Why are council estates such high crime areas?

dartboardio

Common sense

Put people with no jobs and free money all in the one area for years, obviously shzt will happen

Mainly out of boredom or lack of education. Or parents that have no jobs therefore do not value education therefore do not send their children to school. They don't care if their kids play outside at the local shops until 11 at night kicking car doors or setting off fireworks.

Its not technically their fault either as it's probably all they know aswell

Grab All Association

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Some people pay rent on council houses. The majority in Dublin are in arrears.

Take this from someone that worked for a local authority, albeit not in housing, but we bitched about you suckers e.g paying your motor tax thinking it’s for those atrocious roads

Quite a lot of arrears owed due to suspension of welfare payments, incorrectly filling out forms or Incorrectly assessing income rents etc. One time an old lady was paying €77 from her pension for 5 years when her rent was supposed to be €23. She was declaring her 4 children who didn’t even live with her in a 2 bed house. She had downsized in the 1990s.

It’s like when the department of social welfare states it recovered €Xm of payments. The majority of this is either people filling out forms incorrectly or the department incorrectly assessing a person means.

bigpink

The Unbearables wrote: »

I live a in a council estate. I work as does my wife, in front line health care.

My eldest son goes to college and plans to finish his degree and become a vet.

My youngest is incredibly bright and got student of the year last year in school. She wants to be a pilot when she finishes school.

Out of the 50 or so social houses in our part social and affordable estate we have three scummer families who are complete dirt and the rest are brilliant neighbours and friends and 90% of them work. I'd rate the posters on this thread looking down on ordinary decent people like myself and my family living in social houses as not only ignorant but cowards to boot.

This a new council estate?Are they managed better?Could they not kick the scum out

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

How do you know what crimes these people are committing? I'm a Garda and I don't have such detailed information on my neighbors.

There is one house and you miss the fact that I said that there's been convictions?

And if you're on about if there are hidden crimes that I do not know about, how's that different from a private estate in affluent area?

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

one singular anecdotal post, and that poster said 'from my childhood' there is a ginormous difference between social housing of the pre 80s and post , drugs and not locking up lone mothers in asylums changed the dynamic entirely. The rise of drugs and absence of fathers degraded social housing enormously.

Ballymun held up as the typical example of a failed social development is just a victim of timing. The children born to ballymuns original residents became teens during a heroin epidemic, they were the first offspring of a generation of dock workers and other labourers who would never see jobs again. 20 years after its completion and you have a second wave of kids starting to be born to drug addicted mothers or where the fathers are addicts, dealers, not present or locked up. A bus route or a shopping centre had about as much to do with that failure as the rain did.

90s actually, when college became free and all of a sudden kids could aim at that, ny dad was a dock worker.



One anecdotal estate is more than anything anyone else has given. As it comprises over 20 houses with 2 bringing down the whole estate (and only 1 real trouble)


I don't know everyone in neighbouring estates but enough to know that pattern is repeated quite evenly

Wanderer78

My dysfunctional neighbours are at it again now, screaming at each other, sounds fairly serious to be honest, cops maybe needed

James Brown

Wanderer78 wrote: »

My dysfunctional neighbours are at it again now, screaming at each other, sounds fairly serious to be honest, cops maybe needed

I lived next door to a family shouted non-stop. They'd even hold conversations from upstairs to downstairs when they weren't fighting. Horrible.

katiek102010

I grew up in a council estate in the 80s. There were a few scumbags. Majority were decent people.

The scumbags tried it. The few well known old IRA guys sorted them out and that was the end of it

Nowdays the little ****s would rob the eyes out of your head and would come back for the eyelashes. If you objected you would have a gun pulled on you.

CrankyHaus

Unpopular opinion. Some or even plenty of Council Estates, and former Council Estates, aren't high crime areas and are quite desirable. More so than certain modern "private" developments that have become dumping grounds for problem tenants.

