Rathgar council tenants in luxury apartments claim discrimination over facilities

NovemberWren

sdanseo wrote: »

We need to start seriously question the absolute clowns that allow this sort of thing to happen. Too many people just completely disinterested in local politics.

Compare the HSE to the NHS for example.

they really are in a dominant psyche of their own, these clowns; the weird thing is that they say; 'the people will comply' - and the people actually are 'compliant'. are the people odd? or worse, -- kute?

many of the ngo's etc. - have so many Princesses, (and the political parties have their Princes). These have a massive vested interest in the Big State. And do we all take them too seriously?

Eric Cartman

jay1988 wrote: »

As someone who grew up in a council house and now rents privately in a block that consists mostly of HAP or Homeless HAP tenant I find some of the comments here disgusting.

1. Not everyone who lives in council housing is scum (also plenty of homeowners/ private renters who are scum) or lazy layabouts.

2. If you buy a house/apartment/flat anywhere, its none of your ****ing business what anybody else is paying for a property in your estate or anywhere else.

The only thing I find more disgusting than that attitude is the fact the councl would spend 700-900K on a property for anyone, unless it included the cost of altering a house for an ill or disabled tenant. Surely they could build a block of apartments on land they already own, sell some privately and place some people from the housing list in the rest, take the money they've made from selling a few units and do them same again on land they already own.

We do when its our money making up the shortfall.

DelaneyIn

This lad was working in Canada in 2019.

https://twitter.com/TeniaKarim/status/1133743406440767488

How can someone who was working in Canada in 2019, arrive in Ireland and have a taxpayer funded €750 k luxury apartment by the end of 2020?

Although actual natives and citizens of the state are housed in emergency accommodation. Holland’s piece raises more questions than it answers. Very shoddy journalism.

anewme

Why are the social tenants not allowed pets, if others are?

NovemberWren

jay1988 wrote: »

As someone who grew up in a council house and now rents privately in a block that consists mostly of HAP or Homeless HAP tenant I find some of the comments here disgusting.

1. Not everyone who lives in council housing is scum (also plenty of homeowners/ private renters who are scum) or lazy layabouts.

2. If you buy a house/apartment/flat anywhere, its none of your ****ing business what anybody else is paying for a property in your estate or anywhere else.

The only thing I find more disgusting than that attitude is the fact the councl would spend 700-900K on a property for anyone, unless it included the cost of altering a house for an ill or disabled tenant. Surely they could build a block of apartments on land they already own, sell some privately and place some people from the housing list in the rest, take the money they've made from selling a few units and do them same again on land they already own.

Are this government just Gangsters. laundering free money from Europe. [whatever 'laundering' is]. They are gaining assets themselves; and accomplishing the insecurity of the poor.

Eric Cartman

anewme wrote: »

Why are the social tenants not allowed pets, if others are?

chances are neither are allowed pets. But I believe its the housing associations policy so they have less maintenance to do, furniture to replace etc...

Pets rightly so are not allowed in many apartment blocks anyway.

also considering over 60% of people in social housing have no other income except social welfare, if you can't even look after yourself theres not a hope you can look after an animal or expect the tax payer to pay for you to keep one.

tjhook

Deleted User wrote: »

No, the Republic stands with the support of its Citizens. The Citizens have a right to know that the wealth of the Republic is fairly distributed otherwise the integrity of the Republic is undermined and the dignity of those who are actually Citizens diminished.

I agree with the first part, a Republic stands with the support of its Citizens.

But I disagree with the second, "The Citizens have a right to know that the wealth of the Republic is fairly distributed", that's often not the case. In a socialist republic all wealth may belong to the state, with the state deciding how it is to be distributed. A capitalist republic can decide wealth belongs to those that earn it, other than a minimum that needs to be taxed to ensure the state can function. And there's a wide spectrum of possibilities between those two.

Some may want all wealth generated within the state to belong to the state. But that hasn't been the will of the people.

anewme

Eric Cartman wrote: »

chances are neither are allowed pets. But I believe its the housing associations policy so they have less maintenance to do, furniture to replace etc...

In the original article, it clearly states that 2 social families had to give up their pets, but now see everyone else with theirs.

Eric Cartman

anewme wrote: »

In the original article, it clearly states that 2 social families had to give up their pets, but now see everyone else with theirs.

its a housing association, not the council. I would imagine the rules are for any housing association tenant and not the buildings then. Cluid do have rules like this.

its a small price to pay for a free house.

Sultan of Bling

They didn't have to. They chose to.

Wonder if these two people he follows at the top of image had anything got to do with his allocation of a luxury social house less than a year into his 'asylum' application.

anewme

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its a housing association, not the council. I would imagine the rules are for any housing association tenant and not the buildings then. Cluid do have rules like this.

its a small price to pay for a free house.

