Is it fair to mix social housing with privately owned homes?

Dorakman

Or will this just lead to embitterment on both sides?

Yurt2

Idbatterim

I think its a piss take with the rate that social housing is charged, yes. Also say you have multiple blocks of housing or an estate. Should they be beside each other or in the same blocks... I dont think so, they will still be in the same development. The chances of putting up with piss takers is far higher if they are in social housing, a generalisation, but a true one...

LeinsterDub

Dorakman wrote: »

Or will this just lead to embitterment on both sides?

It's been happening for years. Can you point of any example of embitterment barring perhaps one or two fringe cases?

Eric Cartman

is it fair to mix social and affordable (<100k) housing - I would say so. Is it fair to mix housing in super pricey parts of the country like 500k+ homes in dublin with social housing - absolutely not. Its the largest insult to our working middle class that they have to save and scrimp hard and jacinta whose never paid a prsi contribution in her life ends up with the same house.

LuckyLloyd

“Fair” is not the right word. It is essential.

Jinglejangle69

On top of it all the cost to pay for the social housing in the estate is added on to the price of each house bought by tax payers buying with a mortgage.

I've said it before.

Its like winning the lottery.

Dorakman

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

“Fair” is not the right word. It is essential.

Why is it essential?

rob316

Dorakman wrote: »

Why is it essential?

So we don't create the next generation of **** hole ghettos that we spend "regenerating" in 20 years from now.

You have to mix it.

Mad_maxx

rob316 wrote: »

So we don't create the next generation of **** hole ghettos that we spend "regenerating" in 20 years from now.

You have to mix it.

thats a law enforcement issue

Eric Cartman

rob316 wrote: »

So we don't create the next generation of **** hole ghettos that we spend "regenerating" in 20 years from now.

You have to mix it.

mixing is just dilution, if you spread them out the anti social behaviour becomes less noticable, we're not solving the problem, just making people who work deal with it too.

Dorakman

rob316 wrote: »

So we don't create the next generation of **** hole ghettos that we spend "regenerating" in 20 years from now.

You have to mix it.

So you’re admitting it’s the people in these places that are the problem?

CPTM

Mad_maxx wrote: »

thats a law enforcement issue

You're talking about cure - everyone else is talking about prevention.

Padre_Pio

Eric Cartman wrote: »

mixing is just dilution, if you spread them out the anti social behaviour becomes less noticable, we're not solving the problem, just making people who work deal with it too.

It's a proven concept that integrating social housing leads to better outcomes for disadvantaged children.

If all your friends are doing well at school and going to college, you're more likely to do the same.

BanditLuke

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

On top of it all the cost to pay for the social housing in the estate is added on to the price of each house bought by tax payers buying with a mortgage.

I've said it before.

Its like winning the lottery.

Yes yes we know, like winning the lottery.

Eric Cartman

CPTM wrote: »

You're talking about cure - everyone else is talking about prevention.

stop incentivising having kids as a route to free housing
stop enabling people to choose to live off the welfare state their entire lives
stop people being incentivised to choose social housing because even workers cant afford to live near their families in cities.
punish parents for being lax and expecting the state to raise their kids for them.

Eric Cartman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

It's a proven concept that integrating social housing leads to better outcomes for disadvantaged children.

If all your friends are doing well at school and going to college, you're more likely to do the same.

has anyone done a study on how social housing negatively impacts the children of the middle classes buying houses ?

Fred Cryton

When will they learn, we are never going to "integrate". We're never going to have Jacinta over for dinner.

It's just a farce and a con. Why is this being forced upon us? They say it only takes one bad apple to ruin a barrel. Well why spread the bad apples among many barrels?? Put them all in the same barrel.

100% social on the far distant outskirts of the city with poor transportation into the city is the way forward. Out of sight and out of mind.

Padre_Pio

Eric Cartman wrote: »

stop incentivising having kids as a route to free housing
stop enabling people to choose to live off the welfare state their entire lives
stop people being incentivised to choose social housing because even workers cant afford to live near their families in cities.
punish parents for being lax and expecting the state to raise their kids for them.

The actual amount of dole lifers in the country is tiny.
We're at near full employment now. Once you take away the stay at home parents, people in between jobs and people who are out of work not by choice, there's very few people left who are on the dole for fun.

Most people getting HAP and houses are working too.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

When will they learn, we are never going to "integrate". We're never going to have Jacinta over for dinner.

But when the only friends Jacinta's kids have are all from wealthy backgrounds, they're not going to consider mammy's dole life as a viable way forward.

Eric Cartman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

The actual amount of dole lifers in the country is tiny.
We're at near full employment now. Once you take away the stay at home parents, people in between jobs and people who are out of work not by choice, there's very few people left who are on the dole for fun.

Most people getting HAP and houses are working too.


But when the only friends Jacinta's kids have are all from wealthy backgrounds, they're not going to consider mammy's dole life as a viable way forward.

incorrect.

43,000 people of working age and not disabled have never made a single PRSI contribution , 62% of social housing applicants are only in receipt of welfare, 10% work only and 7% mix work and claiming welfare. If you are living beside somebody in social housing there is only a 10% chance they put in a full work day

Jinglejangle69

BanditLuke wrote: »

Yes yes we know, like winning the lottery.

Yep.

