Why are the government mixing social housing with private housing?

suicide_circus

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Uh huh. For many in our fair isle, Mammy and Daddy are their social welfare providers. Sure, Mammy and Daddy have earned that money but their offspring haven’t.

people passing wealth and property on to their children? as has been done since the beginning of time you mean?

Annasopra

14dMoney wrote: »

But why are we moving from that model?

To move away from ghettoisation of the poor and to encourage an integrated inclusive society where middle class and eorking class can live side by side

Il Fascista

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To move away from ghettoisation of the poor and to encourage an integrated inclusive society where middle class and eorking class can live side by side

Shouldn't we demand that there's some proof that it could work before we implement such a policy?

14dMoney

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To move away from ghettoisation of the poor and to encourage an integrated inclusive society where middle class and eorking class can live side by side

Yes, people who work hard to provide a high standard of living for themselves and their children should be forced to put up with Anto and Deco shooting up in the house next to them because it's inclusive.

14dMoney

Il Fascista wrote: »

Shouldn't we demand that there's some proof that it could work before we implement such a policy?

And of course there's no proof, because it doesn't work. It goes against human nature to associate with people who have such different ideas to them. Where my parents are from, the entire community pulled together and started a tidy towns initiative. They raise funds from their own pockets, litter pick, maintain and improve the area in their spare time. A council family moved in a few years ago and the place is trashed. All of these decent, hardworking peoples work has now gone to ****.

This kind of Eutopia will never exist. Areas like Ballymun and Darndale where destroyed by the residents, no one else.

Yurt2

Your totally credible anecdote about where your parents are from really ought to be the guiding principle of national housing policy.

As other people have stated, I'd much rather have social tenants as a neighbour rather than a poison dwarf like you who thinks his sh*t don't stink.

I'd bet my bottom dollar you're a severe pain in the hoop to be around.

14dMoney

Yurt! wrote: »

Your totally credible anecdote about where your parents are from really ought to be the guiding principle of national housing policy.

As other people have stated, I'd much rather have social tenants as a neighbour rather than a poison dwarf like you who thinks his sh*t don't stink.

I'd bet my bottom dollar you're a severe pain in the hoop to be around.

You probably are a social tenant.

Yurt2

14dMoney wrote: »

You probably are a social tenant.

Lol, nope again. Even if I was, I wouldn't be be made ashamed by low-IQ reprobates like you who spend their days sitting on the toilet 'in work' posting about breastmilk cheese.

eviltwin

14dMoney wrote: »

You probably are a social tenant.

What makes you say that

14dMoney

Yurt! wrote: »

Lol, nope again. Even if I was, I wouldn't be be made ashamed by low-IQ reprobates like you who spend their days sitting on the toilet 'in work' posting about breastmilk cheese.

As opposed to a genius like you, who spends his time constantly replying to obvious ****-posting, for days on end?

Yurt2

14dMoney wrote: »

As opposed to a genius like you, who spends his time constantly replying to obvious ****-posting, for days on end?

So I take it sh*t posting is your hobby. Perhaps you should take up a different hobby, draw back the curtains and go for a walk or meet some people.


You're a troubled individual. You have my pity.

14dMoney

Yurt! wrote: »

So I take it sh*t posting is your hobby. Perhaps you should take up a different hobby, draw back the curtains and go for a walk or meet some people.


You're a troubled individual. You have my pity.

The irony of you telling someone to go out and meet people, when you're the omnipresent lurker of literally every thread.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

people passing wealth and property on to their children? as has been done since the beginning of time you mean?

Yup. The recipient hasn’t worked for it. Which was my point.

Yurt2

14dMoney wrote: »

The irony of you telling someone to go out and meet people, when you're the omnipresent lurker of literally every thread.

I'm posting this from a cafe overlooking a beautiful Italian piazza after a morning of hillwalking with longstanding friends. You're in a darkened room probably on your fifth w*nk of the day in between posting about social housing and breastmilk cheese.

My pity, you have it.

14dMoney

Yurt! wrote: »

I'm posting this from a cafe overlooking a beautiful Italian piazza after a morning of hillwalking with longstanding friends. You're in a darkened room probably on your fifth w*nk of the day in between posting about social housing and breastmilk cheese.

