Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do NIMBY's have a right to complain about housing crisis?

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,582 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Sunny Disposition wrote: »
    Dublin a total disaster for years now, but I’d be optimistic, that it will change because of remote working. Lot of areas close to Galway, Limerick and Cork also ruined by inappropriate development but hopefully commuters won’t be such a major demographic and that type of development won’t continue.
    The State building houses, not just social ones for layabouts but ones for working people too, could work. It’d be crucial that they are for everyone though and also that there are facilities and not just houses, no more Southills. Unfortunately it’s very unlikely this will happen, we don’t have the competence in the State or Government.

    Well what happened in Galway is they lumped most of the big employers into one area and never thought of the problems that would create with traffic.


  • Options
    #123
    Government buildings
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Government buildings


    The social housing list keeps getting longer, no hope of this problem being solved, as they have to be housed in similar houses to the people who have to buy their house.


  • Options
    #124
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,116 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Government buildings wrote: »

    How did we end up in a
    situation like this?

    By not building housing for a decade.


  • Options
    #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,614 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    By not building housing for a decade.


    Thats it in a nutshell. And the solution is relatively easy, build houses. Build affordable houses. Build tesco own brand, yellow pack houses, four walls and a roof and then sell them at cost.


  • Options
    #126
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,582 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Government buildings wrote: »
    The social housing list keeps getting longer, no hope of this problem being solved, as they have to be housed in similar houses to the people who have to buy their house.

    Thats a bad system, totally unfair that people who paid hundreds of thousands see their neighbour in the same kind of house and paying peanuts for it.

    And worse still if they turn out to be troublemakers making everyones life a misery.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Government buildings
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Government buildings


    If, as seems to be the case, those who can afford it, and those who cannot, end up in similar houses, then it logically follows that the social list will just become longer and longer.
    As long as this remains the case, the housing crisis will only get much worse. There is no solution.


  • Options
    #128
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,116 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Government buildings wrote: »
    If, as seems to be the case, those who can afford it, and those who cannot, end up in similar houses, then it logically follows that the social list will just become longer and longer.
    As long as this remains the case, the housing crisis will only get much worse. There is no solution.
    You know there are very specific criteria for getting social housing and very, very long waiting lists, right? It's not something you opt for on a whim.
    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Thats a bad system, totally unfair that people who paid hundreds of thousands see their neighbour in the same kind of house and paying peanuts for it.

    And worse still if they turn out to be troublemakers making everyones life a misery.
    You'd prefer the kind of segregated slums that served us so well in the past, presumably?


  • Options
    #129
    Government buildings
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Government buildings


    They weren't segregated slums. They were well built and well planned. I'm talking about the schemes of the forties and fifties. Everyone was housed.

    People who could afford it, bought better housing. Same with all aspects of life.

    There was minority that caused problems, and they weren't dealth with. Thus the antipathy towards social housing today.


  • Options
    #130
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,582 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You'd prefer the kind of segregated slums that served us so well in the past, presumably?

    No but I'd be rightly pissed off if I was one of the people in my previous post.


  • Options
    #131
    Government buildings
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Government buildings


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    No but I'd be rightly pissed off if I was one of the people in my previous post.

    True. And you're not only paying for your house, you're paying for the social house next door.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,116 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    No but I'd be rightly pissed off if I was one of the people in my previous post.
    What's the alternative? Do we want trailer park housing here?
    Government buildings wrote: »
    They weren't segregated slums. They were well built and well planned. I'm talking about the schemes of the forties and fifties. Everyone was housed.

    People who could afford it, bought better housing. Same with all aspects of life.

    There was minority that caused problems, and they weren't dealth with. Thus the antipathy towards social housing today.

    There's just no physical space available in any location near any kind of decent services and transport for those kinds of estates, whether for public or private housing. So building up, in high density, is the only real option.

    The choice is between Ballymun V2 or integrated housing.


  • Options
    #133
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 25,492 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    tigger123 wrote: »
    But they're always 'legitimate complaints', and its generally bull$hit. Those complaining then make disingenuous arguments saying its the wrong kind of development for the area.

    People just don't want their localities to be developed. Pulling the ladder up after themselves, and everyone else should go live in Kildare.

    People have that right.

    If the infrastructure isn’t there for an estate with 220 houses, such as transport, local amenities, shopping, if it’s not suitable.... people should object.

    If you bought a house in an area you liked, a quiet area... moderate traffic disruption etc.... only on a disused farm across the road four years later in what was a nice , quiet area , planning for a big estate is granted, 220 houses built, constant disruptions between traffic and antisocial behavior...the character and quality of the area is depleted along with quality of life, you’ll be wondering why you didnt go with your instinct and object... your quality of life is suffering, not sleeping? So is your health...

