Rathgar council tenants in luxury apartments claim discrimination over facilities

Kermit.de.frog

Social tenants in Rathgar complex excluded from certain facilities

Gym, meeting rooms and roof terrace restricted to non-council residents

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/social-tenants-in-rathgar-complex-excluded-from-certain-facilities-1.4415042

Social tenants in a luxury apartment complex in Dublin say they are being “discriminated” against as they are not allowed to use the property’s gym, meeting rooms or roof terrace, keep pets or attend residents’ meetings.

The exclusion of households nominated by Dublin City Council from facilities enjoyed by their private neighbours in the Marianella complex in Rathgar is “just the latest example” says Independent councillor Mannix Flynn of “social exclusion operating under the guise of social inclusion”.

He is calling on the council to “take responsibility” to ensure households it nominates to live in private developments are treated “with equity, dignity and respect”.

Finished in 2017, Marianella’s 210 apartments on the site of a former monastery on Orwell Road, were priced in the region of €700,000 and €950,000.

Oh I dunno. I reckon they got a better deal than most as it is for virtually nothing.

What say you?

KevRossi

How much are DCC paying in rent and charges for those apartments? That’s mental money.

y0ssar1an22

Social tenants in a luxury apartment complex in Dublin say they are being “discriminated” against as they are not allowed to use the property’s gym, meeting rooms or roof terrace, keep pets or attend residents’ meetings.

are they being discriminated against? i dunno, what are the grounds for discrimination?

“I was brought up with principles and dignity. This hurts my dignity. They do not like when I say ‘discrimination’ but what other word do they want to use?”

you cant argue with that.

what are the facts?

Atlantic Dawn

Segregation is needed, someone getting a place handed to them for less than the price of the monthly depreciation of a new Ford Fiesta shouldn't be living in the same place as someone working their bollix off paying €2k a month for a mortgage.

It would never happen in Trump's America.

Kraftwerk

"The Fold spokeswoman said all tenants were made aware of its “no pet policy” prior to moving in. Fold “does not pay for the concierge service and tenants were made aware of this,” she said.

“Feedback from our tenants in Marianella is that they are very happy . . . Our service agreement does not provide for membership of the gym/resident’s club. We are a charitable organisation of limited resources and they are focused on the provision of housing to our tenants.”

So they're getting social housing in luxury apartments, agreed to the terms before moving in and now want all the trimmings with their subsidised dinner paid for by a charitable organisation who got them their nice apartments or its discrimination? Get ****ed.

y0ssar1an22

Kraftwerk wrote: »

"The Fold spokeswoman said all tenants were made aware of its “no pet policy” prior to moving in. Fold “does not pay for the concierge service and tenants were made aware of this,” she said.

“Feedback from our tenants in Marianella is that they are very happy . . . Our service agreement does not provide for membership of the gym/resident’s club. We are a charitable organisation of limited resources and they are focused on the provision of housing to our tenants.”

So they're getting social housing in luxury apartments, agreed to the terms before moving in and now want all the trimmings with their free dinner paid for by a charitable organisation who got them their nice apartments or its discrimination? Get ****ed.

it makes perfect sense to me...someone that doesn't work needs to be near their family. that makes sense.

while on the other hand, someone that does work can spend a few hours commuting.

ceadaoin.

The private tenants probably pay a monthly service fee to use those facilities. Presumably these other tenants don't so they cant avail of them. How is it discrimination? People who dont pay for things like gym membership for example, cant demand access so this is no different.

Atlantic Dawn

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The private tenants probably pay a monthly service fee to use those facilities. Presumably these other tenants don't so they cant avail of them. How is it discrimination? People who dont pay for things like gym membership for example, cant demand access so this is no different.

But the idiotic council are likely paying this fee too for their freeloaders, the whole structure is incompatible with life in any fair country on the face of the earth.

ElJeffe

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Segregation is needed, someone getting a place handed to them for less than the price of the monthly depreciation of a new Ford Fiesta shouldn't be living in the same place as someone working their bollix off paying €2k a month for a mortgage.

It would never happen in Trump's America.

Thankfully we aren't living in Trump's America or are never likely to be. Integration and not segregation is the answer.

Suckit

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The private tenants probably pay a monthly service fee to use those facilities. Presumably these other tenants don't so they cant avail of them. How is it discrimination? People who dont pay for things like gym membership for example, cant demand access so this is no different.