My pity, you have it.

At least your thoughts keep you happy.

14dMoney

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yup. The recipient hasn’t worked for it. Which was my point.

But it's the person's right to do what they want with their money. If they want to toss into the river Styx they should be allowed. Likewise, if the want their children to be the beneficiaries of their estate, it's their right to.

end of the road

JayZeus wrote: »

Maybe when everyone could work hard, pay their way and provide what they want for themselves and their families without having to accept other people taking the easy road and the handout, then maybe everyone would 'get on better within the private community'.

If people want to create community, they can do that without having a pot to piss in. They certainly don't need to piss in someone elses pot to do so. Most people realise that. Unfortunately enough, there's a fair few who think they should be able to piss in any pot they like, because there's enough to go around and they didn't get off their arses to get their own pot in the first place, but sure not to worry, the fella next door worked/saved/sacrificed enough to afford two or three pots so sure, I'll just take one of his then instead.

Nah. Work/contribute, or to hell with you. People who live on social welfare aren't bad people by virtue of the fact they need financial assistance. I've known plenty, family, neighbours and friends who've needed to sign on over the years. But every one of them also knew people who had no right to be claiming what they did, working cash-in-hand jobs, paying nothing back, while living in housing provided by the council for a pittance. All the while, others worked their arses off, paid 62% tax (no joke...) on the few hours of overtime they might get and so on.

So no. The former have no right to live amongst the latter. They've not earned it. They've not contributed. They're not lesser humans, but they're crap neighbours, crap citizens, crap members of society. As a human, they're the same as anyone else. It's in every other regard they fall so far short, and I'm talking the long term unemployed here who won't relocate or sacrifice to be able to work and pay their way (including their taxes), that they should IMHO be pushed into housing in areas where they have no more than a roof over their heads and a place to lay down and wait to die.

If you live in rural Donegal (or wherever you say there's no work), have a degree and you still sign on, get up off your hole and relocate/emigrate. Take your family with you if you have to. Stop expecting to get a house surrounded by people who actually put the effort in to make a better life for themself and their families. And if you can't do that, you can rot.

lots of lovely but irrelevant soundbites and self rightious nonsense there, all of which have become irrelevant due to modernization.
you are the exact reason why mixing social and private housing is needed and is a fantastic idea. to beat the classism out of society. social ghettoization was tried and it doesn't work.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its not like those areas were bad to start with, the reality is it is almost always dragged down by social tenants who then make it harder for other social tenants e.g not wanting to write that address on a CV.

it's people who look down their noses at addresses who are responsible for people being afraid to put addresses down on their cv. social tenants who are badly behaved are just the excuse, and if it wasn't them it would be something else.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If you actually seperated social housing into two or 3 tiers where you had a mix of those social tenants who are employed and have no convictions into private estates and isolated off those with convictions and lifetime welfare recipients to create their own misery you could prevent this happening.

and potentially increase costs.
as said above those people would just find another excuse.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its incredibly unfair that those who grew up with working parents and were taught a work ethic are stigmatised because the loudest ressonance in the estate are determined to ruin everyones existance and drag down the image of an area.

it is unfair they are stigmatised full stop, whatever the reason. whatever the reason, it is those doing the stigmatising of anyone who are responsible for stigmatising.

dudara

@Yurt! and 14dMoney - Stop arguing on thread. If you want to argue with each other, do it via PM and stop subjecting other posters to it. If you continue this, I will issue cards.

dudara

14dMoney

end of the road wrote: »

it is unfair they are stigmatised full stop, whatever the reason. whatever the reason, it is those doing the stigmatising of anyone who are responsible for stigmatising.

No it's unfair that those of us motivated enough to provide a home through our own hard work for our families, then have to put up with the stream of anti-social behaviour that comes from these poor "disadvantaged" tenants.

