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

anewme

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.

No one is asking you to feel sorry for them.

You should respect them though.

People who are successful and work to buy their own homes should be respected.

You speak of them as if they are just cash machines to be exploited and just pushed and penalised to pay more and more for other people.

Entitlement culture gone mad.

Enter name here

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.

It really seems like it does need to be explained, because integration means you integrate with people of similar lifestyles. Not those you aspire to be.

Are you seriously suggesting that I should feel sorry for someone who can't afford a luxury home? For real?

And yes, I see no reason to have social housing in those areas, too. No reason at all.

Jinglejangle69

Xterminator wrote: »

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


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.

Seriously just stop please just stop.

Your so full of ****.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-builds-2018-4492346-Feb2019/%3famp=1

NEW FIGURES SHOW there were 4,251 new-build social houses built in 2018

That's 2018.

AulWan

anewme wrote: »

No one is asking you to feel sorry for them.

You should respect them though.

People who are successful and work to buy their own homes should be respected.

You speak of them as if they are just cash machines to be exploited and just pushed to pay more and more for other people.

I don't reward people with my respect based on their finances, their home ownership status, or how much tax they pay.

I reward people with my respect based on how they treat other people.

And I'm not seeing a lot to respect here from those who- despite being in a good position themselves - they seek to stigmatise social tenants and argue to have them excluded from living in their areas.

Sorry, no, I don't respect that.

AulWan

Enter name here wrote: »

It really seems like it does need to be explained, because integration means you integrate with people of similar lifestyles. Not those you aspire to be.

No it does not.

The rule that was brought in was that 10% of all new units in estates and apartment developments should be set aside for social housing.

Not 10% of units somewhere else, based on the occupants having a "similar lifestyle".

Titclamp

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The houses are not going to drop 20% because some social housing is near.

Work in real estate do you?

anewme

AulWan wrote: »

I don't reward people with my respect based on their finances, their home ownership status, or how much tax they pay.

I reward people with my respect based on how they treat other people.

And I'm not seeing a lot to respect here from those who- despite being in a good position themselves - they seek to stigmatise social tenants and argue to have them excluded from living in their areas.

Sorry, no, I don't respect that.

Seeing people who work hard and can afford to buy a home in a nice area as a cash machine to pay extra for you, because you cant, is just begrudgery and jealousy.

If I could live in a better area, I would, but I dont want to penalise others because I cant afford to.

I dont feel I'm entitled to live there either.

AulWan

anewme wrote: »

Seeing people who work hard and can afford to buy a home in a nice area as a cash machine to pay extra for you, because you cant, is just begrudgery and jealousy.

If I could live in a better area, I would, but I dont want to penalise others because I cant.

@Anewme, in case you forget, I already own my own home and am very happy with it and where I live. I don't aspire to live in a "better area". So I have nothing to be jealous of, or begrudge anyone.

There is a mix of owner occupier, renters and within the last few years some council tenants in my estate, (including directly next door to me) and they are fine. The estate hasn't gone down in flames overnight at their addition, and according to the property price index, the house prices haven't gone down either. So I guess that says it all.

However, the sheer level of absolutely bitter begrudgery directed at those who qualify for social housing is a true eye opener.

anewme

AulWan wrote: »

@Anewme, in case you forget, I already own my own home and am very happy with it and where I live. I don't aspire to live in a "better area". So I have nothing to be jealous of, or begrudge anyone.

There is a mix of owner occupier, renters and within the last few years some council tenants in my estate, (including directly next door to me) and they are fine. The estate hasn't gone down in flames overnight at their addition, and according to the property price index, the house prices haven't gone down either. So I guess that says it all.

However, the sheer level of absolutely bitter begrudgery directed at those who qualify for social housing is a true eye opener.

You fail to understand that not everyone wants the same as you and if they dont they just have different priorities to you.

I live in a nice area, but if I could live in a nice area by the sea, I would do so. Because I'd like to do that and you dont, that does not make you a better more rounded person, much as you think it. Living where you want comes at a cost.

If someone can live in a 1m house, by the sea, best of luck to them. You seem to think they should be penalised for this or that everyones ceiling should be the same as yours.

Expecting social housing to be at the same availability as premium property is as unrealistic, as it is unfair.

