more nimbyism in Chapelizod ***Read Mod Note in OP***

Ray Palmer

Graces7 wrote: »

Perfect for a large family. Especially if they have fallen blamelessly on hard times. Wonderful.

Well obviously not. If they have fallen on hard times they won't be able to afford the up keep. They will never get such a house because the developers won't build them if they have to hand them over. What the rule causes is development not to happen.

The government doesn't have to give people luxury homes just house them.

What happens if the are responsible for their situation are you suggesting they shouldn't get housing from the state? Are you going to have a scale of responsibility and decide who gets the best places?

getting such a house would be akin to winning the lottery. That is not even close to goal of social housing and an incredible waste of money. They could build more properties for the same price but you would prefer one family live in luxury than house more people.

Might be your opinion but I don't think you actually thought out what it actually means. If it is I just fundamentally disagree and have explained why. Want to explain why you think it is a good idea instead of just saying you think they should get such luxury?

Empty_Space

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Might be your opinion but I don't think you actually thought out what it actually means. If it is I just fundamentally disagree and have explained why. Want to explain why you think it is a good idea instead of just saying you think they should get such luxury?

Maybe hes holding out for that 5 bed council house with pool and sauna.

Ray Palmer

Empty_Space wrote: »

Maybe hes holding out for that 5 bed council house with pool and sauna.

Some people will defend others because they see it as a threat to what they have or get.

Social housing is important but not as a lifestyle choice which it is to some. Suggesting luxury housing is suitable is madness IMHO.

Cyrus

bubblypop wrote: »

Well maybe a family, mother father, 2 or 3 kids, ( is that acceptable to you?)

Tipping along nicely, but then dad gets cancer....... Can't work anymore..... Has a few years were he gets treatment, might be OK, cancer comes back..... More treatment. ..........
Mam tries to work as much as she can, but dad is sick, she has kids & a sick husband to care for......

Maybe dad died......

How do we deal with these people nox?
Are there the lazy families that dont care about anything?

isnt it up to all of us to make provisions as best we can for these kind of eventualities?

if i die my mortage is paid by insurance and my wife gets 4-6 times my salary from another insurance policy. i pay for them but at least i know everyone will be taken care of.

if i get a serious illness i have insurance for that.

i see it as my responsibility to provide for these scenarios as best i can.

do you disagree?

Cyrus

Graces7 wrote: »

A house is a house is a house.

its not though?

a 5 bedroom house in an affluent neighbourhood is not the same thing as a 3 bed council house is it?

riclad

Since the 90,s , 95 per cent of the tenants i know have bought the house from the council ,at a discount .
the council will sell you the house if you are working or have the money to buy it .Most of the council house, s were sold off before 2010,
the council wont sell apartments or flats because of issues like insurance and maintenance which would be complex if say 50 per cent of tenants wanted to buy ,other tenants like old pensioners would be able to afford to buy an apartment.if someone is working they should have an insurance policy and also a policy to cover the mortgage in case they fall ill or are involved in a car accident .
my friend lives in a 3 bed council house,he pays rent,
he is not allowed to buy the house because he is separated from his wife but is not divorced ,he could afford to buy the house .

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

isnt it up to all of us to make provisions as best we can for these kind of eventualities?

if i die my mortage is paid by insurance and my wife gets 4-6 times my salary from another insurance policy. i pay for them but at least i know everyone will be taken care of.

if i get a serious illness i have insurance for that.

i see it as my responsibility to provide for these scenarios as best i can.

do you disagree?

I'm not sure what your point is?
Is it that no-one can eve fall on hard times?
My friend was married, 3 kids under 6, when her husband up & left. Not a penny.
He didn't pay the mortgage either. Now, through no fault of her own, she found herself in arrears & dependant on the state, for a short while.
I'm not sure you can get insurance for that.....

Graces7

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Well obviously not. If they have fallen on hard times they won't be able to afford the up keep. They will never get such a house because the developers won't build them if they have to hand them over. What the rule causes is development not to happen.

The government doesn't have to give people luxury homes just house them.

What happens if the are responsible for their situation are you suggesting they shouldn't get housing from the state? Are you going to have a scale of responsibility and decide who gets the best places?

getting such a house would be akin to winning the lottery. That is not even close to goal of social housing and an incredible waste of money. They could build more properties for the same price but you would prefer one family live in luxury than house more people.

Might be your opinion but I don't think you actually thought out what it actually means. If it is I just fundamentally disagree and have explained why. Want to explain why you think it is a good idea instead of just saying you think they should get such luxury?

