Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

I'm confused...

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Senature
    Registered Users Posts: 345 ✭✭Senature


    Caranica wrote: »
    The other thing to take into account is that these are on council land. DLR don't just own land in Ballybrack and Sallynoggin. Should they have sold the land for private development and built elsewhere if the problem people have is where these houses are
    Well, maybe they could or should prioritise people who work in the town for these houses. Also, it's DLR council, any land they have is worth a fortune. For the many working people from this area who don't fit the social housing criteria they have to move further afield e.g. Bray or West Dublin, and could only dream of being able to afford a decent sized house in Sallynoggin.


  • Options
    #33
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭Twenty Grand


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Again the term ghetto will come into play here. And rightly

    How does 100% social housing in Dun Laoghaire not equal ghetto, but 100% social housing elsewhere does?

    I'm all for a mix, but again, no one wants to live beside social housing because of the problems that come with it.


  • Options
    #34
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,300 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    myshirt wrote: »
    What you insinuating is a requirement for an ethnic cleansing of the poor. Good. God.
    Well, now that you mention it; perhaps 3rd generation of people who have not worked get sterilised?
    Graces7 wrote: »
    Again the term ghetto will come into play here. And rightly
    So the people who pay for houses will be in ghettos far away from their jobs, and from facilities, whereas the people getting free* houses get the houses in the best places with the best facilities?

    free* = house & income supplied by state for no work done to get said money & house


  • Options
    #35
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    Dublin city council own land in dublin, they have a budget,
    they can,t just build 100 houses in wexford because land is cheaper in wexford.
    Their remit is to provide housing for people on the housing list in dublin.
    They build houses to a very high standard ,
    i think it costs 150k plus to build one council house, that does not include the cost of the site.
    I don,t think theres any cheap sites left in dublin that you could build 100
    house,s on.
    Council tenants pay rent depending on their income, and who lives there .
    So you think a retired person aged 65 should pay the
    same rent as a household that has a couple who are both working fulltime.
    That makes no sense.
    Many people who live in council housing are now working fulltime.
    Usually houses are given to people who have 2 or more children
    on a low income.


  • Options
    #36
    zell12
    Registered Users Posts: 25,118 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    Del2005 wrote: »
    ..... Why do people getting a modern super insulted property get to live in the prime area while paying feck all for it?
    Because DLRC chose the location for the development.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    zell12
    Registered Users Posts: 25,118 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    Quandary wrote: »
    The system needs to be changed because it is not fit for purpose.
    I agree. Ban land ownership. State owns the land. Introduce 99 year leases for people to build their own property and they'll have to pay 2% of land market value per annum in rent.
    That will rid Ireland of this perpetual boom bust cycle where property value is damaging the economy and destroying lives.
    Introducing land rent, Australia's excellent idea for making houses cheaper


  • Options
    #38
    Senature
    Registered Users Posts: 345 ✭✭Senature


    riclad wrote: »
    Dublin city council own land in dublin, they have a budget,
    they can,t just build 100 houses in wexford because land is cheaper in wexford.
    Right, but there's a world of difference between prime city centre sites and several kms outside the city.


  • Options
    #39
    LirW
    Registered Users Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    Senature wrote: »
    Right, but there's a world of difference between prime city centre sites and several kms outside the city.

    Well in Dublin County alone are 4 councils, every single Council has to provide social housing. South Dublin County Council for example can't build in Ballymun because that's another Council's land. Dublin City's council area is pretty small.
    Not saying it's great but that's the way it currently is and that's what the councils have to work with.


  • Options
    #40
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    riclad wrote: »
    Dublin city council own land in dublin, they have a budget,
    they can,t just build 100 houses in wexford because land is cheaper in wexford.
    Their remit is to provide housing for people on the housing list in dublin.
    They build houses to a very high standard ,
    i think it costs 150k plus to build one council house, that does not include the cost of the site.
    I don,t think theres any cheap sites left in dublin that you could build 100
    house,s on.
    Council tenants pay rent depending on their income, and who lives there .
    So you think a retired person aged 65 should pay the
    same rent as a household that has a couple who are both working fulltime.
    That makes no sense.
    Many people who live in council housing are now working fulltime.
    Usually houses are given to people who have 2 or more children
    on a low income.