If we could all live where we'd like, most people would have a load of kids and live in a five bed house in a posh area and expect others to pay. But ultimately someone has to pay. Life isn't free or fair.

AulWan

anewme wrote: »

You fail to understand that not everyone wants the same as you and if they dont they just have different priorities to you.

I live in a nice area , but if I could live in a nice area by the sea, I would do so. Living where you want comes at a cost.

If someone can live in a 1m house, by the sea, best of luck to them. You seem to think they should be penalised for this.

Expecting social housing to be at the same availability as premium property is as unrealistic, as it is unfair.

If we could all live where we'd like, most people would have a load of kids and live in a five bed house in a posh area and expect others to pay. But ultimately someone has to pay. Life isn't free or fair.

And you fail to understand that this is not all about you or what you want or apsire too.

No one expects social housing to be at the same availablity. The requirement is for 10% of new builds be made available for social housing. Not 50%, which would be the same, but a mere 10%.

And that is 10% of new builds, not 10% of ALL housing in any area.

It is a far better and fairer system then throwing up vast estates of social houses all lumped in together with skeleton level of services, lack of public transport, no jobs and even fewer opportunities.

That kind of estate does nothing to influence breaking the cycle of welfare dependancy for those who don't work, or present much in the way of opportunity for those who do.

anewme

AulWan wrote: »

And you fail to understand that this is not all about you or what you want or apsire too.

No one expects social housing to be at the same availablity. The requirement is for 10% of new builds be made available for social housing. Not 50%, which would be the same, but a mere 10%.

And that is 10% of new builds, not 10% of ALL housing in any area.

It is a far better and fairer system then throwing up vast estates of social houses all lumped in together with skeleton level of services, lack of public transport, no jobs and even fewer opportunities.

That kind of estate does nothing to influence breaking the cycle of welfare dependancy for those who don't work, or present much in the way of opportunity for those who do.

You are the only one here setting your standards as the standards to aspire to or the cut off point. Because it suits you to live where you live, if someone else wants somewhere different, or in their opinion better, that's their choice. Why dont you live in a Council area then ?

There are many Estates with no social housing and people are choosing to buy in these areas. That does not make them bad people.

This thread for example, is about why residents in Chapelizod dont want a 100 per cent social housing estate in their area.

You said people who could afford a luxury house should pay more tax, that's just pure begrudgery.

AulWan

The comment I made about the levy on the 5 Bed / 3 reception luxury house was tongue-in-cheek, that is why I stuck an emoji after it. Obviously, it went over your head.

I don't live in an exclusively council area is because I didn't qualify for social housing. There is plenty of council estates close by, as well as non-council estates.

Look, I am bored now, and we're just going around in circles.

You want me to say that I think it's okay for people to demand the right to exclusivity in the areas they want to live in because they can buy, and for new estates to be built where the allocation for social tenants is not included to suit them. I don't necessarily think they are "bad" people per se, but I don't agree with the rules should be broken for them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not overly familiar with Chapelizod as an area, and I don't know what the ratios of private to social housing is there but the bottom line is right now, in Dublin in particular, the lack of available housing has reached a crisis point and there are all kinds of people who need roofs over their heads, not just rooms in hotels or hostels because they can't find a home they can afford to rent even with a job. I consider their needs as taking priority over someone else's demands for exclusivity.

Maybe in ten years, the situation will be different. But for now, it is what it is.

Night now.

Graces7

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.

Thank you; I am fine and seeing the truth of these …… well, words fail. is a liberation and explains and relieves some of what I have been through as a disabled person seeking a home.

Makes it easier knowing how wrong they are and how much suffering they cause; and thankful my faith family work to alleviate the plight of needy folk.
For us there is no THEM and US. Only ALL OF US

Not reading back at the posts since I logged off last night; will be same old same old! As if I worry re what folk who scorn others write. Will go on supporting work with the needy

And reading the news, another homeless man dead.

PS if you want to email . fine by me!

anewme

AulWan wrote: »

The comment I made about the levy on the 5 Bed / 3 reception luxury house was tongue-in-cheek, that is why I stuck an emoji after it. Obviously, it went over your head.

Look, I am bored now, and we're just going around in circles.

