Would you buy a house in a new estate today?

Gervais08

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, ironic that houses that were designed 3-5 years ago and built mostly last year don't meet the needs of the pandemic that no-one knew about 9 months ago. :rolleyes:

Hindsight is 20/20 - apparently planning must be clairvoyant!!!

Eric Cartman

Gervais08 wrote: »

Hindsight is 20/20 - apparently planning must be clairvoyant!!!

Well in the older houses you had a space that you could convert between garage/playroom/office/whatever at will and a back garden big enough to add on a larger kitchen / conservatory etc.. and still enough room to put in a large shed/outdoor office/bar/gym whatever...

You had flexibility to add a space to suit your needs to those homes.

Now you have ‘clever under stairs storage’ because youre limited on space and cant extend sny way and dont have a space to make a play room / office etc... that flexibility is lost.

oceanman

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I've posted it before and I'll say it again. This impostion of the 10% rulebig for social housing is ridiculous. The blatant example is if a developer builds a small estate of 10 luxury houses to sell at 1 million Euro each, that one lucky social housing recipient gets to win the lottery. How is that fair to anyone?

I'm not sure that I agree with the concept that mixed developments are inherently good. That somehow having a majority of decent familes will reduce the possiblity of growing anti-social behaviour but it only takes one bad family to ruin a whole estate for everyone. That problem could be solved if there was a social contract that if your kids get involved in crime or anti-social behaviour while you are gifted a council house, that you lose that.

Instead of trying to allocate and pay for the 10% expensive private development social allocation, (remember the council could build 2 houses elsewhere for the cost of paying for 1 x 450k privately developed house), let the councils become developers ad undertake house building programmes where they build social homes and allocate a proportion for private sale at cost and a proportion for affordable housing. That way they get to fulfill their social gousing obligation and anyone willing to take the chance to gamble on buying into such an estate at a good price is able to.

It's one thing to be annoyed about social tenantes getting a home effectively for near free, another to pay hard earned money for your mortgage next to a social housing tenant that can disturb your life with no comeback.

how are they getting a house for near free?

charlietheminxx

I bought a new build, and having read this thread I'm feeling lucky!

All our neighbours are lovely. No trouble in the area.

Just in case anyone is currently buying a new build and is freaking out while reading this thread - it's not always like the bad experiences above.

Ronin247

oceanman wrote: »

how are they getting a house for near free?

If someone is not working and their only income is from social welfare, regardless of how much "rent" they pay, it comes out of the public purse.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.... unless you are a single parent, then everything is free.

riclad

If you want to avoid social housing buy a house in an estate that 10 years old.Social housing is given to old people and people on disablity allowance , not just to single mothers .

JDxtra

In a new estate, you are rolling the dice. If the houses aren't shifting, developer could sell more than planned to the council or a charity. Developers just want them sold, they won't be living there themselves to care.

Less risk of questionable neighbours in an established estate.

Vulcan01

L1011 wrote: »

If you buy in an older estate there is absolutely nothing to prevent the house next door going on sale and being bought by the council or a voluntary housing body the week after you move in.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent you having neighbours from hell in a standalone house either - unless you're sited in the middle of a multi hectare site with nothing around you.

Exactly, that's what is happening to our Estate albeit slowly. Houses being sold by original buyers and bought then by landlords / Council and rented to people that don't give a ****e about their surroundings or anyone elseNo contribution to Grass cutting, crap everywhere, Kids that are mostly Remedial and disruptive. Cops ins regularly to check. Drug dealers, Wife and family abuse. Unbelievable the changes in the last 5 years. Only saving grace is that I have a detached house.

witchgirl26

I live in a new build estate that has social housing & to be honest the main amount of trouble in the estate actually comes from kids from neighbouring "established" estates. There was a small issue with the teens from the social housing taking over the green areas a bit (primarily the other kids in the estate are younger) but it was noted to the parents, who made sure that the teens knew not to make the little kids feel intimidated about playing in the green area. No real problems at all so I don't know why everyone gets up in arms about it. You never know who your neighbours are going to be unless you live in a tiny estate that your family built & all live in. Live in a house you like, in an area you like.

omega666

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I bought a new build, and having read this thread I'm feeling lucky!

All our neighbours are lovely. No trouble in the area.

