'd rather not say where as it would make her very easily identifiable or even more so the previous tenants. But it's not Dundalk town and I can assure you, they left the floors down. She hired a cleaner herself and didn't complain as she's delighted to have somewhere to live but I was quite shocked myself at the state of the place!

Her situation is not the norm and should be addressed. If she's already done it she might be wasting her time, but I'd still harass them. That situation is not the norm and not anything I've ever seen before.


I'd actually call you a liar, only for I know you've nothing to gain from lying about it (such is how rare it would be for the Council to not re-do the whole place).

ShaShaBear

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Her situation is not the norm and should be addressed. If she's already done it she might be wasting her time, but I'd still harass them. That situation is not the norm and not anything I've ever seen before.


I'd actually call you a liar, only for I know you've nothing to gain from lying about it (such is how rare it would be for the Council to not re-do the whole place).

She was awarded the house through the CBL scheme - not sure if that makes any difference.
But no, absolutely no reason to lie. My mother resides in a council house as does my FIL and they both received the "shell" houses. I assumed it was always the case.

trobbin

mariaalice wrote: »

Is the argument that newly built council houses should be of a lesser quality than other new builds? it would be an idiotic thing to do.

Not entirely. But I am surprised at the size and finish of the house.

Listen I’m not gonna agree that people getting these council houses is fair, no chance. Not while people I know are struggling with rent and getting on the property ladder. It’s a disgrace.

There’s too many scroungers in this country playing the system, anyone that agrees with them are part of the problem.

Remember this country funds methadone clinics for junkies, all for free while the “do gooders” scream save them. While hard working people with terminal illnesses are forced to pay extortionate prices for medicine.

Junkies get better handouts in this dire state than kids with cancer. It’s a horrible situation created by people playing the system.

Married people? One can’t work other has to support them, left struggling. Single mother 3 kids same father “but apparently doesn’t live there” get every handout under the sun.

So no it’s not about build quality, it’s about society. Working class have had their pants pulled down, and some are too blind too see it.

trobbin

L1011 wrote: »

They would qualify with ease in Band 1 areas = 38,500 net income limit; net income for that would be about 35k.

Band 1 areas = all the dear places basically.



Social housing does not mean people on the dole or marginal incomes.

Would you stop. How many of these “band 1” areas are meeting the needs of the example I’ve giving? People of the “homeless” list get bumped ahead, you know the ones that aren’t really homeless.

Call it a married couple with two kids. Both working earning about €60k between them. Doesn’t go far that wages. They DONT qualify in this fantastic free state. One will need to leave work to go on council list. Two need to leave work to play the system correctly.

It’s a joke of a system and your example proves that

cloneslad

trobbin wrote: »

Would you stop. How many of these “band 1” areas are meeting the needs of the example I’ve giving? People of the “homeless” list get bumped ahead, you know the ones that aren’t really homeless.

Call it a married couple with two kids. Both working earning about €60k between them. Doesn’t go far that wages. They DONT qualify in this fantastic free state. One will need to leave work to go on council list. Two need to leave work to play the system correctly.

It’s a joke of a system and your example proves that

I know you aren't responding to anything I've said but just on this, while I do agree that people who 'play the system' do not deserve to get support, it's unfair on those genuinely in need of support to automatically be lumped in with them.

I've no idea on how long you need to be on a waiting list to actually get a council house (except what I've seen boards in the past, so take that with a grain of salt) but people here say it's could be about 10 -15 years in Dublin.

Personally, if my girlfriend and I were only earning €60k between us I wouldn't consider having kids. Even on the salaries we are on we have decided not to have kids. We neither want to take the financial nor the lifestyle hit on having a child.

I'm not advocating a 'free for all, everyone is great - handouts for all' approach to life. I just think that not everyone in a council house or receiving government support is the scumbag many people on boards make them out to be.

A high percentage of drug addicts/alcoholics receive government support but not a high percentage of people receiving government support are drug addicts/alcoholics etc as is being made out.

L1011

trobbin wrote: »

Would you stop

Stop proving you wrong? No.

Check facts before you rant.

trobbin

L1011 wrote: »

Stop proving you wrong? No.

Check facts before you rant.

Facts published by who? FG. Unfortunately your statement that social housing isn’t for people on the dole or marginal income is incorrect. Working class are being screwed.

The example I made which had a wrong figure isn’t far off, about 4.5k per year.

mariaalice

is the poster sure it was a council house and not a housing association house?

ELM327

trobbin wrote: »

Facts published by who? FG. Unfortunately your statement that social housing isn’t for people on the dole or marginal income is incorrect. Working class are being screwed.

The example I made which had a wrong figure isn’t far off, about 4.5k per year.

FG are the most right leaning of all centrist parties in Ireland.
If anyone is going to cut down on social welfare it would be them, so I don't see why their stats would be invalid.

trobbin

cloneslad wrote: »

I know you aren't responding to anything I've said but just on this, while I do agree that people who 'play the system' do not deserve to get support, it's unfair on those genuinely in need of support to automatically be lumped in with them.

I've no idea on how long you need to be on a waiting list to actually get a council house (except what I've seen boards in the past, so take that with a grain of salt) but people here say it's could be about 10 -15 years in Dublin.

Personally, if my girlfriend and I were only earning €60k between us I wouldn't consider having kids. Even on the salaries we are on we have decided not to have kids. We neither want to take the financial nor the lifestyle hit on having a child.

I'm not advocating a 'free for all, everyone is great - handouts for all' approach to life. I just think that not everyone in a council house or receiving government support is the scumbag many people on boards make them out to be.

A high percentage of drug addicts/alcoholics receive government support but not a high percentage of people receiving government support are drug addicts/alcoholics etc as is being made out.

I never once said they’re scumbags, so not fair to be referencing that. I’m sure some are lovely people. Doesn’t mean I agree with what’s going on.

See I’m the type a guy who puts kids with cancer ahead of junkies. But they won’t get free medicine because mammy and daddy work.

BarryD2

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it's a serious thread but I did laugh at the 20-30 years remark :pac:

You only have to be a tenant for one year to get the 60% discount of the market value and buy it. (discount depends on your income, Social Welfare isn't considered an income).

Maybe but in practice what seems to have largely happened in the past is that after a couple of decades, the LA get fed up with the costs of fixing and maintaining properties. They also want to stabilise areas socially and the combined result has been the encouraging of LA tenants to buy out ownership, at very reasonable prices.

These properties have then been removed from the public housing stock with an inevitable impact on supply of same. It also results in a transfer of wealth across society.

You can argue that since many LA tenants pay rent and work, that the reason the properties come to them at a discount is because of their investment of many years of rent. But that logic doesn't apply to ordinary renters in the private sector and so is fundamentally unfair on the latter.

ELM327

There should be categorically 0 possibility to buy the council house.
It should be kept by the council and reviewed every quarter to see if a) you are still entitled and b) that the upkeep of the place is being done. There is no need for the transfer of the asset as then it's gone permanently to the next generation.

Sleepy

From a social engineering POV, the "right to buy" makes sense when you have council estates or large areas that are predominantly social housing (although I'd argue the discounts on the market values of such properties are excessive and grossly unfair to the taxpayers funding them).

Social housing built in mixed developments (as all modern social housing is) should never be sold, to sitting tenants or anyone else.

ELM327

Why should I and the hundreds of thousands like me pay 50% tax to fund free houses? I don't mean free as in free (30 per week rent is negligible)... I mean free as in "here;s this house for free!"