Idbatterim

sick of hearing about ballymun, as if it was a failure because it was a "tower" capital dock is a "tower" eight floors higher in the docklands, I can only imagine the well educated , well paid work force are tearing the place apart :rolleyes:

end of the road

14dMoney wrote: »

Yes, people who work hard to provide a high standard of living for themselves and their children should be forced to put up with Anto and Deco shooting up in the house next to them because it's inclusive.

nope, not what was said as you know.
if anto and decko are shooting up in the house next door, there are remedies available.

end of the road

14dMoney wrote: »

No it's unfair that those of us motivated enough to provide a home through our own hard work for our families, then have to put up with the stream of anti-social behaviour that comes from these poor "disadvantaged" tenants.

it's unfair for anyone to have to put up with anti-social behaviour from the tiny minority who engage in it. however
1. it has nothing to do with what i stated and.
2. there are remedies available if one is experiencing anti-social behaviour, but it will require the effected person to keep persuing the authorities to deal with it.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

nope, not what was said as you know.
if anto and decko are shooting up in the house next door, there are remedies available.

Exactly. Banished to a kip estate at the end of a lane in somewhere like Leitrim, surrounded by a bog, forests and with no easy public transport to bother folks going to work or trying to do their shopping in the cities.

A barbed wire fence and a curfew would be good measures to complement their geographic isolation from decent people. To hell with them.

end of the road

JayZeus wrote: »

Exactly. Banished to a kip estate at the end of a lane in somewhere like Leitrim, surrounded by a bog, forests and with no easy public transport to bother folks going to work or trying to do their shopping in the cities.

A barbed wire fence and a curfew would be good measures to complement their geographic isolation from decent people. To hell with them.

nope, wouldn't be a remedy as it would be unlikely to achieve any of it's aims.
it would be the same as taking money and flushing it down the jacks.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

nope, wouldn't be a remedy as it would be unlikely to achieve any of it's aims.
it would be the same as taking money and flushing it down the jacks.

RTE could earn their license fee by producing a Battle Royale movie set in the wasteland, giving the sole survivor a stint in rehab and a job on daytime radio.

I'm serious when I say that I see nothing wrong with taking the human detritus that bleed the taxpayer for the lives of scrounging and substance abuse and piling them onto buses bound for somewhere they'd hate to live. It beats the hell out of the rest of us having to share our own space with them.

Toe the line, pay your way or get to feck.

Or just keep it simple. Let nice people live in nice houses in nice areas that they pay for themselves. Let the rest pick up the scraps.

end of the road

JayZeus wrote: »

RTE could earn their license fee by producing a Battle Royale movie set in the wasteland, giving the sole survivor a stint in rehab and a job on daytime radio.

I'm serious when I say that I see nothing wrong with taking the human detritus that bleed the taxpayer for the lives of scrounging and substance abuse and piling them onto buses bound for somewhere they'd hate to live. It beats the hell out of the rest of us having to share our own space with them.

Toe the line, pay your way or get to feck.

Or just keep it simple. Let nice people live in nice houses in nice areas that they pay for themselves. Let the rest pick up the scraps.

we already tried similar and it failed. time to move on.
mixed developments of social, private rental and mortgaged housing are happening and people will just have to get over it.

InTheShadows

14dMoney wrote: »

Yes, people who work hard to provide a high standard of living for themselves and their children should be forced to put up with Anto and Deco shooting up in the house next to them because it's inclusive.

Again the vast majority in social housing aren't heroin addicts and are normal PAYE workers like private renters. Throwing Anto and Deco into the mix doesn't help your argument either btw.

InTheShadows

14dMoney wrote: »

No it's unfair that those of us motivated enough to provide a home through our own hard work for our families, then have to put up with the stream of anti-social behaviour that comes from these poor "disadvantaged" tenants.

Who's disadvantaged?

So basically what you are saying is that anyone who can't provide a home for their families isn't motivated enough. Is that correct?

LillySV

victor8600 wrote: »

That would be offset by the feeling of smug superiority, so it may be a net gain for the paying class.

A feeling of stupidity more like, having to pay a mortgage that crippled you while you’re lazy neighbor sits around getting the same house for free!!

eagle eye

While there are decent people who are eligible for social housing, and I don't not think anybody would have a problem with them living where they just bought a house, we see lots of families with drug problems being moved into privately built housing estates and that should not be allowed. A lot of these people who have saved hard to buy a house have young families. The junkie will try and rob these kids or worse still try and get them taking drugs. Nobody wants those types around.
This new thing where county councils are buying houses in other counties to get rid of the problem should be outlawed.