    At the end of the day we know what the catalyst is for ‘us’ requiring more social housing... it’s not ‘irish’ people, taxpayers having a greater need... our taxpayers money is being spent enabling people to rock up, rock in... and say.. “ hi, we are here, yes we get social welfare, free transport, free healthcare, but now you need to build us a house too”... it’s just a bit nuts...


  • Options
    #134
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,101 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Government buildings wrote: »
    All the political parties tripping over themselves telling us how many social houses they are going to provide.

    How did we end up in a
    situation like this?


    we are in this situation because we didn't grow up like most other countries and continue building such housing.
    instead we told everyone that they could all own a property, even if they couldn't afford it.
    we encouraged people to get large mortgages they could not, and were never going to be able to afford to pay back, the banks threw out money like confetty, etc.
    Government buildings wrote: »
    If, as seems to be the case, those who can afford it, and those who cannot, end up in similar houses, then it logically follows that the social list will just become longer and longer.
    As long as this remains the case, the housing crisis will only get much worse. There is no solution.


    this is based on wishful thinking to push your particular viewpoints rather then based on reality.
    the social housing list has been increasing dispite us not building social houses at all for a long time now, which debunks your theory.
    not to mention people have to pass criteria to get one in the first place.
    Government buildings wrote: »
    They weren't segregated slums. They were well built and well planned. I'm talking about the schemes of the forties and fifties. Everyone was housed.

    People who could afford it, bought better housing. Same with all aspects of life.

    There was minority that caused problems, and they weren't dealth with. Thus the antipathy towards social housing today.

    the antipathy towards social housing today is down to the irish catholic judgemental attitudes that have been indoctrinated into society, and which dispite all of the modernisation the country has gone through, really have not gone away, you know.
    along with of course what i mentioned in the first quote about the entitlement to own property that has been driven into society since the celtic tiger.

    if it wasn't people causing trouble, it would be something else used as the excuse.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #135
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,101 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Thats a bad system, totally unfair that people who paid hundreds of thousands see their neighbour in the same kind of house and paying peanuts for it.

    And worse still if they turn out to be troublemakers making everyones life a misery.

    it's very fair, it makes bigotry against those in social housing more socially unacceptable, and it reminds those who buy a house that a mortgage only entitles them to own the building and what comes with it, and nothing else, and only upon full repayment to the bank.
    they aren't going to have some social standing in society that entitles them to more.
    if people are causing trouble then the law needs to deal with it it's that simple.
    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    No but I'd be rightly pissed off if I was one of the people in my previous post.

    sure, but that's just tough on your part.
    you aren't entitled to be surrounded by people similar to you.
    Government buildings wrote: »
    True. And you're not only paying for your house, you're paying for the social house next door.

    yes, and we are going to pay no matter what, so you need to get used to it, it's that simple.
    social housing that can be of benefit to people on moderate to low incomes, or a greater cost to pay for hotels, or rent from private land lords in turn pushing the costs up for others wishing to rent privately?
    i know which one i would rather.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,614 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    end of the road wrote: »
    we are in this situation because we didn't grow up like most other countries and continue building such housing.
    instead we told everyone that they could all own a property, even if they couldn't afford it.
    we encouraged people to get large mortgages they could not, and were never going to be able to afford to pay back, the banks threw out money like confetty, etc.




    this is based on wishful thinking to push your particular viewpoints rather then based on reality.
    the social housing list has been increasing dispite us not building social houses at all for a long time now, which debunks your theory.
    not to mention people have to pass criteria to get one in the first place.



    the antipathy towards social housing today is down to the irish catholic judgemental attitudes that have been indoctrinated into society, and which dispite all of the modernisation the country has gone through, really have not gone away, you know.
    along with of course what i mentioned in the first quote about the entitlement to own property that has been driven into society since the celtic tiger.

    if it wasn't people causing trouble, it would be something else used as the excuse.


    Part of the desire to own property comes from the pain in the hole that renting is. Long term tenancies are few and far between, and furnitureless properties are non-existent.


  • Options
    #137
    doublejobbing 2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 763 ✭✭✭doublejobbing 2


    Government buildings wrote: »
    All the political parties tripping over themselves telling us how many social houses they are going to provide.

    How did we end up in a
    situation like this?

    - Sold off existing social housing while building barely any new ones

    - Little to no limits on placing non Irish people on housing lists, treating some of them as an allocation priority.


  • Options
    #138
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You know there are very specific criteria for getting social housing and very, very long waiting lists, right? It's not something you opt for on a whim.


    You'd prefer the kind of segregated slums that served us so well in the past, presumably?

    whats the criteria? to be a waster or have had a crystal ball ten years ago, telling you "why work, you will have 700k apartment in dundrum" with free rent? living beside the idiot paying for his 700k apartment and yours? oh I forgot, you also wont have to pay lpt or the management fee...

