Social Housing Areas - Dublin Councils

Klonker

@ Awec and Cuddlesworth.

I know that's what the government are doing but I don't agree with it.

Obviously don't build towers like Ballymun but build social housing estates. These people are getting highly subsidised housing, I don't think they can complain that their neighbours are also social tenants.

The current system is not fair, not only are purchasers of homes in new estates/developments subsidising their social housing neighbours through their taxes, the are also subsidising through the house price they pay, as the social housing is sold to the government at cost price, meaning the developers margin is added on to the price of all the other homes.

It's also taking at least 10% of the supply of new homes from the private market, further pushing of house prices, further punishing the taxpayers of this country.

I'm not saying don't help people in difficult situations, especially those who are working in low paying jobs but the fact of the matter is most people in Social housing or HAP don't work and they should not be getting homes in new private estates, they should be getting the most basic accommodation in the cheapest areas in Dublin (if that's where they want to live) to build.

There has to be a fairness to the system and at the moment it is not fair at all to the taxpayers of this country.

InTheShadows

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-housing-report-highlights-ireland-s-reliance-on-private-sector-1.3259786

It's almost like we doing something wrong in regards social housing. Who'd have tunk it?

Grolschevik

Klonker wrote: »

most people in Social housing or HAP don't work

Can you provide any evidence to support that assertion?

The Student

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

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.

Sorry I can't agree with this. I grew up in a part private/part council housing estate in the 70's. My parents house was in the private part and we nor any of our neighbours had "a pot to p*** in". We had nothing after the mortgage and food was paid for.

We did not have issues in the private part of the estate we did see it in the public part. This goes back to our culture where by if you work for something you will respect it more than if you either get it for nothing or next to nothing.

The reason we had the likes of Darndale/Ballymun etc was nothing to do with putting poor people in the same location and isolate them and you will have trouble. The reason we have these issues is our unwillingness as a society to deal with those who cause the anti social behavior.

The perception of council property is exactly why people don't want council properties or tenants living beside them, because the State literally just "dumps" council tenants in areas and this ends up with the original people in the areas living through years of misery as a result of the anti social council tenants and the councils/States unwillingness to deal with them.

Perhaps if people were held accountable for their actions and there were actual consequences then the stigma of council housing would not be as bad.

MSVforever

It's all this PC bullsh## is preventing us to deal with the issue properly.
People can say what they want but there's a reason why council estates ending up being crime ridden dumps. If you get a heavily subsided house for next to nothing then at least you will need to take care of this and don't be a nuisance. If not then go live on the streets. Simple as.

Cal4567

'the fact of the matter is most people in Social housing or HAP don't work'

That's wrong for a start

As other posters have said, it is the lesser of two evils. Integration is shown to work across the developed work. Segregation doesn't. If we just build mono tenure social housing estates we would be going backwards, not forward. Of course, don't forget - if you are a private owner, it is your asset to pass on, the social tentant, it isn't. It was, with large scale sale programmes to existing tenants, but those days are numbered. No state now is going to be selling of its housing stock.

InTheShadows

Klonker wrote: »

@ Awec and Cuddlesworth.

I know that's what the government are doing but I don't agree with it.

Obviously don't build towers like Ballymun but build social housing estates. These people are getting highly subsidised housing, I don't think they can complain that their neighbours are also social tenants.

The current system is not fair, not only are purchasers of homes in new estates/developments subsidising their social housing neighbours through their taxes, the are also subsidising through the house price they pay, as the social housing is sold to the government at cost price, meaning the developers margin is added on to the price of all the other homes.

It's also taking at least 10% of the supply of new homes from the private market, further pushing of house prices, further punishing the taxpayers of this country.

I'm not saying don't help people in difficult situations, especially those who are working in low paying jobs but the fact of the matter is most people in Social housing or HAP don't work and they should not be getting homes in new private estates, they should be getting the most basic accommodation in the cheapest areas in Dublin (if that's where they want to live) to build.

There has to be a fairness to the system and at the moment it is not fair at all to the taxpayers of this country.

So any facts to back up your statement about "most people in social housing don't work"?

Cal4567

What I will agree with though is our laid back attitude to dealing with anti social behaviour has driven the perception that council states are crime ridden dumps. Local authorities managing estates? Non managing more like. I would remove local councils from this role. That's been a big problem.