Just in case anyone is currently buying a new build and is freaking out while reading this thread - it's not always like the bad experiences above.

I also bought in a new estate and no problems. There's no social issues were i live as far as i know. Everyone is around the same age and at same stage of life so there is quite a good community feeling, 5 a side football teams set up, pints in the local every now and then, BBQ's during the summer etc...

One advantage of a new estate is that it's nearly always 100% owner occupied so people generally take more care of their property and surrounding that older estates that can sometimes contain a lot of rentals.

Danno

Danno wrote: »

All jobseekers should have a compulsory clause that kicks in after 3 months that you're on a 19hr week community employment scheme

I'd agree, but with two years before you get nailed with it, instead of 3 months. At least you know the genuine cases won't get caught up in it, and it should be applied retrospectively (the longer you're on the dole, the sooner you get the application letter).


I was on the dole for a few years in the past and found that those who are 'new' are given every course under the sun, all the sh/te of the day with forms and such, whereas those who have been in receipt of it for years just get left alone.


I remember leaving a job before, going on the dole and whilst in the process of trying to figure out how to get my own business up and running, they wanted me to do 24 hours a week in a charity shop. Yet all the Scummy McNackerheads that live around me have somehow avoided ever doing anything of the sort (i include FAS courses, work placements or even those youth centre scheme things that tend to vary from town to town).


It seems as though every 'new' idea DEASP comes up with is only applied to the people who enter the system after the idea is created. It never seems to be applied retrospectively to the long term wasters.


Although in saying that, so, so many of them are on disability payment to avoid exactly these kind of things ("I can't do that, I'm depressed, my doctor said so!")

Mrs OBumble

[Deleted User] wrote: »

. Yet all the Scummy McNackerheads that live around me have somehow avoided ever doing anything of the sort (i include FAS courses, work placements or even those youth centre scheme things that tend to vary from town to town).

People who fail the garda vetting cannot be put on community work schemes where they have access to kids or vulnerable ( eg old) people. You would be amazed how many CE scheme this rules them out for.

Everlong1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I don't disagree with your analysis.

But the solution - if only it was that simple. If kids starve because their parents are drug-dealing Jacinta and absent-Anto, then how are they going to learn to be responsible, contributing citizens? If they're sent to live in BallyScummerville, then how are they going to learn that any other life is possible?

I didn't mean literally starve them - what I was thinking was more along the lines of instituting a culture shift that demonstrates, clearly and unambiguously, to people that if they're not prepared to contribute to society, there'll be serious consequences. As it stands, we have a culture where people are actively incentivised to drop out of society.

Don't we have provisions for kids to be taken into care, fostered etc., if their parents are consistently irresponsible?

D15er

Everlong1 wrote: »

I didn't mean literally starve them - what I was thinking was more along the lines of instituting a culture shift that demonstrates, clearly and unambiguously, to people that if they're not prepared to contribute to society, there'll be serious consequences. As it stands, we have a culture where people are actively incentivised to drop out of society.

Don't we have provisions for kids to be taken into care, fostered etc., if their parents are consistently irresponsible?

The level of neglect has to be absolutely off the charts for kids to be removed from their parents.

Our current welfare and social housing programme almost incentivises bad parents to keep having more kids.

Biker79

D15er wrote: »

The level of neglect has to be absolutely off the charts for kids to be removed from their parents.

Our current welfare and social housing programme almost incentivises bad parents to keep having more kids.

At a faster rate than everyone else.

With disastrous implications for the future...

truth and logic

People shouldn't be required to work all the time. In the future people will be paid a Universal Income.

There's nothing wrong with being idle. Why should people be expected to work their entire lives if we can produce what we need using technology and automation?

People need to work less and spend more time with each other. Social tenants have their priorities correctly lined up and it is the people who work non-stop who have it wrong. Life is too short for work.

Mad_maxx

truth and logic wrote: »

People shouldn't be required to work all the time. In the future people will be paid a Universal Income.

There's nothing wrong with being idle. Why should people be expected to work their entire lives if we can produce what we need using technology and automation?

People need to work less and spend more time with each other. Social tenants have their priorities correctly lined up and it is the people who work non-stop who have it wrong. Life is too short for work.

being busy is healthier

" the devil has work for idle hands "

its why travellers end up committing so much crime , no education , no job , time on their hands

Normal One

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I've posted it before and I'll say it again. This impostion of the 10% rulebig for social housing is ridiculous. The blatant example is if a developer builds a small estate of 10 luxury houses to sell at 1 million Euro each, that one lucky social housing recipient gets to win the lottery. How is that fair to anyone?