    "specific criteria" rocking up to the guarda station with a few kinds in tow, knowing rte will be fighting your cause on tomorrows current affairs show? landing you a several bed property in a few days and shaving years off the list you are on?


  • Options
    #139
    doublejobbing 2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 763 ✭✭✭doublejobbing 2


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »


    There's just no physical space available in any location near any kind of decent services and transport for those kinds of estates, whether for public or private housing. So building up, in high density, is the only real option.

    The choice is between Ballymun V2 or integrated housing.

    Most council estates built within DCC, and the wider Dublin area, post 1960's, have vast spaces of empty land. Most estates could take up to a third more houses infilled on to them. Aside from places like Ballyfermot, Crumlin there essentially aren't any council estates in the Dublin area that could be described as densely populated with housing.

    Tearing down Ballymun was probably the biggest housing fcuk up the Irish government made aside from opening the border to Eastern Europe which fuelled the first crash and continues to fuel the rental crisis. The flats should be rebuilt on the vast tracks of empty land they left in Ballymun (regenerated Ballymun is probably the ugliest place in the entire state)


  • Options
    #140
    Government buildings
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Government buildings


    More social more social...all the parties are the same.

    None of them standing up for the taxpayer and mortgage payer.


  • Options
    #141
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,116 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    doublejobbing 2 wrote: »
    Most council estates built within DCC, and the wider Dublin area, post 1960's, have vast spaces of empty land. Most estates could take up to a third more houses infilled on to them. Aside from places like Ballyfermot, Crumlin there essentially aren't any council estates in the Dublin area that could be described as densely populated with housing.
    Green spaces are essential for physical and mental health, as pretty much everyone involved in planning already knows, so the chances of building on these is negligible, with good reason.
    doublejobbing 2 wrote: »
    Tearing down Ballymun was probably the biggest housing fcuk up the Irish government made aside from opening the border to Eastern Europe which fuelled the first crash and continues to fuel the rental crisis. The flats should be rebuilt on the vast tracks of empty land they left in Ballymun (regenerated Ballymun is probably the ugliest place in the entire state)

    By 'opening the border to Eastern Europe', I presume you're referring to those countries joining the EU, because we don't have any borders in the EU. It is the fundamental basis on which the success of the EU is based.

    Have you spoken to many former and current residents in Ballymun about the living experiences in the towers vs the regenerated areas?
    Government buildings wrote: »
    More social more social...all the parties are the same.

    None of them standing up for the taxpayer and mortgage payer.
    Everyone pays tax. Why would parties be 'standing up for the mortgage payer'? Do you expect political parties to subsidise your housing choices?
    doublejobbing 2 wrote: »
    - Sold off existing social housing while building barely any new ones
    Yes, big problem in both Ireland and the UK.
    doublejobbing 2 wrote: »
    - Little to no limits on placing non Irish people on housing lists, treating some of them as an allocation priority.
    Where/when/how was non-Irish an allocation priority?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,558 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Government buildings wrote: »
    More social more social...all the parties are the same.

    None of them standing up for the taxpayer and mortgage payer.

    thats what 'the market' is for!


  • Options
    #143
    Government buildings
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Government buildings


    The problem I have is that people who pay nothing get the same standard house as those who pay, under the guise of social engineering.
    This is causing a huge difficulty in trying to house everybody.

    This is blatantly wrong.

    And it won't work, because the social housing list will just become longer, as more and more people try to qualify for it.

    And trying to buy a private house in an established estate will be out of the reach of the mortgage payer, as these houses are at a premium.
    .
    Ironically most of them are in the corporation estates built in the fifties, which are supposedly scorned upon.

    Until this is rectified, the problem of housing is just going to get worse, and anyone thinking they can solve the problem by continuing with the present policy is in cloud cuckoo land.


  • Options
    #144
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,101 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Government buildings wrote: »
    More social more social...all the parties are the same.

    None of them standing up for the taxpayer and mortgage payer.


    the government don't stand up for mortgage payers?
    come on, the whole system in place is about trying to protect us.
    what more do you want? for them to subsidize us?
    we made a choice based on affordability and we will own our houses, people in social housing or being housed wherever by the council will never do so, so quite frankly we are in a much, much luckier position then they will ever be.
    Government buildings wrote: »
    The problem I have is that people who pay nothing get the same standard house as those who pay, under the guise of social engineering.
    This is causing a huge difficulty in trying to house everybody.

    This is blatantly wrong.

    And it won't work, because the social housing list will just become longer, as more and more people try to qualify for it.

    And trying to buy a private house in an established estate will be out of the reach of the mortgage payer, as these houses are at a premium.
    .
    Ironically most of them are in the corporation estates built in the fifties, which are supposedly scorned upon.

