Social Housing Areas - Dublin Councils

shesty

seasidedub wrote: »

I live not too far, and they had to provide 10% of the units under the 480k threshold for "direct" social housing but the buy to let will provide more via Hap as you say.

I admit I'd find it hard to pay 480 and know I was beside someone who paid nothing. (If you are on welfare you pay rent from welfare, so it's free). I just would, sorry but it's true.

We currently have this situation in our estate - it's an older estate but some houses in recent years have been moved to this set up by the Council (not getting into detail). It's not a nice feeling, if I'm honest. I am all for having a social safety net for people and I really don't know if big social housing estates are the only solution either, yet a bit of me can't help feeling annoyed that the lad around the corner is paying nothing or next to nothing for the exact same house as all the people around us, and we are all out most the day working to pay for ourselves. It just - feels unfair somehow. And I know it's not the correct thing to say or think, but it's hard to feel otherwise.

InTheShadows

Sonny noggs wrote: »

There is no possible justification for social housing in expensive neighbourhoods.

Yes it's called integration.

Gumbo

Sonny noggs wrote: »

There is no possible justification for social housing in expensive neighbourhoods.

Sorry to burst your bubble but it’s happening currently. I’ve 2 sites on my books where houses are selling for over €1m.

Both those sites handed over one dwelling each for social housing (Part V).
It’s compulsory and no way around it.

retalivity

And I know it's not the correct thing to say or think

Its exactly the correct thing to say! Too many people pander to this notion that people have a god-given right to live somewhere for bugger all. The sooner it stops, the better.

Dcc are building a 7storey 100% social housing block on a small sliver of land between an existing apt block and a brand new park in dublin 8. Besides the fact that the new building impacts the light and privacy of surrounding homeowners, is going to overhang on a bloody park, it will be filled with 100+ who could be housed in longford for a fraction of the price, as they contribute nothing to the area and have no reason to live in the city centre, and will be paying next to nothing for the privilege.
Social housing should be the bare minimum to deter lifers and encourage people to work for their own homes. Murphy and his co-living tenements are fine for that

Gemma1982

Recently moved into a new build estate - houses from 750k upwards. There is no social housing as the developer gave a site in a different area to the council in lieu of providing social housing in the estate. So this loophole still seems to be there.

Gumbo

Gemma1982 wrote: »

Recently moved into a new build estate - houses from 750k upwards. There is no social housing as the developer gave a site in a different area to the council in lieu of providing social housing in the estate. So this loophole still seems to be there.

Depends on when they got planning and agreed the Part V allocation.
For example, belltree in Clongriffin, all private but block 2 on Main Street has been entirely built to satisfy the Part V allocation for the whole development.

84 apartments from memory and the Iveagh Trust will take on the management and operation of it.

It may be still there if the developer has a satisfactory site nearby but in Dublin that’s becoming less and less.

Cyrus

Gemma1982 wrote: »

Recently moved into a new build estate - houses from 750k upwards. There is no social housing as the developer gave a site in a different area to the council in lieu of providing social housing in the estate. So this loophole still seems to be there.

Same in our estate completed two years ago

InTheShadows

Gemma1982 wrote: »

Recently moved into a new build estate - houses from 750k upwards. There is no social housing as the developer gave a site in a different area to the council in lieu of providing social housing in the estate. So this loophole still seems to be there.

As long as there is brown envelopes the practice will continue.

Sonny noggs

listermint wrote: »

Except it's the norm on the continent.

Hardly makes it right. Lots of stuff is messed up ‘on the continent’.

Sonny noggs

kceire wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble but it’s happening currently. I’ve 2 sites on my books where houses are selling for over €1m.

Both those sites handed over one dwelling each for social housing (Part V).
It’s compulsory and no way around it.

It is happening, doesn’t mean it is right or fair.

hmmm

InTheShadows wrote: »

As long as there is brown envelopes the practice will continue.

It's not brown envelopes, it's the rules. And I agree with the posters who think the idea of handing over million euro houses to social housing is ridiculous, but equally I think the idea of handing over any house for free alongside people who are paying for their own houses is ridiculous - so it can't all be dumped in middle class neighbourhoods. Social housing should be bare minimum standard apartments, and if you want more you have to pay for it.

Cal4567

InTheShadows wrote: »

As long as there is brown envelopes the practice will continue.

Stupid comment and just shows your ignorance re how Part V operates. It is more cost effective for the council in such a high value area such as this to accept the Part V units off site. Similar examples to the recent developments in the docklands.