Eric Cartman

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Unpopular opinion. Some or even plenty of Council Estates, and former Council Estates, aren't high crime areas and are quite desirable. More so than certain modern "private" developments that have become dumping grounds for problem tenants.

the ones where the tenants bought their houses which are now effectively private and the remainder of council tenants are too old to cause trouble, absolutely agree.

the issues in council estates only really continue till theres nobody under 30 left , by that point the problem teens and younger adults have moved on to their own new council developments and as the parents push 50 its hard to party all night and crime all day.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the ones where the tenants bought their houses which are now effectively private and the remainder of council tenants are too old to cause trouble, absolutely agree.

the issues in council estates only really continue till theres nobody under 30 left , by that point the problem teens and younger adults have moved on to their own new council developments and as the parents push 50 its hard to party all night and crime all day.

So we've a slew of single mothers, junkie fathers. all unemployed. Engaging in criminality and anti-social behaviour...then by magic most of them buy the council home, which requires a job and a mortgage and suddenly all transform into decent aul' skins.
Yeah that sounds like a loada bollo.

CrankyHaus

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the ones where the tenants bought their houses which are now effectively private and the remainder of council tenants are too old to cause trouble, absolutely agree.

the issues in council estates only really continue till theres nobody under 30 left , by that point the problem teens and younger adults have moved on to their own new council developments and as the parents push 50 its hard to party all night and crime all day.

A lot of older Council tenants were working people.


IMO the trend since about 1990 of making ever scarcer Council housing the preserve of the professionally unemployed has been the problem.



Forcing working people into an increasingly grim private housing market where they now struggle to match the bids made by the taxpayer to house Social tenants in private rentals is bad policy.



I'd advocate more social housing to be built, and a redrawing of the social housing list weighting policy to favour those in employment over, say, a 24 year old mother of 6 (and counting) who left school at 15, never worked, has a husband doing time for serious offences and starts sleeping in her car in a media-led bid to skip the housing queue.



The original purpose of social housing projects in this country in the 20th century was to assist working people who otherwise were prey for slumlords. Despite standout failures like Ballymun, it was on the whole remarkably successful at acheiving this until we just stopped building it.



Now we're going back to 21st century version of slum lording, with co-living and foreign institutional landlords that scooped up properties at bargain prices in the crash and take advantages of loopholes to pay practically no tax. It's not remotely sustainable, let alone desirable.

Eric Cartman

Bowie wrote: »

So we've a slew of single mothers, junkie fathers. all unemployed. Engaging in criminality and anti-social behaviour...then by magic most of them buy the council home, which requires a job and a mortgage and suddenly all transform into decent aul' skins.
Yeah that sounds like a loada bollo.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

A lot of older Council tenants were working people.


IMO the trend since about 1990 of making ever scarcer Council housing the preserve of the professionally unemployed has been the problem.



Forcing working people into an increasingly grim private housing market where they now struggle to match the bids made by the taxpayer to house Social tenants in private rentals is bad policy.



I'd advocate more social housing to be built, and a redrawing of the social housing list weighting policy to favour those in employment over, say, a 24 year old mother of 6 (and counting) who left school at 15, never worked, has a husband doing time for serious offences and starts sleeping in her car in a media-led bid to skip the housing queue.



The original purpose of social housing projects in this country in the 20th century was to assist working people who otherwise were prey for slumlords. Despite standout failures like Ballymun, it was on the whole remarkably successful at acheiving this until we just stopped building it.



Now we're going back to 21st century version of slum lording, with assisted living and foreign institutional landlords that scooped up properties at bargain prices in the crash and take advantages of loopholes to pay practically no tax. It's not remotely sustainable, let alone desirable.

this poster answered it. Council estates used to be almost all working people, since the 80s it has been falling rapidly and we're now into generation 3 of people who's parents and possibly grandparents never had a job. Allowing people to buy council houses began in 1973 , many of those estates became effectively private by the 90s, those estates remained good while the council were then only housing more and more perpetually unemployed people.

As Ive repeatedly said , the problems began in the 80s and have consolidated further and further where we have come to the point that only 18% of people in council houses work full time, over 60% only derive their survival from welfare. we've been circling the drain on this now for a long time. This is why the government has moved to apportioning 10% of new developments to social housing, in the 70s over 80% of council tenants would have been working, so even the problem tenants wouldn't have a chance to ruin the whole area, but now with any sense of ambition or pride gone out of it, mixing social housing into private developments is the only way to ensure the critical mass of people who work and take pride in their estate to stop it becoming a no go area.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this poster answered it. Council estates used to be almost all working people, since the 80s it has been falling rapidly and we're now into generation 3 of people who's parents and possibly grandparents never had a job. Allowing people to buy council houses began in 1973 , many of those estates became effectively private by the 90s, those estates remained good while the council were then only housing more and more perpetually unemployed people.