Fred Cryton

Padre_Pio wrote: »

The actual amount of dole lifers in the country is tiny.
We're at near full employment now. Once you take away the stay at home parents, people in between jobs and people who are out of work not by choice, there's very few people left who are on the dole for fun.

Most people getting HAP and houses are working too.


But when the only friends Jacinta's kids have are all from wealthy backgrounds, they're not going to consider mammy's dole life as a viable way forward.

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate is a percentage of the workforce, not of the working age population. You need to understand the difference between the two. We have something like 20% of households of working age people where neither parent works, one of the highest in Europe. The reason for this is welfare including the house is much greater than what they could earn from low paid work. So there is a disincentive to work.



So you're going to impose Jacintas kids on the rest of our kids, all her bad habits and character traits, just for the benefit of Jacintas kids? How do my kids benefit from that? What's in it for my kids? Other than being led down a bad path by Jacintas kids?

Padre_Pio

Eric Cartman wrote: »

incorrect.

43,000 people of working age and not disabled have never made a single PRSI contribution , 62% of social housing applicants are only in receipt of welfare, 10% work only and 7% mix work and claiming welfare. If you are living beside somebody in social housing there is only a 10% chance they put in a full work day

That figure is from 2013? Have things changed in the last 8 years? Are all these people low life scroungers?

Besides whats your solution? Cut welfare? Pauper people?
How will that not lead to an increase in crime, slums, ghettoisation?

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder.

Dorakman

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate is a percentage of the workforce, not of the working age population. You need to understand the difference between the two. We have something like 20% of households of working age people where neither parent works, one of the highest in Europe. The reason for this is welfare including the house is much greater than what they could earn from low paid work. So there is a disincentive to work.



So you're going to impose Jacintas kids on the rest of our kids, all her bad habits and character traits, just for the benefit of Jacintas kids? How do my kids benefit from that? What's in it for my kids? Other than being led down a bad path by Jacintas kids?

Der da salt a da earth!

Idbatterim

very valid points made for not mixing, see with the uber leftist media here, you wouldnt even hear them made. At least in other countries in the media you will hear two sides? Here? LOL! Sure even our party of the "right" LOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL! are pro the obscene welfare state.

imagine the hypocrite presenters on RTE who cry crocodile tears for margaret cash and co! Imagine if Sorcha had to share a class room and estate with Chardonnay! :rolleyes:

Eric Cartman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

That figure is from 2013? Have things changed in the last 8 years? Are all these people low life scroungers?

Besides whats your solution? Cut welfare? Pauper people?
How will that not lead to an increase in crime, slums, ghettoisation?

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder.

thats only the people who have never done a single days work, doesn't include those who gave it a weeks trial and gave up completely. Regardless of employment rates there is still a croke park sized section of society who do not work by choice...minimum.

pjohnson

Idbatterim wrote: »

very valid points made for not mixing, see with the uber leftist media here, you wouldnt even hear them made. At least in other countries in the media you will hear two sides? Here? LOL! Sure even our party of the "right" LOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL! are pro the obscene welfare state.

imagine the hypocrite presenters on RTE who cry crocodile tears for margaret cash and co! Imagine if Sorcha had to share a class room and estate with Chardonnay! :rolleyes:

Your reverting back to your right wing/FG roots again :pac:

Padre_Pio

Idbatterim wrote: »

very valid points made for not mixing, see with the uber leftist media here, you wouldnt even hear them made. At least in other countries in the media you will hear two sides? Here? LOL! Sure even our party of the "right" LOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL! are pro the obscene welfare state.

imagine the hypocrite presenters on RTE who cry crocodile tears for margaret cash and co! Imagine if Sorcha had to share a class room and estate with Chardonnay! :rolleyes:

There's you and one other poster arguing this point. No one else really.
Doesn't matter, it's the accepted social policy in many countries.

Sorcha does have to share a classroom with Chardonnay (nice use of names to portray social class), there's social houses in every estate.

Spanish Eyes

No I don't agree with it at all.

Sorry.

Not paying 1k a month or so mortgage to live beside someone who pays what, 50 quid a week for the same property. NOPE.

Get back to me and defend it.

Eric Cartman

Padre_Pio wrote: »

That figure is from 2013? Have things changed in the last 8 years? Are all these people low life scroungers?

Besides whats your solution? Cut welfare? Pauper people?
How will that not lead to an increase in crime, slums, ghettoisation?

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder.

mix only social and affordable housing outside cities.
a dutch scum village model for those with criminal convictions or who commit anti-social behaviour
cut off child benefit if your child doesnt attend school 95% of the time
cut off child benefit if your child receives a JLO
half social welfare for people who have been out of work for 4 of any 5 year period
drug and alcohol testing during signing on
cashless welfare which cannot be redeemed in cash or spent on alcohol, holidays, premium tv, cigarettes, gambling, tanning beds etc...
an intervention program which teaches girls from 14 years up that getting pregnant at that age is wasting their lives and about contraception,
remove having a child as a method to raise yourself up the social housing list.
put the people who have worked the most on top of the list.

Padre_Pio

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

No I don't agree with it at all.

Sorry.

Not paying 1k a month or so mortgage to live beside someone who pays what, 50 quid a week for the same property. NOPE.

Get back to me and defend it.

If your neighbours never bothered you and you never saw them, would you care?