The Part V cost criteria is based on EUV - existing use value but in very high value areas that is still a very high cost.

voluntary

Irish want more social houses or less social houses? The last I heard was that everyone wanted government to build more social houses?

eviltwin

voluntary wrote: »

Irish want more social houses or less social houses? The last I heard was that everyone wanted government to build more social houses?

Just nowhere near them

voluntary

eviltwin wrote: »

Just nowhere near them

Well, when the crowds shout "build more social houses" then the government listens. If people do not want them, then they should maybe articulate less how much they want to build more social houses.

Be careful what you wish for!

Johouse

Johouse wrote: »

We have been looking at Shankill but are now reading about the 600 units - mainly social and affordable which are planned for Shanganagh. What are people’s view on this development?

It's great, a fantastic location, right on the coast beside a park, sure what's not to love!

Sonny noggs

The ‘forever home’ media blitzes did massive PR damage. Maybe if the media had championed a working couple on low income instead of someone who has never held a job...

InTheShadows

hmmm wrote: »

It's not brown envelopes, it's the rules. And I agree with the posters who think the idea of handing over million euro houses to social housing is ridiculous, but equally I think the idea of handing over any house for free alongside people who are paying for their own houses is ridiculous - so it can't all be dumped in middle class neighbourhoods. Social housing should be bare minimum standard apartments, and if you want more you have to pay for it.

Eh people do pay for the housing You do realise people work in social housing?

Klonker

Social housing should be the most basic, cheapest housing possible, built in separate estates to private housing. Otherwise, where is the incentive to work and better yourself to afford a nicer home?

If all social tenants are salt of earth hard working people like some on here are suggesting then the separate estates won't turn to st!t with anti social behaviour!

InTheShadows

Klonker wrote: »

Social housing should be the most basic, cheapest housing possible, built in separate estates to private housing. Otherwise, where is the incentive to work and better yourself to afford a nicer home?

If all social tenants are salt of earth hard working people like some on here are suggesting then the separate estates won't turn to st!t with anti social behaviour!

Iv'e read back through the thread and nobody has said all social tenants are salt of the earth hard working people. Just like not all private tenants are salt of the earth hard working people.

Wexforllion

Klonker wrote: »

Social housing should be the most basic, cheapest housing possible, built in separate estates to private housing. Otherwise, where is the incentive to work and better yourself to afford a nicer home?

If all social tenants are salt of earth hard working people like some on here are suggesting then the separate estates won't turn to st!t with anti social behaviour!

The system here stinks. Social housing should be as crap as possible and in less sought after areas for three reasons.
1. Crap housing is cheaper.
2. The council shouldn't compete with those buying in nice areas.
3. Gives people real inventive to get out of social housing.

All the people saying they are in favour of this spread out social housing policy fall into two categories.
1. Those who are living in a social house.
2. Those who are all in favour until a social house is built next door.

Donald Trump

Wexforllion wrote: »

The system here stinks. Social housing should be as crap as possible and in less sought after areas for three reasons.
1. Crap housing is cheaper.
2. The council shouldn't compete with those buying in nice areas.
3. Gives people real inventive to get out of social housing.

All the people saying they are in favour of this spread out social housing policy fall into two categories.
1. Those who are living in a social house.
2. Those who are all in favour until a social house is built next door.

Areas are less sought after because of the predominance of social housing. So it becomes a tautology to build social houses in less desirable areas once you stick them all in together.


What you are saying is effectively "don't ruin my area by putting them here. Not in my backyard. Lump them in away from me and let other people sufer with the shit and negative effects of their house prices"


This is what happens. Two equal houses, A&B, in two similar areas both worth 100. Council decides to throw up an estate of social housing in house B area and leaves house A area untouched. Net result is that area A becomes relatively more desirable. So the prices change to 105 for A and 95 for B.

In a few years the council want to build more houses - they decide to lazily do the same thing again. Result is house prices change to 120 for A and 80 for B. Then in another few years they want to even it out but developers and people in house A area say "ah here, no wait, you can't put them here because my house is worth 120 and B's is only worth 80. Doesn't make sense to put them here." So the council plough ahead and stick up even more estates around B. Finally A is worth 150 and B is worth 50.



And yet A would moan that putting a house beside them is unfair

Zenify

Donald Trump wrote: »

And yet A would moan that putting a house beside them is unfair

The new people that moved into estate A paid 150 to not live beside social housing tenants.

I'm not saying we shouldn't integrate social housing. I honestly dont know a solution to the problem. However, I completely understand the problem with integrating.

voluntary

Zenify wrote: »

The new people that moved into estate A paid 150 to not live beside social housing tenants.