As Ive repeatedly said , the problems began in the 80s and have consolidated further and further where we have come to the point that only 18% of people in council houses work full time, over 60% only derive their survival from welfare. we've been circling the drain on this now for a long time. This is why the government has moved to apportioning 10% of new developments to social housing, in the 70s over 80% of council tenants would have been working, so even the problem tenants wouldn't have a chance to ruin the whole area, but now with any sense of ambition or pride gone out of it, mixing social housing into private developments is the only way to ensure the critical mass of people who work and take pride in their estate to stop it becoming a no go area.

You didn't give a rave review of Ballymun tenants, (started in the late sixties) and social housing tenants in general stating it's only after estates begin to go private that they improve. Do you not see the contradictions here?
How are these single mothers, junkies, job dodgers getting mortgages to buy their houses?
This goes back to the request nobody can fulfill,
HOW MANY PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO WORK AND ARE AVAILING OF SOCIAL WELFARE PAYMENTS?
Nobody can answer that and yet these Social Welfare Ninjas are used time and again to rail against social housing tenants.

You have no understanding of social housing estates in the 70's and 80's judging by your comments here. There were numerous no-go areas back then thanks to a few criminal/anti-social families. Then of course we'd the heroin epidemic and recession. Tenants were protesting begging the garda to come in.

Anyone complaining about social tenants moving into private estates and apartment blocks need look at the people they vote for who don't favour building social housing. This is done to use your taxes to fill the pockets of rental companies. If you think it's to save us from antisocial tenants you are very naive. so what, they move them into luxury apartments in D4? Sounds solid :rolleyes:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

There is one house and you miss the fact that I said that there's been convictions?

And if you're on about if there are hidden crimes that I do not know about, how's that different from a private estate in affluent area?

Exactly my point. You dont know what crimes are being committed and you in reality, dont know who is being arrested and prosecuted in most cases as they wont be in the paper or common knowledge.

I didnt say it was different, I asked you how you know and the answer is, you dont.

Eric Cartman

Bowie wrote: »

You didn't give a rave review of Ballymun tenants, (started in the late sixties) and social housing tenants in general stating it's only after estates begin to go private that they improve. Do you not see the contradictions here?
How are these single mothers, junkies, job dodgers getting mortgages to buy their houses?
This goes back to the request nobody can fulfill,
HOW MANY PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO WORK AND ARE AVAILING OF SOCIAL WELFARE PAYMENTS?
Nobody can answer that and yet these Social Welfare Ninjas are used time and again to rail against social housing tenants.

You have no understanding of social housing estates in the 70's and 80's judging by your comments here. There were numerous no-go areas back then thanks to a few criminal/anti-social families. Then of course we'd the heroin epidemic and recession. Tenants were protesting begging the garda to come in.

Anyone complaining about social tenants moving into private estates and apartment blocks need look at the people they vote for who don't favour building social housing. This is done to use your taxes to fill the pockets of rental companies. If you think it's to save us from antisocial tenants you are very naive. so what, they move them into luxury apartments in D4? Sounds solid :rolleyes:

Thousands , with over 60% only in receipt of welfare and only 18% in full time employment even if I said 1 in 3 were choosing welfare that would still be more choosing welfare than choosing full time work.

Now I'm not saying they're choosing welfare vs a high flying career its not boredom vs boardroom , but many young women actively choose to start a family early to get a house and stable welfare payments, its the security and stability of it coupled with low self esteem reinforced by their peers doing the same.

many young men choose drug dealing or petty crime which leaves them unable to enter traditional careers.

Many choose welfare because their unemployed peers say 'sure theres no jobs anyway / why would I want to break my back stacking shelves / sure doing a PLC is a load of bollix etc...'

there are some that choose welfare, many many more make choices that leave them no other option.

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Exactly my point. You dont know what crimes are being committed and you in reality, dont know who is being arrested and prosecuted in most cases as they wont be in the paper or common knowledge.

I didnt say it was different, I asked you how you know and the answer is, you dont.

What ****ing nonsense.