If you do not see my point nothing I could say would avail.

Basically you are seeing council tenants as second class citizens with thus "rights" only to basic needs.

This is an attitude I have seen and deplored on boards for many years and always reminds me of the old workhouse mentality. NO LUXURIES FOR THEM. Regardless of what disaster has struck, what lifestyle they have been used to , suddenly they are second or third class "citizens"
Now it comes over as " them and us".

Of course I am fully aware of what it "actually means" .
Your original post on the houses was to ensure that if there were to be a mix of private ad social residents on one estate there had to be two different houses, ie stigmatise the council tenant ? Shameful . discriminatory.

Houses are there for folk to live in. If a large family needs a house, wonderful to have one with enough rooms to raise that family in the way a family should be raised. That is the criterion used already.

And neither you nor I not the state has the right to judge and assess who is to blame for their need.
You deny the basis of any welfare or responsible community .. to each according to his need, ie to you as well as others.

The state and many people are doing what is right and good and will support the next generation.
But many here seem to have no idea what a welfare state is.

What I have bolded of your post delineates the degree of prejudice we see so often.

Need to close this now; a weather crisis up here and water where water should not be. So am ending this on my part and courtesy would keep you aware of that and respecting it? Thank you

And anyways, you and I will not be side by side on this. You see money, status; I see need being met. Maybe being on the verge of homelessness not so long ago and with the probability of my car being my next home alters attitudes. My need was met by the council. At a very basic level indeed. By all means provide comforts .

Bye!

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

If you do not see my point nothing I could say would avail.

Basically you are seeing council tenants as second class citizens with thus "rights" only to basic needs.

I'm sorry but yes, when you are being housed by the state because you can't house yourself basic needs is all you should be entitled to. Its not supposed to be an easy comfortable life as people will just rely on the state instead of working. They should want to get out of the situation because its not a great one to be in.

The problem is that in many instances in Ireland things are too good and easy and people are not bothering to work but instead firing out kids and getting housed in nice houses, large social welfare payments etc all at the expense of hard working tax payers who would much prefer their money going on things that actually benefit them not subsidise the lives of people who have no interest in bettering themselves.

Cyrus

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is?
Is it that no-one can eve fall on hard times?
My friend was married, 3 kids under 6, when her husband up & left. Not a penny.
He didn't pay the mortgage either. Now, through no fault of her own, she found herself in arrears & dependant on the state, for a short while.
I'm not sure you can get insurance for that.....

i never said that i responded to one strawman and you created another

but its a common tactic used by a certain cohort, find the most sympathetic fringe case you can and present that and let someone argue against it.

Cyrus

Graces7 wrote: »

If you do not see my point nothing I could say would avail.

Basically you are seeing council tenants as second class citizens with thus "rights" only to basic needs.

This is an attitude I have seen and deplored on boards for many years and always reminds me of the old workhouse mentality. NO LUXURIES FOR THEM. Regardless of what disaster has struck, what lifestyle they have been used to , suddenly they are second or third class "citizens"
Now it comes over as " them and us".

Of course I am fully aware of what it "actually means" .
Your original post on the houses was to ensure that if there were to be a mix of private ad social residents on one estate there had to be two different houses, ie stigmatise the council tenant ? Shameful . discriminatory.

Houses are there for folk to live in. If a large family needs a house, wonderful to have one with enough rooms to raise that family in the way a family should be raised. That is the criterion used already.

And neither you nor I not the state has the right to judge and assess who is to blame for their need.
You deny the basis of any welfare or responsible community .. to each according to his need, ie to you as well as others.

The state and many people are doing what is right and good and will support the next generation.
But many here seem to have no idea what a welfare state is.

What I have bolded of your post delineates the degree of prejudice we see so often.

Need to close this now; a weather crisis up here and water where water should not be. So am ending this on my part and courtesy would keep you aware of that and respecting it? Thank you

And anyways, you and I will not be side by side on this. You see money, status; I see need being met. Maybe being on the verge of homelessness not so long ago and with the probability of my car being my next home alters attitudes. My need was met by the council. At a very basic level indeed. By all means provide comforts .

Bye!

a need can be met without giving people luxury houses that their neighbours have paid 100s of thousands for.

Idbatterim

Cyrus wrote: »

a need can be met without giving people luxury houses that their neighbours have paid 100s of thousands for.

if they get social housing, strip them of any other welfare payments! let them work, they have already been given a ridiculous financial perk!