Cuddlesworth

The Student wrote: »

Sorry I can't agree with this. I grew up in a part private/part council housing estate in the 70's. My parents house was in the private part and we nor any of our neighbours had "a pot to p*** in". We had nothing after the mortgage and food was paid for.

We did not have issues in the private part of the estate we did see it in the public part. This goes back to our culture where by if you work for something you will respect it more than if you either get it for nothing or next to nothing.

The reason we had the likes of Darndale/Ballymun etc was nothing to do with putting poor people in the same location and isolate them and you will have trouble. The reason we have these issues is our unwillingness as a society to deal with those who cause the anti social behavior.

The perception of council property is exactly why people don't want council properties or tenants living beside them, because the State literally just "dumps" council tenants in areas and this ends up with the original people in the areas living through years of misery as a result of the anti social council tenants and the councils/States unwillingness to deal with them.

Perhaps if people were held accountable for their actions and there were actual consequences then the stigma of council housing would not be as bad.

Do you think this is a Irish problem? You can look anywhere else in the world and see the crime and social mess that happens when you cram the poorest together. America, which loves to send people to prison, has its ghettos and trailer parks. The same can be said across Europe, with current immigrant populations congregating together starting the cycle off again.

We can either learn or keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

The Student

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Do you think this is a Irish problem? You can look anywhere else in the world and see the crime and social mess that happens when you cram the poorest together. America, which loves to send people to prison, has its ghettos and trailer parks. The same can be said across Europe, with current immigrant populations congregating together starting the cycle off again.

We can either learn or keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

It is not unique to Ireland, however do you hear of this type of situation in Germany, Denmark etc. I would suspect no because the culture there is different to the Irish culture. It may indeed happen in these countries but I would suspect not to the same degree it does in Ireland.

The anti social issues are caused by a hand full of people, the vast majority of people are decent people. Those who cause anti social issues should be relocated to areas out in the back of nowhere, places where they can't make peoples lives a misery.

At the moment these people act with impunity, as you say we can either learn or keep making the same mistakes over and over again, the mistake being not holding people to account for their (anti social) actions.

Jaster Rogue

Cal4567 wrote: »

No state now is going to be selling of its housing stock.

I wouldn't be so sure of a political party or government not trying that at some point over the next 30-40 years.


It will be a vote-buying exercise masqueraded with statements like:
"Stronger local communities will form if they own the properties" or

"They have been paying council rent for 30 years, they have a right to the property"

thegetawaycar

Social housing should be minimal and outside the confines of the central business zone of Dublin, I'm all for some affordable housing 10% or so of new developments being leased to nurses, Gardai and teachers etc... below market prices who need to be in the city and are contributing (as such leased by the state to the lesser paid state employees).

The bull of getting to live in the area near mammy and continue the cycle of having our city centre as a ****hole needs to stop. The dumping around the social housing areas in the city centre, near Smithfield etc... is out of hand, the social tenants don't respect the area as well as most private estates and then want the council to pay to clean it up and blame everyone bar themselves.

The biggest issue as mentioned before is not dealing with the bull**** tenants and our judicial system. We need jobs in rural Ireland, well build a large prison in one of the areas needing jobs, have no more people with 100+ convictions on the streets and free up the housing stock wasted on these scrotes.

Bring in automatic removal of social welfare (including access to housing) while in prison for those convicted of anti social behaviour say 5 times, back on the housing list and at the bottom of it on release from prison.

sportsfan90

thegetawaycar wrote: »

I'm all for some affordable housing 10% or so of new developments being leased to nurses, Gardai and teachers etc... below market prices who need to be in the city and are contributing (as such leased by the state to the lesser paid state employees).

While I agree with a lot of your post, I'm curious why you think state employees should get prioritised?

voluntary

sportsfan90 wrote: »

While I agree with a lot of your post, I'm curious why you think state employees should get prioritised?

If we want to subsidy public sector, then better simply give them cash and let them decide what to do with it.
Some need homes, some other need childcare, while others may need something else.

cruizer101

sportsfan90 wrote: »

While I agree with a lot of your post, I'm curious why you think state employees should get prioritised?

The issue with some public sector jobs is that you get the same pay no matter where you work in the country.

Take a couple that is a teacher and nurse, in Dublin they will struggle to buy a house, in longford they could have a big house on large plot of land.

In the private sector wages do reflect the different cost of living across the country somewhat so it isn't as big an issue.