The thread asks why are council estates high crime. So the OP is, right off the bat, saying it's common knowledge that they are, yet have you challenged as much there? If the OP is coming from a position, as such, they need to bring evidence.



Council estates are impossible to keep such secrets, arrests are not private, court appearance and convictions aren't either (sexual crime and juvenile excluded, in general). Jesus, the local paper has weekly pages devoted to district cases.

Why would you think that the wouldn't be common knowledge? And why would "hidden" prosecutions assign a title of high crime to a council estate and not an affluent one...

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What ****ing nonsense.

The thread asks why are council estates high crime. So the OP is, right off the bat, saying it's common knowledge that they are, yet have you challenged as much there? If the OP is coming from a position, as such, they need to bring evidence.



Council estates are impossible to keep such secrets, arrests are not private, court appearance and convictions aren't either (sexual crime and juvenile excluded, in general). Jesus, the local paper has weekly pages devoted to district cases.

Why would you think that the wouldn't be common knowledge? And why would "hidden" prosecutions assign a title of high crime to a council estate and not an affluent one...

What rubbish are you talking?

Of course arrests are private, or course they are. The Gardai do not name people arrested. Unless it was witnessed by someone in the estate and they tell you, you won't know.

The courts are public info when you go in and watch. Have you ever looked up district court convictions? Course you haven't.

Papers run stories about a very small amount of cases. Most courts won't even have a journalist in them in the ccj. The paper has a weekly page? Oh well in that case, the courts must be ****ing near empty most days. They are thousands of convictions recorded weekly in this country. How many, hand on heart have you actually read about? Ten? 100?

You do not know what neighbors have been arrested and charged, you do not know what convictions they have. Oh you might know a few but not the majority. You don't know who is in the sex offenders register either by the way and there's plenty of career Criminals flying very far under the radar.

The audacity to think you know everything that's going on in your neighborhood because 'it's all public' as if that automatically means you hear it all. Complete ****e talk.

As for the op, I couldn't give a fiddler's what the op pl claims or doesn't, raise that argument with them. Why did you even mention it in reply to my comment?

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thousands , with over 60% only in receipt of welfare and only 18% in full time employment even if I said 1 in 3 were choosing welfare that would still be more choosing welfare than choosing full time work.

Now I'm not saying they're choosing welfare vs a high flying career its not boredom vs boardroom , but many young women actively choose to start a family early to get a house and stable welfare payments, its the security and stability of it coupled with low self esteem reinforced by their peers doing the same.

many young men choose drug dealing or petty crime which leaves them unable to enter traditional careers.

Many choose welfare because their unemployed peers say 'sure theres no jobs anyway / why would I want to break my back stacking shelves / sure doing a PLC is a load of bollix etc...'

there are some that choose welfare, many many more make choices that leave them no other option.

You are talking about people who are eligable, availing of welfare. We are talking single mothers getting children's allowance.
You are also talking about junkies I assume?
Thats fair. Nobody will hire a junkie and some single mothers don't work.
Don't forget people who choose to be alcoholics and choose to be mentally ill.
So are these the people ruining housing estates and are they the same ones decide to get jobs and mortgages so they can buy their houses, only then becoming acceptable citizens?
There were no junkies or single mothers in the 70/80's?

Niner leprauchan

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What rubbish are you talking?

Of course arrests are private, or course they are. The Gardai do not name people arrested. Unless it was witnessed by someone in the estate and they tell you, you won't know.

The courts are public info when you go in and watch. Have you ever looked up district court convictions? Course you haven't.

Papers run stories about a very small amount of cases. Most courts won't even have a journalist in them in the ccj. The paper has a weekly page? Oh well in that case, the courts must be ****ing near empty most days. They are thousands of convictions recorded weekly in this country. How many, hand on heart have you actually read about? Ten? 100?

You do not know what neighbors have been arrested and charged, you do not know what convictions they have. Oh you might know a few but not the majority. You don't know who is in the sex offenders register either by the way and there's plenty of career Criminals flying very far under the radar.

The audacity to think you know everything that's going on in your neighborhood because 'it's all public' as if that automatically means you hear it all. Complete ****e talk.

As for the op, I couldn't give a fiddler's what the op pl claims or doesn't, raise that argument with them. Why did you even mention it in reply to my comment?