He offered to pay for the service, but was refused... I think that's their main issue.
I would imagine it could easily be argued that they won't be allowed to use it, but there is going to be a serious chip on the shoulders of the people in the 'hall' section of that complex. I can only imagine that will get worse over time.

“We were in a really bad place when we moved here. We wanted to join the gym but were told very bluntly, ‘Oh no, Orwell Hall, we don’t deal with them’.”
They had to give up their younger son’s dog before moving. Fold has a strict no-pets policy while private residents can have pets.
“He was a Shih Tzu cross, a gorgeous ball of fluff,” says Ms Doyle-Reilly. “I cried giving him up. When I was here a few days and I saw everyone else here walking their dogs, I was fit to be tied.”
‘Stigmatised here’

She is “disappointed” Orwell Hall residents cannot access the decked roof space, while residents in other blocks can use theirs. Fold says the roof is for maintenance access only.
“They are lovely apartments but what’s going on, we are stigmatised here,” says Ms Doyle-Reilly. “You feel it every day. If we could go back to Cuffe Street I’d go in the blink of an eye.”

I'll give it another year before people start turning up on the decked roof space.
Would they get evicted?

Atlantic Dawn

ElJeffe wrote: »

Thankfully we aren't living in Trump's America or are never likely to be. Integration and not segregation is the answer.

I'd prefer Trumps America compared to how we are living in this country now like bloody idiots. You get the impression anyone earning 30-50k saving up like a loon is a bloody idiot, meanwhile someone sitting on their hole since they left school before junior cert because their arsehole waster father and his waster scum father before him has accommodation handed to them that would be €1k plus a month for a productive person to live in.

ILoveYourVibes

If i were a non council tenant it wouldn't bother me if people wanted to use the facilities from council houses.

I don't get the big deal. Shrug.

Unless they were causing trouble.

Quantum Erasure

I'd love to be discriminated against like that

ILoveYourVibes

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I'd love to be discriminated against like that

I would love to have the time after paying a million for a flat to be worried about who is using the bleedin gym!

Middleclass issues!

I get your point though. I would love to be discriminated like that too.

But i don't get why you have to feel special tho just cause you bought it ....

cannotlogin

I would absolutely love an apartment there but I work, earn well above the average industrial wage and cannot afford one.

If they don't like the fact they can't use the gym in their free luxury gaff, then maybe they should house themselves.

I'm all for supporting those who need it but somewhere along the way the government have lots the plot. Surely a basic property would suffice and would be much more cost effective. Instead first time buyers are continually priced out of nice areas as the government/social housing sector buy up the stock and drive prices up.

Some many people commuting daily whereas others can sit on their backside, do feck all but still complain about it. It's time for this to turn. What is the point in working when it pays so well not to?

Bullocks

Council should never be paying the price of these for tenants to live there ,it's a joke funded by the tax payer .
€700000 for an apt for 1 family is madness ,they should be able to build 10 apts for that money

ED E

I'm almost certain if you popped into one of these apartments it'd be stacked with harp cans and fags. If you were a couple professionals on 150k pa and then DCC did this.....just give up and go on the housing list.

Omackeral

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

would love to have the time after paying a million for a flat to be worried about who is using the bleedin gym!

Middleclass issues!

I get your point though. I would love to be discriminated like that too.

But i don't get why you have to feel special tho just cause you bought it ....

How much do you pay for various products and services. Should everyone just be allowed to use your Netflix or your electricity or your car?

macnug

Although I agree that 700k is a bit much and they could get more for their money, its nice to see that everyone gets to share the burden. I live in a private housing estate where 20-30% has been bought by the council.

I understand why the council wont pay for the gyms, but why not allow the tenants themselves? that comes across as segregation to me. Kind of goes against the whole idea of integrated housing. If people feel like their different their going to act different.

Pkiernan

macnug wrote: »

Although I agree that 700k is a bit much and they could get more for their money, its nice to see that everyone gets to share the burden. I live in a private housing estate where 20-30% has been bought by the council.

I understand why the council wont pay for the gyms, but why not allow the tenants themselves? that comes across as segregation to me. Kind of goes against the whole idea of integrated housing. If people feel like their different their going to act different.

