Social Housing Areas - Dublin Councils

LirW

seasidedub wrote: »

If there is now no right to expect to live in an area where the others around you have paid the same price and worked hard to do so, where's the incentive to work? Why pay 500k if you can get the same house for life for a tiny rent you pay out of social welfare anyway? It's nonsensical. As to employed people on low wages - affordable housing should be part of the picture, but again - if you can get a 500k house for 250 because you are lower paid, where's the incentive to educate yourself or your children or to improve yourself? You get "the same" anyway.

See, this logic is somewhat flawed. The population can only educate themselves so much. There are many low paid professions that are a long term career path and indeed require a certain skill set.
We all want our kids to be cared for while we work by trained people, but they are paid a pittance, yet someone's got to do it. We all want our elderly cared for but aren't willing to pay the carers more than 13 euros an hour. We all wanna go out for nice food but the chef's that work in a really tough profession are paid sh1te for insane hours. People want nice kitchens, windows and doors, yet the people producing them just don't earn a lot. Social workers that do essential work for our society need a degree and are usually paid way below the median income if they can even get a permanent contract.
Our society depends on people filling low paid positions in the short- and long term. We can't all be accountants, solicitors, doctors and bankers.

If we make it impossible for low paid professions to live somewhat in a commutable distance, they will go somewhere else where life is more affordable. There's usually no shortage of jobs for demanding positions with low pay in cheaper areas of the country. Which of course then makes all the services above a lot more expensive.

I totally get the issue with social housing but I can't hear this upskilling cr4p anymore. Someone has to do these low paid professions that never pay you huge money, no matter how long you do it. Either that or we import more workers that are willing to work for a pittance which then again causes the same issues with housing.

Donald Trump

LirW wrote: »

See, this logic is somewhat flawed. The population can only educate themselves so much. There are many low paid professions that are a long term career path and indeed require a certain skill set.

Yeah, but without that "logic" how could a person feel special or entitled because they are "great" and "work hard".

seasidedub

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

seasidedub wrote: »

People are not the same, they just are not.

Very true, but from my experience, a lot of people with 600k+ houses work in the same jobs, and get paid the same or similar salaries to those in 350k houses.

In a lot of cases the people in the 600k+ houses either purchased 15 years previously, got an early inheritance to help buy in a better area or inherited a house outright.

Same people, same drive, same work ethic, same social conscience, but different life circumstances. They dont work any harder than the folks who bought later or just had a helping hand.

So yea, to a point people are not the same, but a huge portion of the housing market, particularly in dublin is not based alone on people, its based on timing, luck and other factors uncontrollable by anyone.

So in this respect, the person in a 350k house should have the same right to live in a decent area as the person in a more expensive house.

Yes - your point is reasonable

fret_wimp2

To my mind, a large portion of the solution lies with enforcement of rules and laws, and this falls to the councils.
Enforce littering laws.
Enforce rules in apartment blocks and houses.
If rules around noise, damage etc are repeatedly broken, deduct fines at source from welfare, or reduce the amount of HAP by the fine amount for that month.

Regardless of social conscience, people will do whats necessary when money is concerned.

At a larger scale, the councils need to work in a cohesive manner, instead of having 26 little programmes with major duplication of effort, there should be one. I would hope this frees up funds to manage the proramme.
A large overarching programme would also give scope for managing the minority of tenants with zero social conscience.

The Student

Donald Trump wrote: »

And? Why do you think that the person who bought for 450k in Donabate deserves to be protected more than the person who bought for 200k in Balbriggan who doesn't want to see their house go to 150k?


Solution is to spread them out properly from the start so that the "pain" is equal. What happened was that that wasn't done before but they shouldn't be allowed to still get away with that in perpetuity just because it was started like that. That 450k house might not have made 450k is 200 of those social houses had already been built there!

The solution is not to "spread them out properly from the start so that the pain is equal". The solution is to deal with the causes of the "pain" in the first place.