In London there is an allowance for nurses and I think also for teachers and police.

sportsfan90

cruizer101 wrote: »

The issue with some public sector jobs is that you get the same pay no matter where you work in the country.

Take a couple that is a teacher and nurse, in Dublin they will struggle to buy a house, in longford they could have a big house on large plot of land.

In the private sector wages do reflect the different cost of living across the country somewhat so it isn't as big an issue.

In London there is an allowance for nurses and I think also for teachers and police.

While I understand the point, there is already a divide whenever conversations turn to public v private sector when it comes to wages, pensions, job security etc.

Do we really want allocation of housing to prioritise public servants to be added to that?

I'm not claiming to have all the answers here btw, but to me that doesn't sound a very fair system.

Donald Trump

Zenify wrote: »

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.

And what is your point? Person in area A just paid 150 for house. Area in house B just paid 50. Council now have a decision to make. Allocate next batch to Area A in which case prices move to 140 and 60 respectively or to allocate to area B in which case prices move to 160 and 40.


Your preference would seem to apply to the second option. Why does the (probably less well off) person in in area B have to suffer the loss? Maybe you, or one of yours, will be that person in area B some day. Might be the next generation or the following one, but eventually it will happen. You reap what you sow.

InTheShadows

The Student wrote: »

It is not unique to Ireland, however do you hear of this type of situation in Germany, Denmark etc. I would suspect no because the culture there is different to the Irish culture. It may indeed happen in these countries but I would suspect not to the same degree it does in Ireland.

The anti social issues are caused by a hand full of people, the vast majority of people are decent people. Those who cause anti social issues should be relocated to areas out in the back of nowhere, places where they can't make peoples lives a misery.

At the moment these people act with impunity, as you say we can either learn or keep making the same mistakes over and over again, the mistake being not holding people to account for their (anti social) actions.

Of course the vast majority in social housing are normal decent people just trying to live their lives but the problem i have is this blanket preception that everybody in a council estate is a toerag or scrounger.

I live in a mixed social and affordable estate and i was lucky enough to be in a position to buy our house outright some years ago and can genuinely say 80-85% of my neighbours work and are just like you or me.

That said there is a bad bad element of scummers who ruin it for everyone else and unfortunately the council will not evict them. Until the council/justice system take responsibility and punish these people it will continue unchecked.

Mad_maxx

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

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.

The social problems are as a result of lack of proper policing, we've tried the Liberal approach to crime and it's failed miserably

The current problems stem from an altogether flawed set of assumptions, assumptions based on left wing ideology

That "poor" people cannot be expected to do anything but disrespect where they live, the reality is the areas are neglected because there is no penalty for allowing thus

We must expect and demand more of people.

The Student

InTheShadows wrote: »

Of course the vast majority in social housing are normal decent people just trying to live their lives but the problem i have is this blanket preception that everybody in a council estate is a toerag or scrounger.

I live in a mixed social and affordable estate and i was lucky enough to be in a position to buy our house outright some years ago and can genuinely say 80-85% of my neighbours work and are just like you or me.

That said there is a bad bad element of scummers who ruin it for everyone else and unfortunately the council will not evict them. Until the council/justice system take responsibility and punish these people it will continue unchecked.

I completely agree with you on this. I have seen this first hand. Until we deal with the small element of bad people the perception of council tenants will remain whether deserved or not.

shesty

My other issue in the case of our place was the Council using 300k+ of taxpayers money to buy a private house in our estate.And that was just one,there are others - never mind the internal refurb works they did to the house after buying.The whole thing seems very unjust.Especially when people in other houses around are working and saving for a long time to refloor a room or replace a kitchen.

Fan of Netflix

I personally think nobody should be getting social housing in DCC at this point and possibly Dun Laoghaire also. Think Dun Laoghaire ones should be housed in Wicklow for less cost. There is a lot of land in Fingal that still can be developed and used, and others should be housed in Meath. Likewise SDCC should house people in cheapest areas in Kildare.

Requires joined up thinking and government intervention though so won't happen.

Cuddlesworth

The Student wrote: »

It is not unique to Ireland, however do you hear of this type of situation in Germany, Denmark etc.

I believe Germany and Denmark have housing associations buying private housing and renting back to social welfare tenants at reduced lifetime rates. They call it the German model in a lot of publications. Because large scale social welfare estates caused crime blackspots.

Are you referring to those types of situations?

The Student wrote: »

At the moment these people act with impunity, as you say we can either learn or keep making the same mistakes over and over again, the mistake being not holding people to account for their (anti social) actions.