I would imagine...is not enough here.

Surely the rules of the complex do apply.

If others are allowed pets, with the social tenants denied them in the same complex, that's discrimination.

jay1988

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We do when its our money making up the shortfall.

No you don't and its not "your" money either, you've paid your taxes that money then belongs to the state to do whatever they see fit with it, regardless of your opinion on where it goes.

Do you demand to know the ins and outs of treatments people receive from the HSE with the shortfall made up with "your" money?

NovemberWren

tjhook wrote: »

I agree with the first part, a Republic stands with the support of its Citizens.

But I disagree with the second, "The Citizens have a right to know that the wealth of the Republic is fairly distributed", that's often not the case. In a socialist republic all wealth may belong to the state, with the state deciding how it is to be distributed. A capitalist republic can decide wealth belongs to those that earn it, other than a minimum that needs to be taxed to ensure the state can function. And there's a wide spectrum of possibilities between those two.

Some may want all wealth generated within the state to belong to the state. But that hasn't been the will of the people.

yep. there is something to that. on youtube i saw something about the : separation of the banking system, to keep the banks Private, i.e. - From the political State.
maybe the State should let banks fail.

Having politicians controlling finance may create an unreal actualisation of a real trade value.
dunno if that makes sense.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Surely the rules of the complex do apply.

If others are allowed pets, with the social tenants denied them, in the same complex, that's discrimination.

Not really.
It's the rules and regulations you are made aware of before signing up for something.

If I pay into a nightclub and I'm not allowed in the vip section, I don't shout discrimination.

If I go to college and my buddy has a better laptop provided to her by the college as she qualifies under disadvantage, I don't shout discrimination.

If Im working my back off and I can't get a luxury apartment from the council again are they discriminating against me for working?
We throw this word around far too much.

'if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail''

anewme

Eric Cartman wrote: »

chances are neither are allowed pets. But I believe its the housing associations policy so they have less maintenance to do, furniture to replace etc...

Pets rightly so are not allowed in many apartment blocks anyway.

also considering over 60% of people in social housing have no other income except social welfare, if you can't even look after yourself theres not a hope you can look after an animal or expect the tax payer to pay for you to keep one.

Its not that pets are allowed or disallowed, it's that pets seem disallowed for the social tenants only, despite living in the same complex.

I view the pets as different than the gym, the gym could be seen a benefit to those on the private contact and paying full management fees , ( if you want to be really petty about it) while the pets are a cost to their owners only.

There are many people on social welfare who love their pets and look after them better than those not on social.

Caquas

anewme wrote: »

Surely the rules of the complex do apply.

If others are allowed pets, with the social tenants denied them, in the same complex, that's discrimination.

Kitty Holland made an extraordinary choice in her reporting. She had two stories linked to this apartment complex, one about a guy who wants to use the gym, another about a married couple whose elder son died in an accident in 2012 and his younger brother, their only other child, committed suicide in 2014. They are forced to give up their little dog, the younger son’s pet She says

“I cried giving him up.“

When they arrive to the apartment, they discover the “no pets” rule doesn’t apply to other tenants.

Which story should lead in this report? A normal human being would say the couple whose sons died and were forced to give up the family pet is more of a human interest story than a guy who wants free gym membership.

But obviously you and I don’t think like Kitty Holland (or the editors of the IT, if they have any control of her).

Gatling

Why aren't pets allowed they smell , noisy and lazy owners let them piss and **** in common areas .

The majority of housing bodys don't allow pets such as dogs or cats ,
At the end of the day they are tenants on highly subsidised rents Vs owner occupier who paid a fortune and employ their own management company who then sets the house rules ,( management companies work for the owners)
Social tenants are just that ,they live in properties which will be eventually allocated to other people .

https://dublininquirer.com/2019/01/16/council-briefs-housing-in-rathgar-free-wifi-the-pendulum-summit-and-more
mannix flynn was on a crusade to spread the apartments out in to all blocks for development in Marinella.

according to times uk website the cost per apartment to the council was on average 250k not the 650 to 750k mentioned elsewhere.

anewme

Gatling wrote: »

Why aren't pets allowed they smell , noisy and lazy owners let them piss and **** in common areas .

The majority of housing bodys don't allow pets such as dogs or cats ,
At the end of the day they are tenants on highly subsidised rents Vs owner occupier who paid a fortune and employ their own management company who then sets the house rules ,( management companies work for the owners)
Social tenants are just that ,they live in properties which will be eventually allocated to other people .

The pets of social tenants are not aware of how their owners got the property. They behave exactly the same as other pets. It's one of the positives of pets. They dont discriminate.