    There are state owned sites in Dublin City Council's functional area, capable of supporting apartment developments of up to 800 units (if they were allowed to build them). Its simply not the case that there isn't such land- even in DCC's functional area.

    The argument being made in this thread- is (in my opinion) that local authorities should have a similar remit to construct affordable housing, as they do social housing- and that there should be some sort of rules in place for allocating housing in particular areas- on the need of someone to be in a certain area- e.g. it is cruel to make workers drive for 3-4 hours a day- when someone who isn't working is handed a social house right next to where the Garda or the teacher works (just an example).

    Yes- we need social housing- but arguably there is an even more critical need for affordable housing- and I'd suggest some sort of a scrappage scheme to get accidental landlords out of the sector (and their properties sold to owner occupiers).

    The current piecemeal approaches to dealing with our housing crisis (and there is an entirely separate housing crisis to our 'homeless' crisis)- simply is not being dealt with by anyone- and indeed- a lot of people have a very carpal approach to looking at what is happening in the sector. We need supply- in general- but then we critically need vast quantities of affordable units- alongside a lesser quantity of social units.

    Allied to this- we need to make it worth people's while to work- I have the misfortune to know a few people who have made getting a social house their aim- when had they half an inclination they could be productive members of society.........

    Our systems- and the manner in which they are setup- are short termism gone wild- with no long term planning- and no cognisance of incentivising lower paid people in society who may be doing critical/crucial jobs...........

    The perception is- unless you are out marching for your rights- that you must be rolling in money. Of course this isn't true- but since when has truth sold newspapers?


  • Options
    #41
    fussyonion
    Registered Users Posts: 7,819 ✭✭✭fussyonion


    Yet another thread bashing social housing.
    Yawn.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Senature
    Registered Users Posts: 345 ✭✭Senature


    LirW wrote: »
    Senature wrote: »
    Right, but there's a world of difference between prime city centre sites and several kms outside the city.

    Well in Dublin County alone are 4 councils, every single Council has to provide social housing. South Dublin County Council for example can't build in Ballymun because that's another Council's land. Dublin City's council area is pretty small.
    Not saying it's great but that's the way it currently is and that's what the councils have to work with.
    I'm aware of that, think you missed my point. In my opinion there is zero need to provide social housing within a 5-10 minute walk of St Stephen's Green, for example. The council could consider selling these prime sites, or consider building housing for workers on them, and purchase other sites for social housing in Finglas, Ballymun or other more outlying areas of the city.


  • Options
    #43
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,493 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    I can never understand why everyone seems to believe none of the residents of the houses will working.


  • Options
    #44
    MayBea
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭MayBea


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I can never understand why everyone seems to believe none of the residents of the houses will working.

    So as people who subsidise their living, but are forced to live outside of Dublin (and further away from their families, but oh well)


  • Options
    #45
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,493 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    MayBea wrote: »
    So as people who subsidise their living, but forced to live outside of Dublin (and further away from their families, but oh well)

    So its the fact that they have subsidised accommodation you have an issue with? in other words, there should be no social housing?


  • Options
    #46
    Twenty Grand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭Twenty Grand


    mariaalice wrote: »
    So its the fact that they have subsidised accommodation you have an issue with? in other words, there should be no social housing?

    The fact that the people who pay for the housing don't receive any benefit from it and are, in fact, worse off than those who pay nothing.

    I'm very proud of social housing, but I think those willing to pay should be given priority.


  • Options
    #47
    MayBea
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭MayBea


    mariaalice wrote: »
    So its the fact that they have subsidised accommodation you have an issue with?
    No, I don't have an issue with subsidised accommodation.
    in other words, there should be no social housing?
    Where are you getting your assumptions from?
    Again no, decent & affordable housing is important for society.
    I have an issue with efforts not being recognised and valued.


Advertisement