I'm not overly familiar with Chapelizod as an area, and I don't know what the ratios of private to social housing is there but the bottom line is right now, in Dublin in particular, the lack of available housing.

Night now.

Putting an emoji at the end of a bitchy comment is not tongue in cheek, its passive agressive.

As is saying, I'm bored now, I'm tired now, I want my lunch as you have said to many people here- end of discussion. It reads like the Queen dismissing a servant. " I've said my piece now, Jeeves, be off with you'. You discount others experiences, as in, you have had a positive experience in a mixed area, therefore anyone who hasnt must be lying or imagining things. I really dont think the person who posted on the other thread they had to leave was making it up. That person was paying more to move to a better area and they were dead right.

There is a shortage of housing in Dublin. That's why people who bought their homes have to buy outside and commute in. No one is entitled to a house in an area of their choosing. I'm not sure why you think they would be.

I know Chapelizid, it's not that big, I can understand why residents would have concerns 71 units with no balance is big enough for where it's going.

batman_oh

AulWan wrote: »

@Anewme, in case you forget, I already own my own home and am very happy with it and where I live. I don't aspire to live in a "better area". So I have nothing to be jealous of, or begrudge anyone.

There is a mix of owner occupier, renters and within the last few years some council tenants in my estate, (including directly next door to me) and they are fine. The estate hasn't gone down in flames overnight at their addition, and according to the property price index, the house prices haven't gone down either. So I guess that says it all.

However, the sheer level of absolutely bitter begrudgery directed at those who qualify for social housing is a true eye opener.

Begrudge people who in lots of cases are multi generational spongers that plan their whole life around popping out kids to get free houses like their parents?
I don't think it's begrudging - it's being sickened having to work your ass off to pay for something when somebody else's only achievement is shagging absent fathers and sitting on their hole

AulWan

Then your perceptions are off.

There are hundreds of houses and apartments being built for purchase all over Dublin. For every 1 that is made available for social housing there are 9 more available for purchase.

Yet somehow, you think its because of those 1-in-10 social homes is what is forcing so many to buy and commute!?!?

Of the homes in Chapelizod, those homes have not be allocated yet and for all anyone here knows, could go to a mix of tenants, including low income working families among them. I'm not a supporter of the growing popular theory that social tenants should not be able to live close to the city. Remember that areas like Ballyfermot (close enough to Chapelizod), and areas like Kimmage, Crumlin, and Drimnagh - all started out as vast social housing estates.

I'm just glad there are more social homes coming on stream for the people who need them. Not quick enough, imo.. Now,I have to go to work.

(Sorry if you perceive my having the manners to explain why I am about to disappear to for a few hours, as dismissing you.)

Ush1

AulWan wrote: »

Then your perceptions are off.

There are hundreds of houses and apartments being built for purchase all over Dublin. For every 1 that is made available for social housing there are 9 more available for purchase.

Yet somehow, you think its because of those 1-in-10 social homes is what is forcing so many to buy and commute!?!?

Of the homes in Chapelizod, those homes have not be allocated yet and for all anyone here knows, could go to a mix of tenants, including low income working families among them. I'm not a supporter of the growing popular theory that social tenants should not be able to live close to the city. Remember that areas like Ballyfermot (close enough to Chapelizod), and areas like Kimmage, Crumlin, and Drimnagh - all started out as vast social housing estates.

I'm just glad there are more social homes coming on stream for the people who need them. Not quick enough, imo.. Now,I have to go to work.

(Sorry if you perceive my having the manners to explain why I am about to disappear to for a few hours, as dismissing you.)

They were on the outskirts then, they aren't anymore and have become more expensive since.

Ray Palmer

AulWan wrote: »

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.

Sorry what notions does a person have if they can afford to buy themself a nice big house with room for their possessions and animals?

The land is privately owned so the government don't just get to build on. They still have to pay the developers for the housing they do get allocated too.

It would be crazy to put social housing tenants in an area without any public transport and a hugely expensive upkeep. They wouldn't be able to afford to heat the place so would live a pretty miserable existence.

Empty_Space

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Sorry what notions does a person have if they can afford to buy themself a nice big house with room for their possessions and animals?

The land is privately owned so the government don't just get to build on. They still have to pay the developers for the housing they do get allocated too.