Gatling

anewme wrote: »

They dont discriminate.

But unfortunately rules say no pets , likely say no 13ft trampolines or paddling pools in common areas too
It's what you signed up and agreed to

anewme

Gatling wrote: »

But unfortunately rules say no pets , likely say no 13ft trampolines or paddling pools in common areas too
It's what you signed up and agreed to

If the rules of the complex say no pets, then they are the rules.

If the rules of the complex say no pets for social tenants but pets for everyone else, that's discrimination.

The trampoline and pool rules are within the gym membership rules, and apply to all, surely.

If you are that petty that you would want a family to give up their dog, to prove they are of a lower social status, then you are to pitied.

Gatling

anewme wrote: »

If the rules of the complex say no pets for social tenants but pets for everyone else, that's discrimination.

Unfortunately no ,if say a tenant breaks the rules or is involved in anti social behaviour they get evicted , owners can't be evicted , hence why some owners could have pets they own their properties and they also make the rules through management companies who charge them monthly fees to operate the complex on there behalf ,
And it's always been like that ,it doesn't have to be social tenants it's Also standard pay full rents tenants have to agree to it ,
Hence why agms only involve and include owners in all of the decisions who each get a vote ,
The added complication Comes when the social tenant has to agree to their housing authorities rules as well as the house rules

anewme

Gatling wrote: »

Unfortunately no ,if say a tenant breaks the rules or is involved in anti social behaviour they get evicted , owners can't be evicted , hence why some owners could have pets they own their properties and they also make the rules through management companies who charge them monthly fees to operate the complex on there behalf ,
And it's always been like that ,it doesn't have to be social tenants it's Also standard pay full rents tenants have to agree to it ,
Hence why agms only involve and include owners in all of the decisions who each get a vote ,
The added complication Comes when the social tenant has to agree to their housing authorities rules as well as the house rules

Keep it simple.

If apartment 7 can have a pet, but apartment 8 cant because they are a social tenant, that is clear discrimination.

Gatling

anewme wrote: »

Keep it simple.

If apartment 7 can have a pet, but apartment 8 cant because they are a social tenant, that is clear discrimination.

But it's the housing supplier who created the rules for their tenants ,so it's not discrimination ,it's well documented that these housing body's don't allow pets and they don't make exceptions ,
Add now social housing in mixed developments where they are very much in the minority they have to live within the rules

Suckit

Gatling wrote: »

But it's the housing supplier who created the rules for their tenants ,so it's not discrimination ,it's well documented that these housing body's don't allow pets and they don't make exceptions ,
Add now social housing in mixed developments where they are very much in the minority they have to live within the rules

That's the thing I'm not sure people are getting. There's no discrimination, no more than a block of apartments that allows pets/gym access/roof access etc.. and across the road/next door a different apartment block that doesn't allow any of the above.
This may be technically the same complex, but it is a different section, with different owners and different rules.

nullzero

anewme wrote: »

If you are that petty that you would want a family to give up their dog, to prove they are of a lower social status, then you are to pitied.

I couldn't afford to have a dog, owning a dog these days requires all sorts of hefty financial burdens that didn't exist years ago such as pet insurance.

I've also lived in apartments that allow pets where landlords have specified that individual properties shall remain pet free, it's up to the tenant to agree to those terms, and I'm sure that the people in this situation could have chosen to not move in were this such an issue for them.

How is it that people who cannot afford to house themselves can afford the luxury of owning a dog?

Like a lot of people I love dogs and seeing someone separated from their pet is something I can empathise with but the reality is that they are getting an awful lot in return that most people could only dream of.

BobbyMalone

anewme wrote: »

Keep it simple.

If apartment 7 can have a pet, but apartment 8 cant because they are a social tenant, that is clear discrimination.

Is it not the social housing body - Fold or whatever - that makes the rules on the pets?



Similar to the situation where I am, I imagine. Our landlady has a rule that we can't have pets (probably because of increased damage to the apartment) but the owners of apartments in the other blocks have dogs.


It's not discrimination though.

Tenant: accommodated at the states expense, in luxury apartments, in desirable area.

V.

Home owners: breaking their hoop, mortgaged to the nut, paying management fees and contributing to the tenants accomdation costs...


Off course they should have different quality of life. Its the whole point of working V social care.
Get a fecking gecko or fish, if a Newfoundland is not permitted under your lease.

jrosen

If both the tenant and the home owner were singing the same lease with the same body and one was allowed pets and the other was not you could argue for discrimination.
But they are not.

They are both signing an agreement with different bodies, the owner with the bank and the management company and the tenant with the coucil/housing agency.