AulWan

This thread has gone beyond the ridiculous, now.

Hope the next recession treats you well, lads, and that life never throws you a curveball that could see you lose your job, your partner, or your health - or even your home.

I genuinely would not wish that on anyone.

Graces7, mind yourself.

Cyrus

AulWan wrote: »

This thread has gone beyond the ridiculous, now.

Hope the next recession treats you well, lads, and that life never throws you a curveball that could see you lose your job, your partner, or your health - or even your home.

I genuinely would not wish that on anyone.

Graces7, mind yourself.

well if you and graces7 have your way ill be entitled to a luxury house whereever i want so nothing to fear is there?

Empty_Space

Cyrus wrote: »

well if you and graces7 have your way ill be entitled to a luxury house whereever i want so nothing to fear is there?

The real problem with this attitude is all of a sudden the numbers applying for social housing increases and people all of a sudden cant work.

Reality is social houses need to be bottom of the rung, there needs to be serious incentive to pull oneself off the register, although I understand how hard that can be in todays world sometimes.

Graham

Mod Note

oh good, for a minute I was worried this was going to become just another general social welfare bashing thread. Take that debate elsewhere please.

Fair warning, if you're about to post a sweeping generalisation about social welfare, social housing, private homeowners, tenants, landlords, developers, bankers.

DON'T

Kairi Witty Hitter

Kairi Witty Hitter wrote: »

I'm sorry but yes, when you are being housed by the state because you can't house yourself basic needs is all you should be entitled to. Its not supposed to be an easy comfortable life as people will just rely on the state instead of working. They should want to get out of the situation because its not a great one to be in.

The problem is that in many instances in Ireland things are too good and easy and people are not bothering to work but instead firing out kids and getting housed in nice houses, large social welfare payments etc all at the expense of hard working tax payers who would much prefer their money going on things that actually benefit them not subsidise the lives of people who have no interest in bettering themselves.

I don't think anyone believes that social housing should be luxury housing.
Obviously that doesn't make sense.
It should of course be liveable & comfortable, and should never be sold off either.

social housing should be just that, for people who cannot house themselves, they will never own that house, if they can buy a house, then they buy a private house.
as their needs change, they can be then moved into appropriate properties.

you really need to stop tarring everyone with the same brush. <snip>

Idbatterim

AulWan wrote: »

This thread has gone beyond the ridiculous, now.

Hope the next recession treats you well, lads, and that life never throws you a curveball that could see you lose your job, your partner, or your health - or even your home.

I genuinely would not wish that on anyone.

Graces7, mind yourself.

youll be thrown a far bigger curveball if you are paying ridiculous rent or mortgage and you lose your job or a big pay cut. what worry do you have in a social housing? near free rent, guaranteed income from the tax payer every week and if they are working, they can easily pay the mickey mouse rent out of JSA or JSB if made redundant or just dont bother paying, like many of them do!

Xterminator

The councils haven't built a house in decades. thus all the houses they have are purchased or private builds.

You cannot blame the people who need social housing for the ills of the system. Successive governments and local councils have failed to build council estates. Also international best practices is a social mix, not council estates and private estates.

https://www.focusireland.ie/fear-ghetto/

https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/rest/bitstreams/28824/retrieve

Tenure Mixing to Combat Public Housing Stigmatization: external benefits, internal challenges and contextual influences in three Dublin neighbourhoods

no-one is gamng the housing system today. The waiting list is that long that 'going homeless' doesn't result in a 5 bed house with a pool. But hey why discourage a good rant about the great unwashed.

Empty_Space

Out of curiosity, does anyone actually know what the rent rate would be on these Chapelizod homes, roughly?

Ray Palmer

Graces7 wrote: »

If you do not see my point nothing I could say would avail.

Basically you are seeing council tenants as second class citizens with thus "rights" only to basic needs.

This is an attitude I have seen and deplored on boards for many years and always reminds me of the old workhouse mentality. NO LUXURIES FOR THEM. Regardless of what disaster has struck, what lifestyle they have been used to , suddenly they are second or third class "citizens"
Now it comes over as " them and us".

Of course I am fully aware of what it "actually means" .
Your original post on the houses was to ensure that if there were to be a mix of private ad social residents on one estate there had to be two different houses, ie stigmatise the council tenant ? Shameful . discriminatory.

Houses are there for folk to live in. If a large family needs a house, wonderful to have one with enough rooms to raise that family in the way a family should be raised. That is the criterion used already.