InTheShadows

voluntary wrote: »

It would be controversial. At the other hand, you get a house for free so behave yourselve or move to a worse house, simple.

Reputation would need to be limited to social housing and anti discrimination legislation put in place, so it cannot be used for anything else than for social housing allocation (so reputation score would be added to a bucket together race, color, religion, sex etc)

No social housing is free.

DelBoy Trotter

InTheShadows wrote: »

No social housing is free.

If they are paying for the house out of social welfare money, then it is free to them. They haven't worked to earn the money to pay the tiny rent in the house they were given

Donald Trump

The Student wrote: »

The solution is not to "spread them out properly from the start so that the pain is equal". The solution is to deal with the causes of the "pain" in the first place.

<snip>

Lux23

I grew up in a council-owned house in a private estate, and there was opposition to us moving into the estate initially. But the neighbours saw that both parents worked and us kids were well spoken, well behaved etc. so there was never any problems again. Now half the estate is renters/social housing and its still a quiet neighbourhood, so I am not sure I would let this influence my decision on where to live especially as 10% of housing developments are supposed to go to social housing anyway.

As for what you pay versus what your neighbour on the social pays, who cares if they're a decent neighbour? Why would you let something like that bother you?

seasidedub

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

InTheShadows wrote: »

No social housing is free.

If they are paying for the house out of social welfare money, then it is free to them. They haven't worked to earn the money to pay the tiny rent in the house they were given

Yes. But this point is poorly understood. I work in a mainly social welfare area and with many social welfare recipients. They refer to "getting paid" on Fridays or whichever day they get the money. There is NO understanding at all that the money is available to them because of the taxpayers- none, believe me.

I started as a centre left social justice warrior and am still liberal about sexuality, abortion etc - but in terms of social welfare recipients I've turned into Maggie Thatcher. The entitlement and demanding and lack of personal responsibility I've seen sickens me.

But eventually you run out of other people's money.....

seasidedub

Just to quantify- I'm referring to long-term social welfare recipients.

klaaaz

seasidedub wrote: »

People are not the same, they just are not. I lived in Helsinki and all those with better jobs fell over themselves to pay 900k for small city centre apartments or houses in Westend (think Malahide) and away from the blocks of East Helsinki. People aspire to live with what they consider their own social peers and all the leftie crap of "spreading and integrating" won't change that. What we will see is huge competition for homes in established areas with no social housing.

On Helsinki, there is way more integrated mixed housing there than here with most workers living mostly happily amongst the social cohort. Result being less of the less desirable areas existing than in Dublin. And they all pick up their dog poo and litter too just like the rich. That's the "leftie crap of spreading and integrating" as you put it, socialism like this worked all over Scandinavia. Your pals who could afford 900k were simply rich, a tiny tiny minority of the population. For those who don't know, Westend(in the city/suburb of Espoo) in Helsinki is the equivalent of our Killiney.

LirW

seasidedub wrote: »

Just to quantify- I'm referring to long-term social welfare recipients.

But in the grand scheme of things how high is the percentage of them?
I get that there are areas with high concentration of long term unemployed. But how high is that number compared to people on housing lists on low income, disability, medical needs?
I don't wanna downplay the issue, don't get me wrong and I don't have a good solution either.

Just this morning on the radio there was a news report that 90% of all people presenting homeless lately have been living in privately rented accommodation 12 months prior to becoming homeless.
And almost all of them lost their accommodation with no fault of their own.

seasidedub

klaaaz wrote: »

seasidedub wrote: »

People are not the same, they just are not. I lived in Helsinki and all those with better jobs fell over themselves to pay 900k for small city centre apartments or houses in Westend (think Malahide) and away from the blocks of East Helsinki. People aspire to live with what they consider their own social peers and all the leftie crap of "spreading and integrating" won't change that. What we will see is huge competition for homes in established areas with no social housing.