It would be crazy to put social housing tenants in an area without any public transport and a hugely expensive upkeep. They wouldn't be able to afford to heat the place so would live a pretty miserable existence.

Sorry but AulOne lost all credibility when they decided the government should buy up property in Ballsbridge for social housing.

No understanding of money and doesn't live in real world.

riclad

Theres plenty of empty land around dublin, one example between finglas and dublin 15, theres acres of green space.
Theres no need for the council to build in foxrock where the land is very expensive to buy.The long term solution is to build 7 storeys high ,
large apartment blocks ,whether the council would do that is another question.
We need 1000,s of new housing units in dublin, private, and social housing to solve the housing crisis .
Alot of the new apartments being built are pre sold to investors who will rent them out .

Ray Palmer

riclad wrote: »

Theres plenty of empty land around dublin, one example between finglas and dublin 15, theres acres of green space.
Theres no need for the council to build in foxrock where the land is very expensive to buy.The long term solution is to build 7 storeys high ,
large apartment blocks ,whether the council would do that is another question.
We need 1000,s of new housing units in dublin, private, and social housing to solve the housing crisis .
Alot of the new apartments being built are pre sold to investors who will rent them out .

Do you mean the farm land that is used? Empty might not mean the same things.

Unless a REIT is buying them to rent out nobody is buying to rent. You would be mad to do it now when long term landlords are selling up due to the risks.

AulWan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Sorry what notions does a person have if they can afford to buy themself a nice big house with room for their possessions and animals?

The land is privately owned so the government don't just get to build on. They still have to pay the developers for the housing they do get allocated too.

It would be crazy to put social housing tenants in an area without any public transport and a hugely expensive upkeep. They wouldn't be able to afford to heat the place so would live a pretty miserable existence.

The notion that because they can afford a nice big house that they are somehow better then anybody else.

They're not.

Ray Palmer

AulWan wrote: »

The notion that because they can afford a nice big house that they are somehow better then anybody else.

They're not.

That is your perception of them just buying the property. You haven't met them so what do you know about them other than what they bought?

You talk of begrudgery but are you blind to your own?

AulWan

Empty_Space wrote: »

Sorry but AulOne lost all credibility when they decided the government should buy up property in Ballsbridge for social housing.

No understanding of money and doesn't live in real world.

Please indicate the post number in which I said the government should buy up property in Ballsbridge for social housing.

Thanks.

AulWan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That is your perception of them just buying the property. You haven't met them so what do you know about them other than what they bought?

You talk of begrudgery but are you blind to your own?

No, that is my perception of people like you who come on threads like these to argue that you don't want social housing in your area because you want to protect the value of your "asset".

It ranks with one of the most selfish things I've read on these threads.

It was you who brought the "5 Bed / 3 receptions with stables house" into the thread, and who also ran down one of his own relations for buying in a "better" area, when he was originally from social housing. You're a snob, Ray, plain and simple.

Unlike you, I don't begrudge anyone a home because of their social status. Please don't pretend like you give a toss about solving the housing crisis for anyone other then those in the position to buy their own homes.

Cyrus

AulWan wrote: »

No, that is my perception of people like you who like to argue that you don't want social housing in your area because you want to protect the property of your "asset".

It ranks with one of the most selfish things I've read on these threads.

Unlike you, I don't begrudge anyone a home because of their social status.

why is it selfish to want to house your family in a safe area?

AulWan

Cyrus wrote: »

why is it selfish to want to house your family in a safe area?

Are you making the assumption that areas with social housing are all unsafe?

Empty_Space

Some areas are more desirable then others. Maybe its because they are close to the city, or closer to the coast. Or maybe its because the houses in said area are generally nicer, who knows..it's called a market.

Why should the gorernment and tax payer pay to house people in expensive areas...they should get the cheapest of the cheap. It's simple maths, the cheaper they go the more houses they can afford.

AulOne is so bitter and jealous they can't do maths

Cyrus

AulWan wrote: »

Are you making the assumption that areas with social housing are all unsafe?

It’s factual that areas with large percentages of social housing have higher levels of asb and crime .

No assumptions required

c montgomery

AulWan wrote: »

Are you making the assumption that areas with social housing are all unsafe?

<MOD SNIP>