Rathgar council tenants in luxury apartments claim discrimination over facilities

listermint

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

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.

Away off you go so . Don't let the door smack you in he arse on the way out.

I prefer the European way. And I'd argue you do to because this is just the normal bluster and waffle from Zealots.

Our approach should be more Vienna than Venice beach because it's better for everyone.

Bullocks

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Welcome to modern Dublin.

That is how much flats cost.

The average is around 500,000 easy.

Is it really the average?
Even if it is why waste money on units that are way above the average?

Cyrus

macnug wrote: »

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?

Using the green isn’t the same, there is a very small cost to upkeep and no staff are required.

The rent to the govt agency will have been less when access to communal facilities was taken out.

ILoveYourVibes

thomas 123 wrote: »

Why should I work and pay something off for the rest of my life when my neighbor gets it for nothing?

I work because i like what i am doing.

If you are not happy with your life. Change it.

Pkiernan

listermint wrote: »

Away off you go so . Don't let the door smack you in he arse on the way out.

I prefer the European way. And I'd argue you do to because this is just the normal bluster and waffle from Zealots.

Our approach should be more Vienna than Venice beach because it's better for everyone.

And the "most vulnerbale members of society" who are housed for free in luxury apartments can go off and find somewhere else to live where they can get free gym access too.

They should be out looking for work and improving themselves anyway, not having drinking sessions on the roof.

ILoveYourVibes

Bullocks wrote: »

Is it really the average?
Even if it is why waste money on units that are way above the average?

I am not privy to the council's decisions.

I do think that people living in council housing have the right to a nice standard of living.

We all do.

Yes its really the average. Sadly. Partic in complexes.

ILoveYourVibes

Pkiernan wrote: »

They should be out looking for work and improving themselves anyway, not having drinking sessions on the roof.

Are they doing this?

malinheader

macnug wrote: »

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?

Are you serious about claiming a green area would be like not being able to use a gymnasium.
And you can interview people looking to rent, landlords can be taken into hand for not maintaining a property and yes definitely if you let the property you have been given get run down you should be kicked out.
Anyhow they should not be given houses for free next to people paying for the next 30 or 40 years for theirs.

ILoveYourVibes

malinheader wrote: »

Are you serious about claiming a green area would be like not being able to use a gymnasium.
And you can interview people looking to rent, landlords can be taken into hand for not maintaining a property and yes definitely if you let the property you have been given get run down you should be kicked out.
Anyhow they should not be given houses for free next to people paying for the next 30 or 40 years for theirs.

They are not given them. They don't own them. The council does.
They can't sell them etc.

They can't touch the capital.

thomas 123

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I work because i like what i am doing.

If you are not happy with your life. Change it.

Okay, do it for free then, awful to think you would take payment for something you consider recreation?

But as we know It’s not that simple - you are exchanging your finite time for money, the money is then handed over to a landlord.

So with that in mind do you still think it’s fair party x does nothing gets the same(disposable income/ apartment + The free time) or party y who works and gets the same less the free time?

ILoveYourVibes

Anyway ..i have just checked highest weekly rent is 265 per week for a council residence. SO per month ..they would be more than likely be paying something like that.

It would be 1006k rent a month.

Not everyone in a council house pays 65 euros a week. There is a scale.

ILoveYourVibes

thomas 123 wrote: »

Okay, do it for free then, awful to think you would take payment for something you consider recreation?

1. I have done.

2. If i couldn't make a living from it ...i would do it as a hobby

3. I like money. I want to be rich. What is wrong with that?

Pkiernan

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They are not given them. They don't own them. The council does.
They can't sell them etc.

They can't touch the capital.

Until the council decides to sell it to them for approx 30% of market value

malinheader

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They are not given them. They don't own them. The council does.
They can't sell them etc.

They can't touch the capital.

And alot of the time the people who buy the houses find out they lose alot of their capital too.

Cause they have no capital, there getting something for NOTHING.

thomas 123

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

1. I have done.

2. If i couldn't make a living from it ...i would do it as a hobby

3. I like money.

1. Get your 40 hours a week back
2. Hop on the dole
3. Get your (essentially) free house
4. Don’t bother paying tax.
5. Do your hobby as much or as little as you want, when you do do it don’t bother declaring the cash in hand you get for it.

^ That’s the system we(collectively) are up against.

KaneToad

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.

Not quite true. It is undoubtedly more advantageous to existing users to have fewer users of the facilities.

macnug

Cyrus wrote: »

Using the green isn’t the same, there is a very small cost to upkeep and no staff are required.

The rent to the govt agency will have been less when access to communal facilities was taken out.

How is a roof terrace not the same as a green. There not even allowed to contribute to the cost themselves. Its not even a cost thing its, if it was they wouldn't have spent 700k per unit.