On Helsinki, there is way more integrated mixed housing there than here with most workers living mostly happily amongst the social cohort. Result being less of the less desirable areas existing than in Dublin. And they all pick up their dog poo and litter too just like the rich. That's the "leftie crap of spreading and integrating" as you put it, socialism like this worked all over Scandinavia. Your pals who could afford 900k were simply rich, a tiny tiny minority of the population. For those who don't know, Westend(in the city/suburb of Espoo) in Helsinki is the equivalent of our Killiney.

Lived, studied, worked, married and speak the language. Am not rich.Disagree with "happily living together". Tapiola, Kauniainen, I could go on and name at least 20 expensive and desirable areas where people clamour to live and get away from areas with high levels of social welfare recipients and immigrants- Finland actually produces and publishes a map of the areas where most migrants live and surprise surprise they are cheaper. Other than city centre where the high level of foreigners is accounted for by "ex pats" ie different to migrants.

Pretty much the same social divisions as here. In my experience. Certain schools seen as desirable, plenty of private healthcare etc. People strive to live beside people they perceive as being most like them.

Finns are cleaner- yes.

seasidedub

https://images.app.goo.gl/JZe2cXeLE8ffJ8YX9

klaaaz

seasidedub wrote: »

Lived, studied, worked, married and speak the language. Am not rich.Disagree with "happily living together". Tapiola, Kauniainen, I could go on and name at least 20 expensive and desirable areas where people clamour to live and get away from areas with high levels of social welfare recipients and immigrants- Finland actually produces and publishes a map of the areas where most migrants live and surprise surprise they are cheaper. Other than city centre where the high level of foreigners is accounted for by "ex pats" ie different to migrants.

Pretty much the same social divisions as here. In my experience. Certain schools seen as desirable, plenty of private healthcare etc. People strive to live beside people they perceive as being most like them.

Finns are cleaner- yes.

Disagree with your disagreement, i've been there to Helsinki many times. You listed the most expensive suburb of Westend as your example , it's the wealthiest area in Helsinki. That is NOT representative of the population, that shows your bias towards the rich.

The income inequality in Helsinki is not on the same extreme as here, they have proper free education unlike the education apartheid here. Their poor kids can obtain a higher education without financial barriers stopping them like here. What that means is that most people can obtain good paying jobs hence less poverty around, unlike our horrendous model where the lower classes have consistently poor levels of university access.

And communal housing there has worked where workers and those on the social live happily, they even get along in the communal sauna!

You seem to have a problem with foreigners living in a city, why is that?

Klonker

What financial barriers do the poor have here in relation to education?

They get free primary and secondary school, child allowance same as everyone else. The better well off in society will pay more on top of this that the poorer don't have to.

Poorer people will get free third level education as well as generous grants for attending. The better off will have to pay circa 2k a year for year of third level education plus get no grants.

Add in the fact that students from DEIS areas get more funding and can access courses with lower scores I really don't see these barriers to entry that you are talking about.

seasidedub

klaaaz wrote: »

seasidedub wrote: »

Lived, studied, worked, married and speak the language. Am not rich.Disagree with "happily living together". Tapiola, Kauniainen, I could go on and name at least 20 expensive and desirable areas where people clamour to live and get away from areas with high levels of social welfare recipients and immigrants- Finland actually produces and publishes a map of the areas where most migrants live and surprise surprise they are cheaper. Other than city centre where the high level of foreigners is accounted for by "ex pats" ie different to migrants.

Pretty much the same social divisions as here. In my experience. Certain schools seen as desirable, plenty of private healthcare etc. People strive to live beside people they perceive as being most like them.

Finns are cleaner- yes.

Disagree with your disagreement, i've been there to Helsinki many times. You listed the most expensive suburb of Westend as your example , it's the wealthiest area in Helsinki. That is NOT representative of the population, that shows your bias towards the rich.

The income inequality in Helsinki is not on the same extreme as here, they have proper free education unlike the education apartheid here. Their poor kids can obtain a higher education without financial barriers stopping them like here. What that means is that most people can obtain good paying jobs hence less poverty around, unlike our horrendous model where the lower classes have consistently poor levels of university access.