And neither you nor I not the state has the right to judge and assess who is to blame for their need.
You deny the basis of any welfare or responsible community .. to each according to his need, ie to you as well as others.

The state and many people are doing what is right and good and will support the next generation.
But many here seem to have no idea what a welfare state is.

What I have bolded of your post delineates the degree of prejudice we see so often.

Need to close this now; a weather crisis up here and water where water should not be. So am ending this on my part and courtesy would keep you aware of that and respecting it? Thank you

And anyways, you and I will not be side by side on this. You see money, status; I see need being met. Maybe being on the verge of homelessness not so long ago and with the probability of my car being my next home alters attitudes. My need was met by the council. At a very basic level indeed. By all means provide comforts .

Bye!

You haven't made a point other than you think social welfare housing should include luxury housing. That isn't a point just your belief.

No I do not see social welfare tenants as second class citizens. Nowhere will you see me say any rights should be removed.

Believing they should not get a luxury home that most people can only dream of is nowhere near saying they can't have any luxury. We are talking about property that sold for €1 million.

Stigmatising people by giving them housing if it is different to others in the same area is a bit silly. We already know where the social housing is for huge areas. People's addresses tell us and people here have proposed building large areas of social housing which would cause the stigmatiztion to be much more obvious. To the extent people who live in private housing where there is mass social housing are assumed to be in social housing and effecting the prices of their property.

It is not and never will be discrimination to not offer a luxury house to somebody not paying for it. It would be discrimination to not allow them buy it. They can buy it if they can afford it if they can't afford it they should not get it. If it is discrimination then I am being discriminated against by not being able to afford it.

You brought up the point about those being worthy of getting social housing not me. You suggest some are more worthy than others.

You really shouldn't be telling me what I think. You can only say what you think. You are actively saying people should get luxury not just their needs met. As I have pointed out these were €1 million properties you are suggesting it would be better to house two families rather than spend €2 million to house more. That is certainly where we will never see eye to eye because to me that is madness. They can still get a 5 bed property to meet needs not a luxury property they could never afford to maintain.

Mr Tickle

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes that social housing should be luxury housing.
Obviously that doesn't make sense.
It should of course be liveable & comfortable, and should never be sold off either.

social housing should be just that, for people who cannot house themselves, they will never own that house, if they can buy a house, then they buy a private house.

I'm not sure I agree that is should NEVER be sold. Not in the near future obviously. But maybe if the social housing stocks get back to a more reasonable level and the private rental market is.....less of a post apocalyptic hellscape.

With good controls it's a system that can work. The price shouldn't undercut the private market, and the applicant would have to be a model tenant but i think it's a valuable system. What's crucial though is that the houses aren't sold at a higher rate than they are being built.

An alternative is that banks could consider rent payments (private or council) into account when determining your ability to make repayments. As I understand it, they currently only look at your saving towards the deposit. Correct?

woohoo!!!

<SNIP>

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Cyrus wrote: »

well if you and graces7 have your way ill be entitled to a luxury house whereever i want so nothing to fear is there?

I have terminal cancer. It’s news to me that I’m entitled to a luxury house to live in. When will this blessed event occur?

AulWan

Cyrus wrote: »

well if you and graces7 have your way ill be entitled to a luxury house whereever i want so nothing to fear is there?

If you care to read back, no, I never actually said that. I actually agree with the logic that it's money better spent to house 4 families in 4 houses each costing €250k each, then 1 family in a house valued at €1m.

What I do have an issue with, is anyone who thinks that their socio-economic group and the value of their €1m "assets" should lead to the area they live in being exempted from any other type of development - be that affordable housing, buy-to-let, social housing or private homes on a more modest scale.

Every area, every postcode, should have a mixed share of ALL of the above. Thats what integration means. Not that any one postcode should have none of a particular type of development, while another has more. Developers should not be allowed to pay there way out of this either, because it is the opposite of integration.

There are areas of Dublin in particular (and I'm sure the same could be said of Cork, Galway, or any other city) that already have a large amount of social housing / affordable / private housing to the point that they are already saturated.

It is not fair to shoe-horn more social housing into every spare scrap of land within those areas, taking up what little green space there is, because Mr 5 Beds /3 Reception rooms with stables has notions about himself and objects to any other type of development within 2k of his "asset". Frankly, **** you, Mr 5Bed for your selfishness, when there are 10,000 people without a fixed place to live that they can call home, and god knows how many others stuck in their parents' homes.