Oh for **** sake, you're assigning one rule to council estates and another to private. Thread is bashing council estates, if my peers/friends were career criminals, they wouldn't have the jobs they do. We also would have noticed a couple of extended absences.

One family was anti social, drew trouble, had constant arrests out of the house etc. Anither had issues with taking drugs


This entire thread is about a perceived view of criminality. Can't very well have a perception if no one knows that there are people being arrested/convicted, now can we?

riclad

Since 2000 the council has offered anyone who wants to, the chance to buy the house,
I.d say 90 per cent of council houses are now owned by the person who lives there.
When you own the house you tend to be more responsible and take care of it. Most crime is done by people under 30 , also most people in council estates at least before the covid crisis were working full time. Most council tenants live in flats or apartments not houses.
I think some people on this forum have never lived in a council estate and may not know much about what' its like to live there.

James Brown

riclad wrote: »

Since 2000 the council has offered anyone who wants to, the chance to buy the house,
I.d say 90 per cent of council houses are now owned by the person who lives there.
When you own the house you tend to be more responsible and take care of it. Most crime is done by people under 30 , also most people in council estates at least before the covid crisis were working full time. Most council tenants live in flats or apartments not houses.
I think some people on this forum have never lived in a council estate and may not know much about what' its like to live there.

How do they get a mortgage and buy the house if so many choose not to work?
And even putting that aside what is the difference between the same people who are Tennants and then homeowners? New personalities?
People are pissed because people on lower incomes are moving in beside them or in houses as expensive as theirs. Instead of attacking them call your local politicians and tell them you want social housing built.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh for **** sake, you're assigning one rule to council estates and another to private. Thread is bashing council estates, if my peers/friends were career criminals, they wouldn't have the jobs they do. We also would have noticed a couple of extended absences.

One family was anti social, drew trouble, had constant arrests out of the house etc. Anither had issues with taking drugs


This entire thread is about a perceived view of criminality. Can't very well have a perception if no one knows that there are people being arrested/convicted, now can we?

How am I assigning different rules? Quote please.

Second, your friends. Nice goalposts moving. We weren't discussing your friends, we were discussing your entire neighborhood and neighbors. Care to go back to that? You would not know if your neighbours commit crime unless you join in. You do not know people like you seem to think you do. How many people thought they knew Brady in new York? And that was a very serious crime he had committed. People only knew he did it when he advertised the fact and was subsequently charged and found guilty. Someone abusing their kids, beating their wife, etc don't advertise generally. Murderers definitely don't spread the word. You think the neighbors were aware that Mark Hennessy was a psycho killer on the prowl? Larry Murphy was a skilled and employed worker until the cell door was slammed. He had neighbours, Friends, colleagues. Again, you know some cases.

Third, jobs. Careers are lost with extended prison sentences after conviction. Many people can have legal income and illegal. Gerry 'the monk' hutch was alledgedly retired from crime while also having no convictions. The penguin himself was a delivery driver while also a drug dealer and actually kept his job while in prison for a while.

Extended absences. Again, on conviction and only after many convictions and serious charges. There's career Criminals with hundreds of convictions roaming the streets and your neighborhood. You know that of course because you know everyone's convictions. The neighbors you talk about, how many arrests? If they were being locked up for long sentences then the arrests wouldn't be that common.

Again, you know of two families that were open in their actions. Most criminals are not. Most Criminals don't advertise and tend to avoid being arrested when they can.

You made a claim, it was naive. Sensible people know there's plenty going on they don't know about. Join the sensible people.

Again, take the op up direct. I'm unsure why you keep mentioning it to me. I didn't make the op

mohawk

Bowie wrote: »

How do they get a mortgage and buy the house if so many choose not to work?
And even putting that aside what is the difference between the same people who are Tennants and then homeowners? New personalities?
People are pissed because people on lower incomes are moving in beside them or in houses as expensive as theirs. Instead of attacking them call your local politicians and tell them you want social housing built.

The way I read that post is that there was a time where the council were housing a very large percentage of people with jobs, however this appears to have changed. Therefore in the 90’s we saw large amounts of council houses being bought.