The poor creatures...
If they can pay for the luxuries, they can pay more towards their 90% subsidised rent ffs.

malinheader

The whole way the government is bending over backwards for wasters who have no intention of ever working or contributing to society is sickening.
You should get what you earn, but reality is the more useless you are in this country will benefit you more.
Someone who has scraped and saved for a deposit and works hard for their home should not have to put up with someone being handed the house next to them.

ILoveYourVibes

Omackeral wrote: »

How much do you pay for various products and services. Should everyone just be allowed to use your Netflix or your electricity or your car?

I mean it doesn't help me to NOT let them use it does it? Im still paying the same price either way.



I mean it will prob just make your neighbors dislike you.

The whole issue is going to create a lot of disharmony in the complex i would say any chance of community feeling is shot.

malinheader

macnug wrote: »

Although I agree that 700k is a bit much and they could get more for their money, its nice to see that everyone gets to share the burden. I live in a private housing estate where 20-30% has been bought by the council.

I understand why the council wont pay for the gyms, but why not allow the tenants themselves? that comes across as segregation to me. Kind of goes against the whole idea of integrated housing. If people feel like their different their going to act different.

They do act differently. 90% of the time if you drive through the estate you can tell who is paying for the house and who got it for nothing. Easy come easy go, why look after and maintain something that's not yours. Totally unfair

ILoveYourVibes

Bullocks wrote: »

Council should never be paying the price of these for tenants to live there ,it's a joke funded by the tax payer .
€700000 for an apt for 1 family is madness ,they should be able to build 10 apts for that money

Welcome to modern Dublin.

That is how much flats cost.

The average is around 500,000 easy.

Omackeral

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I mean it doesn't help me to NOT let them use it does it? Im still paying the same price either way.

So you’d be happy to pay for your Netflix/Spotify/PPV events and let some randomer get all the benefits while you pay for it like a sucker. Then again, I suppose there are suckers out there who enable this type of thing so maybe it’s not necessary to answer that.

NIMAN

So it appears before the tenants move in they are made aware of the fact that they aren't allowed to use certain facilities, but sure once in run to the media and claim discrimination and you'll probably be allowed to use everything.

I feel sorry for those who have bought one of those properties.

Cyrus

macnug wrote: »

Although I agree that 700k is a bit much and they could get more for their money, its nice to see that everyone gets to share the burden. I live in a private housing estate where 20-30% has been bought by the council.

I understand why the council wont pay for the gyms, but why not allow the tenants themselves? that comes across as segregation to me. Kind of goes against the whole idea of integrated housing. If people feel like their different their going to act different.

It’s probably the most expensive gym membership going to be honest and they are only saying the offered to pay to give the story some legs.

This is a prime example of why this kind of thing is a ridiculous idea marianella was aimed at wealthy downsizers in the main, you won’t attract them with this kind of thing going on.

ILoveYourVibes

Omackeral wrote: »

So you’d be happy to pay for your Netflix/Spotify/PPV events and let some randomer get all the benefits while you pay for it like a sucker. Then again, I suppose there are suckers out there who enable this type of thing so maybe it’s not necessary to answer that.

False analogy.

I am not a sucker.

I KNOW acting like that would not improve my lifestyle.

And improving my lifestyle is what I AM ABOUT. That is what i put my energy into.

paw patrol

It an old adage that people never respect things they get for free.
ungrateful fcuks

thomas 123

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

False analogy.

I am not a sucker.

I KNOW acting like that would not improve my lifestyle.

And improving my lifestyle is what I AM ABOUT. That is what i put my energy into.

Your not answering his question though... the whole system is a joke. Why should I work and pay something off for the rest of my life when my neighbor gets it for nothing? And before someone says it I am not talking about the elderly, disabled, or genuinely ill who rightfully avail of social welfare.


I wonder how much the councils purchase/holding for rent of these apartments drove up the price when the private tenants bought them.

Time to sell id say.

macnug

malinheader wrote: »

They do act differently. 90% of the time if you drive through the estate you can tell who is paying for the house and who got it for nothing. Easy come easy go, why look after and maintain something that's not yours. Totally unfair

Yea but you could say the same about renters/landlords, as in not looking after property, doesn't mean we should exclude them from the facilities etc.

I don't agree with social housing in private estates by the way but if your going to it (the government) then they shouldn't feel excluded or integration wont ever happen. Imagine in my estate where cc tenants couldn't use the green?