They paid 150 taking the risk. They got no guarantee of social housing free zone.
Such zones do not exist in our legislation, but I'm not surprised these who paid 150 are doing whatever they can to keep their premium status unharmed.
The problem is that there's now more people living in the places where people pay 70 and not 150 and, as we are a democracy, the majority makes the rules. If the majority feels screwed by the minority, they can simply change the rules.

mariaalice

There are very few areas with no social housing in Dublin there may be some roads or enclaves in an area with no social housing but not whole areas.

http://www.perspective-architecturalgroup.com/index.php/project/residential/social-housing

That is one in Portmarnock an area an earlier poster was convinced had no social housing.

I know of a halting site tucked away but beside house that would be in the million and more price range but the thing is the houses all would be surrounded by hight walls, detached, very large gardens so event though both the halting site and the houses are located in the same environment they have no interaction with each other.

cruizer101

hmmm wrote: »

And I agree with the posters who think the idea of handing over million euro houses to social housing is ridiculous, but equally I think the idea of handing over any house for free alongside people who are paying for their own houses is ridiculous - so it can't all be dumped in middle class neighbourhoods.

Generally in cases where the property is quite expensive like this it isn't used for your typical house a low/no income family. It gets used in a different way for example I heard of one where it was used as a shared unit for a number of disabled individuals along with a carer.

One thing that is happening in certain area is while property isn't being directly handed over to council it is being let to them.

Taylor Hill in balbriggan, 50% of phase 2 was sold to ires reit who had apparently done a deal with the council to let to them if they bought.
So the means 35% (10% requireed + 25%) of this large estate is in effect social housing in a town which already has a high percentage of it.

CrankyHaus

Yes that's more common than people think. Often Housing Agencies acquire a fair amount of the units too and get paid by the Council to take people from its housing list. In fact Councils have been known to fob off problem tenants onto Housing Agencies too.

It's quite eye opening. There are apartment complexes that are 65% or more Council and housing agency tenants, yet they look like modern, private estates and units sell for several hundred thousand. Anyone buying one to live in it would have had better neighbours in a lot of the corpo flats in dublin city centre.

uli84

kceire wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble but it’s happening currently. I’ve 2 sites on my books where houses are selling for over €1m.

Both those sites handed over one dwelling each for social housing (Part V).
It’s compulsory and no way around it.

Wow, like winning a lottery haha, unreal stupid system in any case, also why they are getting new houses only (?)

awec

Klonker wrote: »

Social housing should be the most basic, cheapest housing possible, built in separate estates to private housing. Otherwise, where is the incentive to work and better yourself to afford a nicer home?

If all social tenants are salt of earth hard working people like some on here are suggesting then the separate estates won't turn to st!t with anti social behaviour!

This is how you end up with ghettos. You cannot lump a whole bunch of social tenants in together and expect it to work well. Social housing is a double edged sword, and a political nightmare.

If you build cheap social houses in social estates you eventually end up with areas that are very undesirable, run down and plagued with anti-social problems. I think Ireland has learnt it's lesson here.

On the other hand, what they are doing now is integrating social tenants into private estates, and to be perfectly blunt the reasoning behind it is having fewer social tenants together, living alongside private residents, is in theory less likely to result in problems.

The second option avoids ghetto scenarios, but does mean that there are people getting very expensive houses for next to nothing while their next door neighbour is paying through the arse for their house, and on top of that paying the tax to help pay for their neighbours house as well.

I think on balance though it's probably the lesser of two evils.

Cuddlesworth

awec wrote: »

This is how you end up with ghettos. You cannot lump a whole bunch of social tenants in together and expect it to work well. Social housing is a double edged sword, and a political nightmare.

If you build cheap social houses in social estates you eventually end up with areas that are very undesirable, run down and plagued with anti-social problems. I think Ireland has learnt it's lesson here.

On the other hand, what they are doing now is integrating social tenants into private estates, and to be perfectly blunt the reasoning behind it is having fewer social tenants together, living alongside private residents, is in theory less likely to result in problems.

The second option avoids ghetto scenarios, but does mean that there are people getting very expensive houses for next to nothing while their next door neighbour is paying through the arse for their house, and on top of that paying the tax to help pay for their neighbours house as well.

I think on balance though it's probably the lesser of two evils.

Its like everybody has forgotten about the factors that made places like Ballymun or Darndale the way they are.

You lump tons of poor people into the same location and isolate them, you end up with social problems that cost the state and us far more over their lifespan.