Where I live there was one Council estate. All bought out the houses from the council. All the families had at least one parent working. The kids that grew up there 95% of them went on the either do a trade or 3rd level and now work. The other 5% went on to nothing and pass their day doing drugs. I don’t think those 5% are failing at life because they grew up in a council house. Their siblings have managed to go on and find partners, get jobs, buy houses and all that goes with growing up. The guards were never calling to those houses back when they were council houses.

Now days the only Social housing in the area is through HAP. Probably around 10 households in total. None have jobs, all have at least 3 children. They come from families that never worked either.
Given the rural location we know when one of them gets arrested. We hear about the arrests that happen at 3am and the ones that happen during the day. It will be interesting to see how their children turn out in another 10-15 years.

James Brown

mohawk wrote: »

The way I read that post is that there was a time where the council were housing a very large percentage of people with jobs, however this appears to have changed. Therefore in the 90’s we saw large amounts of council houses being bought.

Where I live there was one Council estate. All bought out the houses from the council. All the families had at least one parent working. The kids that grew up there 95% of them went on the either do a trade or 3rd level and now work. The other 5% went on to nothing and pass their day doing drugs. I don’t think those 5% are failing at life because they grew up in a council house. Their siblings have managed to go on and find partners, get jobs, buy houses and all that goes with growing up. The guards were never calling to those houses back when they were council houses.

Now days the only Social housing in the area is through HAP. Probably around 10 households in total. None have jobs, all have at least 3 children. They come from families that never worked either.
Given the rural location we know when one of them gets arrested. We hear about the arrests that happen at 3am and the ones that happen during the day. It will be interesting to see how their children turn out in another 10-15 years.

He did an earlier hatchet job on Ballymun. 'They never worked again, all former dock workers etc.'. Ballymun was built the tail end on the 60's.

I can't attest to the individuals in all social housing since the 1990's. I do know we give welfare to those who are eligible. I do know you can't chose not to work and expect payment.

If the social housing people from the 70/80's mostly had jobs and went on to be homeowners etc., how did they end up in social housing in the first place? For the craic? Maybe decent working people needed it? What happened to all the single mothers and junkies? We had a heroin epidemic in the 80's, (followed by Aids). We've more single mothers and junkies today?
Instead of the usual 'sure most are sound but lets concentrate on the ones suit my agenda', I'm more inclined to speak on the fact I'm very happy that my taxes go on assisting people put a roof over their heads because they can't afford it themselves. And those numbers are growing. It's one of the great things about Ireland, sure we've chancers but so what? Try tackle that not insult people because they aren't as well off as you because the government are ****ing you.

tallaghtfornia

howamidifferent wrote: »

Because people who get stuff for nothing have no appreciation for anything. Those that work hard for their money appreciate everything.

Quote of the year for me!

riclad

As far as i know 90 -95 per cent of council houses in dublin were sold to ex council tenants .
I dont know what the situation is in donegal or longford ,re how many people were able to buy a local authority house.
Also old age pensioners and people on disability live in council houses or flats.
i live in a council estate , most people were good or average.
Some young people used drugs or sold hash or weed .
young people went to school, they studied,they did the leaving cert.
they worked or they applied for third level education.
In any working class area theres a small percentage who get involved in crime ,selling drugs etc because its an easy way to make money ,
And theres an endless amount of customers who want to buy drugs
in all parts of dublin .
when i say working class area , i mean a suburb, eg dublin 5 ,
not just a local authority housing estate.
Which includes estates/ houses that are all privately owned .

Greaney

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thousands , with over 60% only in receipt of welfare and only 18% in full time employment even if I said 1 in 3 were choosing welfare that would still be more choosing welfare than choosing full time work.

Now I'm not saying they're choosing welfare vs a high flying career its not boredom vs boardroom , but many young women actively choose to start a family early to get a house and stable welfare payments, its the security and stability of it coupled with low self esteem reinforced by their peers doing the same.

many young men choose drug dealing or petty crime which leaves them unable to enter traditional careers.

Many choose welfare because their unemployed peers say 'sure theres no jobs anyway / why would I want to break my back stacking shelves / sure doing a PLC is a load of bollix etc...'

there are some that choose welfare, many many more make choices that leave them no other option.

People change throughout their lives.

Stable working people loose their jobs, have work accidents & become disabled, develop addictions

'Single parents' on social welfare payments go back to education, their children grow up so they don't have to pay for childcare to work

Addicts can get clean, or not & perhaps die

The breadwinner, or primary carer in a home can get sick or die

Life doesn't stay the same, and in the fullness of time many people move on or save money and buy their home.

