social housing in upmarket estate

Former Observer

the_syco wrote: »

I find it ironic that people like yourself think that social housing is not a great place to live

Lol wut? Like any home, social housing can be a good place, or a bad place to live depending on factors.

Wot are you really trying to say?

Bargain_Hound

We've recently moved into a new build and knew at the time of purchase there would be a certain number of properties allocated to the local council (MCC). We have discovered that the house next door to us (Semi-D) is a social house as is a number of others on our road and other roads surrounding us. We are a little anxious at the moment as tenants are starting to move into the houses and unsure whether behaviour or noise levels may change in the estate as currently it is very quiet with no trouble. Of course not all social tenants should be associated to such behaviour and I am not painting everybody on the local authority list with the same brush but reading threads like this makes us a little more anxious, alongside other peoples first hand experiences. The best we can hope is we have no issues with our potential future neighbours.

One little niggle we have is that there is definitely a higher % allocation to Local authority than the mandatory 10% in the estate. There is several groups of 4-5 houses in a row of social houses throughout the estate. This is something we did not know at the time we purchased. One might question why does this matter but lets be honest it does when you are saving and working your b****x off to purchase such an important asset for your family.

Cyrus

really what this allocation should be aimed at is teachers / nurses / guards / firefighters etc that are priced out of most of Dublin but are essential to the fabric and functioning of society. i dont think anyone would have an issue with that.

people not working should be accommodated in the more traditional social housing areas imo

ELM327

Bargain_Hound wrote: »

We've recently moved into a new build and knew at the time of purchase there would be a certain number of properties allocated to the local council (MCC). We have discovered that the house next door to us (Semi-D) is a social house as is a number of others on our road and other roads surrounding us. We are a little anxious at the moment as tenants are starting to move into the houses and unsure whether behaviour or noise levels may change in the estate as currently it is very quiet with no trouble. Of course not all social tenants should be associated to such behaviour and I am not painting everybody on the local authority list with the same brush but reading threads like this makes us a little more anxious, alongside other peoples first hand experiences. The best we can hope is we have no issues with our potential future neighbours.

One little niggle we have is that there is definitely a higher % allocation to Local authority than the mandatory 10% in the estate. This is something we did not know at the time we purchased. There is several groups of 4-5 houses in a row of social houses throughout the estate.

I can but sympathise. Surely the developer could have allocated one row/street of the estate as the social housing wing instead of putting them randomly beside private purchasers?


I intend to buy one more house, my permanent house, next year (currently own a small 3 bed in an estate in meath) and it would concern me about buying in a new estate if thise were to be commonplace. I think I am lucky that we were already looking at one off country houses.

Bargain_Hound

Cyrus wrote: »

really what this allocation should be aimed at is teachers / nurses / guards / firefighters etc that are priced out of most of Dublin but are essential to the fabric and functioning of society. i dont think anyone would have an issue with that.

people not working should be accommodated in the more traditional social housing areas imo

I think a lot of people would agree. Without turning this thread into a political argument, what housing assistance do those mentioned above get? Very unfair system to those who work and are in that difficult income tier making in impossible to own/rent in a sustainable manner. Lets only reward and assist only those right at the bottom of the income tier or no income bracket tier (Health / Disability needs aside)

Cuddlesworth

ELM327 wrote: »

I can but sympathise. Surely the developer could have allocated one row/street of the estate as the social housing wing instead of putting them randomly beside private purchasers?

They are not allowed segregate like that anymore. Increases the risk of it becoming a anti-social blackspot.

ELM327 wrote: »

I intend to buy one more house, my permanent house, next year (currently own a small 3 bed in an estate in meath) and it would concern me about buying in a new estate if thise were to be commonplace. I think I am lucky that we were already looking at one off country houses.

Developers, housing agency's and the Council are buying houses everywhere, including older houses in established estates at pretty high values.

Goose76

I assume there is no way to tell which houses are council houses if you are buying in an older estate?

ELM327

Goose76 wrote: »

I assume there is no way to tell which houses are council houses if you are buying in an older estate?

A couple of drives around (a must if you're buying somewhere anyway) should tell you all you need to know. Especially in the later evening.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

They are not allowed segregate like that anymore. Increases the risk of it becoming a anti-social blackspot.



Developers, housing agency's and the Council are buying houses everywhere, including older houses in established estates at pretty high values.

Thankfully they are not buying (usually) one off housing.

KildareP

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

They are not allowed segregate like that anymore. Increases the risk of it becoming a anti-social blackspot.

Maybe I'm being over simplistic, but an individual who is an anti-social layabout is an anti-social layabout, no matter what, no?

If a group of 100 houses creates an anti-social blackspot, how does dispersing it out amongst an overall group of 1000 houses suddenly prevent anti-social problems arising?

Genuine question - not being facetious.