Again, America loves to hold people to account, they have the highest prison population in the world. How is that working out for them. How does giving a person a criminal history help them or those around them? How does putting a person in jail for being a bad tenant help the state? Does it save money? Does it stop them being a bad tenant ? Does it stop their kids growing up homeless and starting the cycle again?

InTheShadows

shesty wrote: »

My other issue in the case of our place was the Council using 300k+ of taxpayers money to buy a private house in our estate.And that was just one,there are others - never mind the internal refurb works they did to the house after buying.The whole thing seems very unjust.Especially when people in other houses around are working and saving for a long time to refloor a room or replace a kitchen.

How do you know the people renting the house off the council aren't working?

The Student

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I believe Germany and Denmark have housing associations buying private housing and renting back to social welfare tenants at reduced lifetime rates. They call it the German model in a lot of publications. Because large scale social welfare estates caused crime blackspots.

Are you referring to those types of situations?



Again, America loves to hold people to account, they have the highest prison population in the world. How is that working out for them. How does giving a person a criminal history help them or those around them? How does putting a person in jail for being a bad tenant help the state? Does it save money? Does it stop them being a bad tenant ? Does it stop their kids growing up homeless and starting the cycle again?

The situation I was referring to in Germany and Denmark is the lack of anti social issues in social housing. You have referenced the housing model but have not referenced details of issues with anti social behaviours.

America does indeed like to hold people to account and rightly so. Does it stop them from being a bad tenant perhaps yes perhaps no, if they are a bad tenant does it make them a worse one probably not as they would have to be bad to end up in prison in the first place.

We as a society need to accept that some people are bad and no matter what you do you can't help them. At what point do you think people should be held somewhat accountable for their actions or are you one of the people who think its everybody else's fault and never these peoples.

Klonker

InTheShadows wrote:

So any facts to back up your statement about "most people in social housing don't work"?

You any facts to say otherwise?

1.4m people of working age in Ireland are not in employment. We'll say .3m are in education so that leave 1.1m. Do you think these people are buying their own homes or paying all their own rent?

Cuddlesworth

The Student wrote: »

We as a society need to accept that some people are bad and no matter what you do you can't help them. At what point do you think people should be held somewhat accountable for their actions or are you one of the people who think its everybody else's fault and never these peoples.

I think the world isn't black or white but really shades of gray. And people who think you can solve complex issues with simple answers are just simple themselves.

Mad_maxx

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I believe Germany and Denmark have housing associations buying private housing and renting back to social welfare tenants at reduced lifetime rates. They call it the German model in a lot of publications. Because large scale social welfare estates caused crime blackspots.

Are you referring to those types of situations?



Again, America loves to hold people to account, they have the highest prison population in the world. How is that working out for them. How does giving a person a criminal history help them or those around them? How does putting a person in jail for being a bad tenant help the state? Does it save money? Does it stop them being a bad tenant ? Does it stop their kids growing up homeless and starting the cycle again?

Using America as a comparison is bogus, no aspect of our system is similar, people in Ireland receive the most generous benefits in the Western world, those in America the least

Spanish Eyes

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

I personally think nobody should be getting social housing in DCC at this point and possibly Dun Laoghaire also. Think Dun Laoghaire ones should be housed in Wicklow for less cost. There is a lot of land in Fingal that still can be developed and used, and others should be housed in Meath. Likewise SDCC should house people in cheapest areas in Kildare.

Requires joined up thinking and government intervention though so won't happen.

That would be fine if all councils worked together wrt to their housing applicants. But AFAIK they don't. So if you are within a certain council, it up to them to house you within their boundary.

Even the Choice Based Letting system as far as I can see is limited to each council's stock of housing within their boundary only.

A poster above said that over subscribed Councils should pay another council with more housing stock to house their applicants. Sounds like an idea that should be explored a bit more TBH.

There is not much thinking outside the box really. And it's ironic that those who do not qualify for social housing have to move to whatever place, or county they can afford. They don't have a choice.

If I am wrong on any of the above points, my apologies.

InTheShadows

Klonker wrote: »

You any facts to say otherwise?

1.4m people of working age in Ireland are not in employment. We'll say .3m are in education so that leave 1.1m. Do you think these people are buying their own homes or paying all their own rent?

Unemployed persons in Ireland is circa 108,000 so iv'e no idea where you are getting those figures.