And communal housing there has worked where workers and those on the social live happily, they even get along in the communal sauna!

You seem to have a problem with foreigners living in a city, why is that?

I have no problem with it - I was a foreigner there myself! What I was pointing out in terms of the original vein of the thread was that people tend to want to live close to people they perceive as being most like themselves and I found it to be true in Scandinavia as well although we are led to believe differently.

I worked with 'ordinary " not rich Finns and they were very upfront in saying they used that map to avoid areas of high immigration. And they spoke of areas of high concentration of social welfare recipients much as many here do. Not positively. I'm simply saying in my experience it was not the happy crappy socialist dream we are fed.

Students are better provided for but most need loans as well. My husband had one. The small allowance and cheap housing for students won't see you through.

Communal sauna and laundry rooms are a feature of apartment blocks. They would not work here. We are not capable of that.

klaaaz

seasidedub wrote: »

I have no problem with it - I was a foreigner there myself! What I was pointing out in terms of the original vein of the thread was that people tend to want to live close to people they perceive as being most like themselves and I found it to be true in Scandinavia as well although we are led to believe differently.

I worked with 'ordinary " not rich Finns and they were very upfront in saying they used that map to avoid areas of high immigration. And they spoke of areas of high concentration of social welfare recipients much as many here do. Not positively. I'm simply saying in my experience it was not the happy crappy socialist dream we are fed.

Students are better provided for but most need loans as well. My husband had one. The small allowance and cheap housing for students won't see you through.

Communal sauna and laundry rooms are a feature of apartment blocks. They would not work here. We are not capable of that.

Yes it's more true in Dublin than Helsinki for people living alongside those of similar incomes, we really do not have that social mix in housing here. The Finns have a better socialist oriented model of economy there than here, it's a more equal society especially in education, childcare and healthcare.

You're conflating an area of high immigration with an area of social welfare recipients, they are not the same. Immigrants too live in upmarket areas. The recent election was won on the basis that the Finns want to continue their economic model of socialist equality and not go down the route of capitalist inequality like here and the UK.

klaaaz

Klonker wrote: »

What financial barriers do the poor have here in relation to education?

They get free primary and secondary school, child allowance same as everyone else. The better well off in society will pay more on top of this that the poorer don't have to.

Poorer people will get free third level education as well as generous grants for attending. The better off will have to pay circa 2k a year for year of third level education plus get no grants.

Add in the fact that students from DEIS areas get more funding and can access courses with lower scores I really don't see these barriers to entry that you are talking about.

Really? Education is far from free in this country. Lower income students do not tend to go to private secondary schools as they cannot afford the fees, hence affluent students tend to get that advantage of wealth to get a better university education. Finland does not have that many private schools, the vast majority of students attend state schools. Equal opportunity for all.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/affluent-students-14-times-more-likely-to-go-to-university-than-disadvantaged-peers-1.3718777?fbclid=IwAR1BDd_C4UBTrCFfF_-EW895kOp70LEch6Nzkll3Qx_taA-0gLH-CmaHFxI

Donald Trump

Klonker wrote: »

What financial barriers do the poor have here in relation to education?

They get free primary and secondary school, child allowance same as everyone else. The better well off in society will pay more on top of this that the poorer don't have to.

Poorer people will get free third level education as well as generous grants for attending. The better off will have to pay circa 2k a year for year of third level education plus get no grants.

Add in the fact that students from DEIS areas get more funding and can access courses with lower scores I really don't see these barriers to entry that you are talking about.

I don't see barriers to education as being strictly financial. Yes, it would have an impact in terms of making things more difficult, but I wouldn't consider that to be a strict "barrier".


However there is a social barrier when you are brought up by parents who don't value education. None of your cousins or peers value it. You don't know anyone who went off to college. You're 17/18 and further education doesn't cross your mind.