Sleeper12

ELM327 wrote:

I intend to buy one more house, my permanent house, next year (currently own a small 3 bed in an estate in meath) and it would concern me about buying in a new estate if thise were to be commonplace. I think I am lucky that we were already looking at one off country houses.

Just a heads up. Councils buy random homes in older private estates. There is no guarantee that you won't live next door to a council property. I will say that council tenants aren't the monster made out by some. Even in a totally private estate your house next door could be a rental. This can be as bad or worse in some cases as council tenants

Dial Hard

KildareP wrote: »

Maybe I'm being over simplistic, but an individual who is an anti-social layabout is an anti-social layabout, no matter what, no?

If a group of 100 houses creates an anti-social blackspot, how does dispersing it out amongst an overall group of 1000 houses suddenly prevent anti-social problems arising?

Genuine question - not being facetious.

One house of anti-social layabouts in an otherwise hardworking/upwardly mobile neighbourhood is a potential pain for the neighbours.

100 or 1,000 houses of anti-social layabouts all concentrated in a single estate is a potential ghetto.

steddyeddy

fg1406 wrote: »

My parents live in an upmarket estate and the council bought about 10 houses in an estate of approximately 120. The residents association went bananas but in the end, it kinda worked out. Any families being placed are interviewed and vetted. There is no trouble whatsoever from the council dwellers and to be honest you wouldn’t know which homes were council let ones. The only trouble in the estate is caused by spoilt brat teens of parents who just throw money at them and let them do what they want.

My experience exactly. Although it's not considered politically correct to say it. It's the top private school kids I found to be the spoilt brats who made an estate I lived in back in Dublin less than classy.

Eric Cartman

steddyeddy wrote: »

My experience exactly. Although it's not considered politically correct to say it. It's the top private school kids I found to be the spoilt brats who made an estate I lived in back in Dublin less than classy.

How may I ask ? I doubt it was putting fireworks in letterboxes , cycling round in gangs at 2am, selling heroin or tearing up green areas with scramblers. Were their parents getting pissed in the middle of the work week and fist fighting the neighbours ?

Was Darryn the 35 year old solicitor running round with a golf club trying to batter his wife at 1am on a tuesday because he was an abusive drunk ? Because I know that happened with one of the travelling clan in a council estate near me , never heard of it happening on vico road.

Fol20

steddyeddy wrote: »

My experience exactly. Although it's not considered politically correct to say it. It's the top private school kids I found to be the spoilt brats who made an estate I lived in back in Dublin less than classy.

How is this not PC, people are always attacking the wealthy as they are the 1pc and people in Ireland love to begrudge people of succeeding, providing for their kids in ways they cant afford, yet we are too pc when it comes to certain matters incl social aspects. Some people are crappy individuals be it from wealthy or poor familys however when you dont have a good upbringing and strong foundations built for you, it can lead to what we like to rant about.

ELM327

Dial Hard wrote: »

One house of anti-social layabouts in an otherwise hardworking/upwardly mobile neighbourhood is a potential pain for the neighbours.

100 or 1,000 houses of anti-social layabouts all concentrated in a single estate is a potential ghetto.

But they are kept away from contributing members of society, and given something to aim for.
While at the same time receiving a free/subsidised house.

fg1406

4ensic15 wrote: »

How many barristers grew up in council homes?

I know of 2. Just saying! They trained in middle of their careers by using redundancy money.

Eric Cartman

Dial Hard wrote: »

One house of anti-social layabouts in an otherwise hardworking/upwardly mobile neighbourhood is a potential pain for the neighbours.

100 or 1,000 houses of anti-social layabouts all concentrated in a single estate is a potential ghetto.

Its the residents themselves that turn it into a ghetto , the only advantage of having them spread out is that it doesnt become a no go area for busses at night or emergency services and might lessen the chances of them forming organised crime groups.

KildareP

Dial Hard wrote: »

One house of anti-social layabouts in an otherwise hardworking/upwardly mobile neighbourhood is a potential pain for the neighbours.

100 or 1,000 houses of anti-social layabouts all concentrated in a single estate is a potential ghetto.

It just seems odd.

If you group them together, it's bad, because it has the potential to end up with a group of 100 anti-social households pushed aside in an estate of 1000 and so you're not allowed do it anymore.

If you disperse the social housing, then that's fine and dandy? Despite the fact you could still end up with the same 100 anti-social households, only now they're spread evenly throughout an estate of 1000, potentially directly impacting 2 out of every 9 remaining households, in all likelihood people who purchased those homes privately? And that's deemed acceptable?

It's sending a very wrong message on many levels in my mind with the potential for some serious long term consequences - and not good ones.

boombang

What's so sad is that all of the problems in this thread could be simply solved by having a robust eviction policy for those who behave poorly. Plenty of people who would welcome a subsidised house. A bit of backbone would eliminate this nonsense quickly and everybody would be better off.