And most affordable places to live, due to growing owner occupier-ship, eventually gentrify. It's been thus (in Ireland) for over 60 years

James Brown

Greaney wrote: »

People change throughout their lives.

Stable working people loose their jobs, have work accidents & become disabled, develop addictions

'Single parents' on social welfare payments go back to education, their children grow up so they don't have to pay for childcare to work

Addicts can get clean, or not & perhaps die

The breadwinner, or primary carer in a home can get sick or die

Life doesn't stay the same, and in the fullness of time many people move on or save money and buy their home.

And most affordable places to live, due to growing owner occupier-ship, eventually gentrify. It's been thus (in Ireland) for over 60 years

Don't forget demolishing 100% social housing estates and not replacing them. Building a mix of PPP if anything at all.
Also build and buy to rent companies, individuals, TD's etc. driving the private renter and buyer out of the market in some areas.

JohnnyFlash

Bowie wrote: »

Don't forget demolishing 100% social housing estates and not replacing them. Building a mix of PPP if anything at all.
Also build and buy to rent companies, individuals, TD's etc. driving the private renter and buyer out of the market in some areas.

As a Social Democrats voter what do you think of their decision to express disappointment at the approval of 12 storey apartment blocks in Dublin?

https://twitter.com/socdems/status/1303361751497535493?s=21

Pkiernan

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

As a Social Democrats voter what do you think of their decision to express disappointment at the approval of 12 storey apartment blocks in Dublin?

https://twitter.com/socdems/status/1303361751497535493?s=21

The Far Left gets it power by keeping people poor and in this case homeless.

Pkiernan

Bowie wrote: »

Also build and buy to rent companies, individuals, TD's etc. driving the private renter and buyer out of the market in some areas.

I demand to live in a 6 bedroom house on Aylesbury Road, even though I can't afford it. Those pesky evil landlords.

NIMAN

The government offers an education system to everyone in the country, there is no discrimination at the offset.

Everything is in place to educate all kids and provide them with the chance to move on in life and provide for themselves.

Most try their best to use what is provided for them. Obviously some people are smarter than others and will achieve more, but some waste the opportunities given to them or their kids and then try to blame everyone but themselves.

Kids aren't born scummy, they are taught it and learn it. Its hard for the government to legislate against these people.

I don't know about the big cities in the south, but in Derry it's the so-called poorer areas that have the money thrown at them to build facilities, parks etc. People in more 'affluent' areas can only dream about having a publicly funded play park built in their vicinity, and I'm sure they wouldn't burn it out or vandalize it the ways others do.

Eric Cartman

NIMAN wrote: »

The government offers an education system to everyone in the country, there is no discrimination at the offset.

Everything is in place to educate all kids and provide them with the chance to move on in life and provide for themselves.

Most try their best to use what is provided for them. Obviously some people are smarter than others and will achieve more, but some waste the opportunities given to them or their kids and then try to blame everyone but themselves.

Kids aren't born scummy, they are taught it and learn it. Its hard for the government to legislate against these people.

I don't know about the big cities in the south, but in Derry it's the so-called poorer areas that have the money thrown at them to build facilities, parks etc. People in more 'affluent' areas can only dream about having a publicly funded play park built in their vicinity, and I'm sure they wouldn't burn it out or vandalize it the ways others do.

This is it, the idea that little johnny commits crimes because they didnt have a playground or a swimming pool is nonsense. It has a lot more to do with little johnnys ma not giving a f*ck and his da not being in the picture.

saabsaab

It is easy enough to see many council estates have higher crime and anti social activity.


Those who aren't able to manage their lives or not functional due to crime or drugs will in most cases not have the wherewithal to get a private house and will in most cases have to fall back on the public system or become homeless.


This is not saying that all in those estates are like this but will have a higher percentage.

NovemberWren

The Unbearables wrote: »

You pay rent on council houses so bang goes your argument.

If there is just one person E18.00 per week up to last year.

Then, 2021 increased to E25.00 per week.

Astoundingly cheap.

Baggly

Mod

This thread has lived its best life and shouldnt be rez'd.

If you have something current around this topic, please start a new thread.

Thanks.