If you don't understand those social barriers, then you probably came from a house where it was expected that you would, or at least that you could or might, go to college (or at least get qualified in a decent trade). Maybe your older siblings did a course somewhere. Or maybe even your parents did their Leaving and went on to do something else or had a decent job. The kids that don't see the value in it aren't stupid -they just don't know. For the kids from better off background who do go on to do something - they might not be smarter. It might just be the default and natural expected progression.



(Of course, further education is not for everyone. That's a different topic though)

Klonker

klaaaz wrote: »

Really? Education is far from free in this country. Lower income students do not tend to go to private secondary schools as they cannot afford the fees, hence affluent students tend to get that advantage of wealth to get a better university education. Finland does not have that many private schools, the vast majority of students attend state schools. Equal opportunity for all.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/affluent-students-14-times-more-likely-to-go-to-university-than-disadvantaged-peers-1.3718777?fbclid=IwAR1BDd_C4UBTrCFfF_-EW895kOp70LEch6Nzkll3Qx_taA-0gLH-CmaHFxI

Come on, your argument is laughable and you know it. Ireland has very little private schools. The below statement is just as true as yours about Finland.
I'm not disagreeing that students in less affluent areas are less likely to go to college, I'm disagreeing the financial barriers, as you stated, is the reason.

Finland Ireland does not have that many private schools, the vast majority of students attend state schools. Equal opportunity for all.

Klonker

Donald Trump wrote: »

I don't see barriers to education as being strictly financial. Yes, it would have an impact in terms of making things more difficult, but I wouldn't consider that to be a strict "barrier".


However there is a social barrier when you are brought up by parents who don't value education. None of your cousins or peers value it. You don't know anyone who went off to college. You're 17/18 and further education doesn't cross your mind.


If you don't understand those social barriers, then you probably came from a house where it was expected that you would, or at least that you could or might, go to college (or at least get qualified in a decent trade). Maybe your older siblings did a course somewhere. Or maybe even your parents did their Leaving and went on to do something else or had a decent job. The kids that don't see the value in it aren't stupid -they just don't know. For the kids from better off background who do go on to do something - they might not be smarter. It might just be the default and natural expected progression.



(Of course, further education is not for everyone. That's a different topic though)

I agree with everything you said there. The poster I was responding to said that the barriers are financial which I disagreed with. I agree with you that there are barriers but that they are not financial, but rather social as you mentioned, specifically their parents attitudes to education.

Donald Trump

Klonker wrote: »

I agree with everything you said there. The poster I was responding to said that the barriers are financial which I disagreed with. I agree with you that there are barriers but that they are not financial, but rather social as you mentioned, specifically their parents attitudes to education.

Oh yeah. Sorry, I wasn't directing it at "you" yourself. I just quoted your post to add to it and used a generic "you" in my response for the other bit.

Cal4567

The problem to me has been the councils and their non management of estates. I think we should see more Housing Bodies working across Ireland. Theit housing looks well managed and maintained. It is their core business, they wouldn't be in existence otherwise, whereas with the councils, they have made a mess of it.

caff

Cal4567 wrote: »

The problem to me has been the councils and their non management of estates. I think we should see more Housing Bodies working across Ireland. Theit housing looks well managed and maintained. It is their core business, they wouldn't be in existence otherwise, whereas with the councils, they have made a mess of it.

Council budgets are easily raided and cut. A semi state housing body would have dedicated funding with less scope for raising or cutting of maintenance funds.

Donald Trump

caff wrote: »

Council budgets are easily raided and cut. A semi state housing body would have dedicated funding with less scope for raising or cutting of maintenance funds.

Councils waste far too much money and nobody is ever held accountable for bad decisions.

LirW

Donald Trump wrote: »

Councils waste far too much money and nobody is ever held accountable for bad decisions.

Like ripping perfectly fine houses apart to just do everything new.

Donald Trump

LirW wrote: »

Like ripping perfectly fine houses apart to just do everything new.

That stuff is pocket change compared to some of the stupidity

myshirt

Bictables wrote: »

In the interest of pedantry, Galway City's population is 80k.

And Limerick is well in excess of 100k, but the official policital boundary will show c. 100k.