The logic behind integrated social housing is that (in theory) by putting a non-productive person in a group of productive people, they (or more likely their children) become more productive through basically peer-pressure. But in order for it to work they have to feel apart of the group, or they become social "deviants".

Anyway as I said I don't agree with this policy/theory but if your going to do it, do it right.

ILoveYourVibes

thomas 123 wrote: »

1. Get your 40 hours a week back
2. Hop on the dole
3. Get your (essentially) free house
4. Don’t bother paying tax.
5. Do your hobby as much or as little as you want, when you do do it don’t bother declaring the cash in hand you get for it.

^ That’s the system we(collectively) are up against.

I dont mean to be funny but erm ....i have higher aspirations financially that that thanks

And you won't be able to pay the higher rate of council rent on the dole ...just so you know. Its like 265 a week I just googled it.

ILoveYourVibes

malinheader wrote: »

And alot of the time the people who buy the houses find out they lose alot of their capital too.

.

How?

beggars_bush

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Welcome to modern Dublin.

That is how much flats cost.

The average is around 500,000 easy.

Bollox
There are very good flats for sale for 250000 in Dublin

Pkiernan

macnug wrote: »

How is a roof terrace not the same as a green. There not even allowed to contribute to the cost themselves. Its not even a cost thing its, if it was they wouldn't have spent 700k per unit.

The logic behind integrated social housing is that (in theory) by putting a non-productive person in a group of productive people, they (or more likely their children) become more productive through basically peer-pressure. But in order for it to work they have to feel apart of the group, or they become social "deviants".

Anyway as I said I don't agree with this policy/theory but if your going to do it, do it right.

The reality would be 20 mates over from the Liberties having coke parties on the roof.

thomas 123

macnug wrote: »

How is a roof terrace not the same as a green. There not even allowed to contribute to the cost themselves. Its not even a cost thing its, if it was they wouldn't have spent 700k per unit.

The logic behind integrated social housing is that (in theory) by putting a non-productive person in a group of productive people, they (or more likely their children) become more productive through basically peer-pressure. But in order for it to work they have to feel apart of the group, or they become social "deviants".

Anyway as I said I don't agree with this policy/theory but if your going to do it, do it right.

I think the simple answer here is the councils shouldn’t have put social tenants in luxury accommodation.

This us vs them is unavoidable.

ILoveYourVibes

KaneToad wrote: »

Not quite true. It is undoubtedly more advantageous to existing users to have fewer users of the facilities.

I feel this is debatable tbh.

Its undoubtedly more advantageous for them to own their houses and the capital in them even if they have a mortgage.

handlemaster

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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.

They are not paying for it. Thats the issue. And this was known before they moved in.

ILoveYourVibes

thomas 123 wrote: »

I think the simple answer here is the councils shouldn’t have put social tenants in luxury accommodation.

This us vs them is unavoidable.

Its what true socialism is though. Everyone gets a luxury house.

This attitude is nothing more than begrudgery and jealousy.

ILoveYourVibes

handlemaster wrote: »

They are not paying for it. Thats the issue. And this was known before they moved in.

They pay 1006 euro a month in rent.

Highest end of council rent is 265 a week.

Give them the option of paying for it. Like an extra 40 a week. It doesn't look like a great gym tbh.

thomas 123

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I dont mean to be funny but erm ....i have higher aspirations financially that that thanks

And you won't be able to pay the higher rate of council rent on the dole ...just so you know. Its like 265 a week I just googled it.

While your googling, google the percentage that actually pay that - it’s been done to death on boards, that is rarely paid or asked to be paid of social tenants.

I’m not trying to be smart either, I am trying to point out that someone who chooses not to have aspirations can avail of the same end result(+ the free time) as someone, like yourself, who works very hard, does.

Between vulture funds and the councils the Irish property market is an absolute spit roast for private buyers.

Pkiernan

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They pay 1006 euro a month in rent.

Highest end of council rent is 265 a week.

Give them the option of paying for it. Like an extra 40 a week. It doesn't look like a great gym tbh.

If they can afford to pay for access to the gym and roof, why can't they forgoe those luxuries and pay more towards rent, reducing the burden on the tax payer?
Surely thats a reasonable request?

Omackeral

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.

What an odd and irrelevant response.

ILoveYourVibes

thomas 123 wrote: »

While your googling, google the percentage that actually pay that - it’s been done to death on boards, that is rarely paid or asked to be paid of social tenants.

I’m not trying to be smart either, I am trying to point out that someone who chooses not to have aspirations can avail of the same end result(+ the free time) as someone like your self who works very hard does.

Between vulture funds and the councils the Irish property market is an absolute spit roast for private buyers.

What is the monthly council rent for THESE particular luxury apartments then?

Shouldn't we KNOW this before we claim we can judge?