In fact, I'd argue that the levy on luxury housing that should be paid towards social housing, should be increased by and additional 10% for every half kilometer of distance you demand. If you can afford a €1m house, you can afford to be generous in giving a bit more back for the benefit of your community.

Horsebox9000

AulWan wrote: »

If you care to read back, no, I never actually said that. I actually agree with the logic that it's money better spent to house 4 families in 4 houses each costing €250k each, then 1 family in a house valued at €1m.

What I do have an issue with, is anyone who thinks that their socio-economic group and the value of their €1m "assets" should lead to the area they live in being exempted from any other type of development - be that affordable housing, buy-to-let, social housing or private homes on a more modest scale.

Every area, every postcode, should have a mixed share of ALL of the above. Thats what integration means. Not that any one postcode should have none of a particular type of development, while another has more. Developers should not be allowed to pay there way out of this either, because it is the opposite of integration.

There are areas of Dublin in particular (and I'm sure the same could be said of Cork, Galway, or any other city) that already have a large amount of social housing / affordable / private housing to the point that they are already saturated.

It is not fair to shoe-horn more social housing into every spare scrap of land within those areas, taking up what little green space there is, because Mr 5 Beds /3 Reception rooms with stables has notions about himself and objects to any other type of development within 2k of his "asset". Frankly, **** you, Mr 5Bed for your selfishness, when there are 10,000 people without a fixed place to live that they can call home, and god knows how many others stuck in their parents' homes.

In fact, I'd argue that the levy on luxury housing that should be paid towards social housing, should be increased by and additional 10% for every half kilometer of distance you demand. If you can afford a €1m house, you can afford to be generous in giving a bit more back for the benefit of your community.

We get it. You hate rich people.

AulWan

Horsebox9000 wrote: »

We get it. You hate rich people.

Only the selfish ones.

Cyrus

AulWan wrote: »

If you care to read back, no, I never actually said that. I actually agree with the logic that it's money better spent to house 4 families in 4 houses each costing €250k each, then 1 family in a house valued at €1m.

What I do have an issue with, is anyone who thinks that their socio-economic group and the value of their €1m "assets" should lead to the area they live in being exempted from any other type of development - be that affordable housing, buy-to-let, social housing or private homes on a more modest scale.

Every area, every postcode, should have a mixed share of ALL of the above. Thats what integration means. Not that any one postcode should have none of a particular type of development, while another has more. Developers should not be allowed to pay there way out of this either, because it is the opposite of integration.

There are areas of Dublin in particular (and I'm sure the same could be said of Cork, Galway, or any other city) that already have a large amount of social housing / affordable / private housing to the point that they are already saturated.

It is not fair to shoe-horn more social housing into every spare scrap of land within those areas, taking up what little green space there is, because Mr 5 Beds /3 Reception rooms with stables has notions about himself and objects to any other type of development within 2k of his "asset". Frankly, **** you, Mr 5Bed for your selfishness, when there are 10,000 people without a fixed place to live that they can call home, and god knows how many others stuck in their parents' homes.

In fact, I'd argue that the levy on luxury housing that should be paid towards social housing, should be increased by and additional 10% for every half kilometer of distance you demand. If you can afford a €1m house, you can afford to be generous in giving a bit more back for the benefit of your community.

How much more would you want from them ? They already pay huge amounts of income tax and property tax on that expensive house . Probably have a massive mortgage aswell but yeah bleed them dry, that's the solution.

Let's build social houses in foxroxk and Ballsbridge.

You don't need to explain integration, I just don't see it as a good idea or one I'd support , there's a reason expensive places are expensive

AulWan

Cyrus wrote: »

How much more would you want from them ? They already pay huge amounts of income tax and property tax on that expensive house . Probably have a massive mortgage aswell but yeah bleed them dry, that's the solution.

Let's build social houses in foxroxk and Ballsbridge.

You don't need to explain integration, I just don't see it as a good idea or one I'd support , there's a reason expensive places are expensive

It really seems like it does need to be explained, because integration does not mean exclusion, like you seem to want.

Are you seriously suggesting that I should be feeling sorry for someone who can afford a luxury home? For real?

And yes, I see no reason not to have social housing in those areas, too. No reason at all.

Empty_Space

AulWan wrote: »

It really seems like it does need to be explained, because integration does not mean exclusion, like you seem to want.

Are you seriously suggesting that I should be feeling sorry for someone who can afford a luxury home? For real?

And yes, I see no reason not to have social housing in those areas, too. No reason at all.

I'll give you a reason, cost to the tax payer and budget.

There's this thing called money, it doesn't grow on trees.:)