JPCN1

boombang wrote: »

What's so sad is that all of the problems in this thread could be simply solved by having a robust eviction policy for those who behave poorly. Plenty of people who would welcome a subsidised house. A bit of backbone would eliminate this nonsense quickly and everybody would be better off.

Wholeheartedly agree. if people have a right to a house they also carry the responsibilities of same. Pay your rent, keep the place clean and respect your neighbours OR forfeit your rights to housing.

Eric Cartman

boombang wrote: »

What's so sad is that all of the problems in this thread could be simply solved by having a robust eviction policy for those who behave poorly. Plenty of people who would welcome a subsidised house. A bit of backbone would eliminate this nonsense quickly and everybody would be better off.

The bigger issue is what you do with them afterwards though, pur government wont just put social tenants on the streets no matter how much they may deserve it. We have had people refuse houses because their antisocial family is feuding with another antisocial family in the estate theyve been offered.

We do need a robust eviction strategy and I think everyone could agree that mixing social and affordable housing inhabited exclusively by families who work and are just helow the threshold and private housong that is on the more affordable end of the scale is perfectly fine , as long as there is a policy to evict and relocate problem tenants.

Where the differences are coming in is as what to do with the problem tenants, I proposed a model somilar to a dutch 'scum village' , others have other ideas

El_Bee

KildareP wrote: »

It just seems odd.

If you group them together, it's bad, because it has the potential to end up with a group of 100 anti-social households pushed aside in an estate of 1000 and so you're not allowed do it anymore.

If you disperse the social housing, then that's fine and dandy? Despite the fact you could still end up with the same 100 anti-social households, only now they're spread evenly throughout an estate of 1000, potentially directly impacting 2 out of every 9 remaining households, in all likelihood people who purchased those homes privately? And that's deemed acceptable?

It's sending a very wrong message on many levels in my mind with the potential for some serious long term consequences - and not good ones.

if they're dispersed it's a lot easier to have them evicted, grouping them together gives them strength in numbers i.e. they're never going to report on each other.

El_Bee

steddyeddy wrote: »

My experience exactly. Although it's not considered politically correct to say it. It's the top private school kids I found to be the spoilt brats who made an estate I lived in back in Dublin less than classy.

it's actually quite politically correct to attack "upper" class people, however I'd take Feilim & his pals getting into a bit of mischief now and then to the daily robbed cars, dirt bikes, drug dealing and anti-social behaviour of Deano & co. At the very least when you call the Gardai on them I bet the result isn't Felim's dad the solicitor, surgeon, architect or whatever threatening to burn you out of your house for being a rat.

JPCN1

El_Bee wrote: »

if they're dispersed it's a lot easier to have them evicted, grouping them together gives them strength in numbers i.e. they're never going to report on each other.

Even if it is difficult it shouldn't matter. Break the rules and you're out on the street and on the bottom rung of the housing list again. If people see that the State is serious about evicting problem tenants they'll start to behave and make sure their kids do too. While they realise the State is too scared/weak/pathetic to act they'll keep flipping the finger to the rest of society.

steddyeddy

El_Bee wrote: »

it's actually quite politically correct to attack "upper" class people, however I'd take Feilim & his pals getting into a bit of mischief now and then to the daily robbed cars, dirt bikes, drug dealing and anti-social behaviour of Deano & co. At the very least when you call the Gardai on them I bet the result isn't Felim's dad the solicitor, surgeon, architect or whatever threatening to burn you out of your house for being a rat.

Are you joking? How many times was I criticised for my comment about private school kids vs how many times a post earlier which described poor kids as feral was attacked?

I don't describe them as upper class until they earn their own way instead of mammy and daddy by the way.

L1011

Discussion on this thread has gone well below the acceptable level. Name calling etc isn't acceptable and realistically much of the last few pages is discussion that should be in Sociology, but I wouldn't dare dump it on them in its current form. Back on topic to Accomodation & Property specific elements please

Sleeper12

Upper class / lower class. Jesus wept. What a horrible society we have become in the last 30 years

Electric Sheep

This thread shines a very unflattering light on Irish attitudes. It makes me glad I no longer live there.

Cyrus

Electric Sheep wrote: »

This thread shines a very unflattering light on Irish attitudes. It makes me glad I no longer live there.

what utopia do you live in?

abcabc123123

ELM327 wrote: »

But they are kept away from contributing members of society, and given something to aim for.
While at the same time receiving a free/subsidised house.

Not really, all the neighbouring areas suffer as a result. Contributing neighbours of mine here in Stoneybatter have had their car windscreens smashed in by gangs coming down from O'Devaney. Spreading them out may not be a perfect solution but at least its equitable. The problem with financial argument for social housing placement is that it's self reinforcing: putting social where it's cheap drives down prices there, and drives up prices where there's none.