The developer will go to the local authority and offer to give them 2,3 or 4 houses in another area worth €250k each, which keeps the €1m gaffs free of peasants. Or at least that's how they used to do things.

charlietheminxx

Normal One wrote: »

The developer will go to the local authority and offer to give them 2,3 or 4 houses in another area worth €250k each, which keeps the €1m gaffs free of peasants. Or at least that's how they used to do things.

They aren't allowed to that now. The usually build a couple of duplexes or something to meet their obligation, but it has to be in the same development.

LuasSimon

Unless you’ve a very good job it’s hardly worth your while work anymore . Have 5 or 6 kids , draw the dole and get a social house . You might be lucky and get one in these 1 million Euro a house estate .
Working is a mugs game unless your earning 100K plus .

Kermit.de.frog

In relation to evictions from social housing - generally don't happen (I know this from experience in my local town too). They (as in practically the entire town) tried to have a serious scumbag family creating chaos moved - I think it took between 10 and 15 years in the end. That's just to get one family out with an entire community lobbying.

Independent Councillor Cieran Perry says that local authorities are too slow to evict tenants from social housing where there is, say, serious criminality and anti-social behaviour.

Perry says that there are “next to no evictions” from council housing in the city. That has a detrimental impact on communities, allowing intimidation to continue, he says.

The level of proof required is overwhelming and even when the Gardaí have supporting evidence, the eviction can be difficult to achieve, Perry says. “The council system simply doesn’t work.”

Keatinge says that the local authority does have the power to evict people – and she doesn’t know why they don’t use it more.

“The procedure is pretty robust,” she says. “They can absolutely proceed.”

Serious criminals can be hard to handle though because neighbours are reluctant to make complaints, she says.

Perry, the independent councillor, says his criticism of the council’s system doesn’t mean he agrees with evicting social tenants in the first six months without any “due process” either. “There absolutely does have to be due process, for everyone regardless.”

People talk about rolling the dice - it could ruin your life if you get the neighbors from hell next door. You'll have to try and sell.

kippy

GarIT wrote: »

Do you have statistical proof of this ridiculous claim?

It would by my own opinion/experience as well.
Not to say there aren't a proportiin of trouble makers.
There's plenty trouble makers not in social too.

Biker79

Best places to buy in Dublin, IMO, would be mature ex council estates like lwr Sarsfield road, Sallynoggin, East Finglas ( Mckee road area ). These are quiet and close to the city.

Much better value than new builds, most of your neighbours will be retirees/ boomers. I'd follow a similar strategy if outside Dublin.

Leave the new builds to the troublemakers.

jrosen

charlietheminxx wrote: »

They aren't allowed to that now. The usually build a couple of duplexes or something to meet their obligation, but it has to be in the same development.

Im living in one with no social housing, I know that shouldn't be the case and its not suppose to be happening but it certainly is.

AndrewJRenko

Biker79 wrote: »

most of your neighbours will be retirees/ boomers..

Retirees and boomers don't make the best playmates for eight year old kids. You want to be with your peers.

oceanman

jrosen wrote: »

Im living in one with no social housing, I know that shouldn't be the case and its not suppose to be happening but it certainly is.

someone should report that builder.

ELM327

oceanman wrote: »

someone should report that builder.

Yes, report to people here so anyone that wants to buy a new build knows where to buy!

jrosen

oceanman wrote: »

someone should report that builder.

No one cares, the builder gets to sell all his houses at top price and actually use the lack of social housing as a selling point. Then he piles more into another development. The council still get their allocated amount so its a win win.

oceanman

jrosen wrote: »

No one cares, the builder gets to sell all his houses at top price and actually use the lack of social housing as a selling point. Then he piles more into another development. The council still get their allocated amount so its a win win.

but someone should care because thats not how the social mix is supposed to work, it defeats the purpose.

ELM327

oceanman wrote: »

but someone should care because thats not how the social mix is supposed to work, it defeats the purpose.

I'd prefer that there weren't people getting a house almost free that I'm breaking my balls for 30 years to pay for!