    Until this is rectified, the problem of housing is just going to get worse, and anyone thinking they can solve the problem by continuing with the present policy is in cloud cuckoo land.


    well yeah, they will get the same housing, the days of barely throwing together places like ronan point and other such "constructions" are gone and quite rightly so.
    your claim of the social housing list getting longer because of the standard of housing is not based in reality, we know this because it's increasing even though we aren't building.
    it's because of the lack of building that houses in private estates will end up out of one's price range.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #145
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,582 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    end of the road wrote: »
    sure, but that's just tough on your part.
    you aren't entitled to be surrounded by people similar to you.

    Actually I am when I'm paying out that amount of money which is why I made sure I knew exactly who my neighbours were before the deal was done.

    No travellers and no dole lifers in my area, and its no surprise we have no anti social behaviour to deal with either.


  • Options
    #146
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Actually I am when I'm paying out that amount of money which is why I made sure I knew exactly who my neighbours were before the deal was done.

    No travellers and no dole lifers in my area, and its no surprise we have no anti social behaviour to deal with either.

    The irony of being accused of entitlement, for breaking your hoop to ensure you live in a desirable area, without social housing and its potential issues...


  • Options
    #147
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,582 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    MikeOxsgreen wrote: »
    The irony of being accused of entitlement, for breaking your hoop to ensure you live in a desirable area, without social housing and its potential issues...

    It's gas all right isn't it, take out a loan for a couple of hundred grand and be told something like that!


  • Options
    #148
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    end of the road wrote: »
    we are in this situation because we didn't grow up like most other countries and continue building such housing.
    instead we told everyone that they could all own a property, even if they couldn't afford it.

    We have one of the lower home ownership rates in Europe, as does Britain. I am not sure where this idea keeps getting traction.
    end of the road wrote: »
    sure, but that's just tough on your part.
    you aren't entitled to be surrounded by people similar to you.

    No that's for people in Dalkey and other established upper middle class to rich areas, or for people who inherit property.

    I am all for social housing but there's no need for it to be built along with private property. Even if there is a slight stigma, so what. Thats the cost of paying less.


  • Options
    #149
    doublejobbing 2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 763 ✭✭✭doublejobbing 2


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Green spaces are essential for physical and mental health, as pretty much everyone involved in planning already knows, so the chances of building on these is negligible, with good reason.

    Yes. A few small patches of it.

    Green spaces that take up one third of the estate are not required and should be infilled. Ironically such swathes of green space are far, far more common in "deprived" areas, I can't think of any privately built, affluent estates I know of that have them to the extent of most council estates I can think of.

    By 'opening the border to Eastern Europe', I presume you're referring to those countries joining the EU, because we don't have any borders in the EU. It is the fundamental basis on which the success of the EU is based.

    Isn't quite a fair deal though. Can Irish travellers decamp to Bucharest and have the state provide them with a 3 bed semi in a middle class estate, as happens here all the time?

    Have you spoken to many former and current residents in Ballymun about the living experiences in the towers vs the regenerated areas?

    Anybody who rants about a lack of facilities in an urban community is not anybody worth listening to.
    Where/when/how was non-Irish an allocation priority?

    Take a walk around Avondale in Mulhuddart, or Mac Uilliam in Tallaght. Or George Nkencho's 330K odd semi detached home far away from the council estates.

    Or how about Syrians getting a home within 90 days of arrival?


  • Options
    #150
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,116 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Government buildings wrote: »
    The problem I have is that people who pay nothing get the same standard house as those who pay, under the guise of social engineering.
    This is causing a huge difficulty in trying to house everybody.

    This is blatantly wrong.

    And it won't work, because the social housing list will just become longer, as more and more people try to qualify for it.

    And trying to buy a private house in an established estate will be out of the reach of the mortgage payer, as these houses are at a premium.
    .
    Ironically most of them are in the corporation estates built in the fifties, which are supposedly scorned upon.

    Until this is rectified, the problem of housing is just going to get worse, and anyone thinking they can solve the problem by continuing with the present policy is in cloud cuckoo land.


    No-one 'pays nothing'. Everyone pays tax, every time they go into a shop. Everyone pays for housing, including social housing tenants.
    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Actually I am when I'm paying out that amount of money which is why I made sure I knew exactly who my neighbours were before the deal was done.

    No travellers and no dole lifers in my area, and its no surprise we have no anti social behaviour to deal with either.
    No home owner controls who lives beside them. Any property can change hands at any stage, and could have new owners or new tenants, so I wouldn't put too much store in knowing who you live beside.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I am all for social housing but there's no need for it to be built along with private property. Even if there is a slight stigma, so what. Thats the cost of paying less.

    It's not about stigma. It's about whether you want to paying for all the social costs that result from ghettos like Ballymun for decades afterwards or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Government buildings
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Government buildings


    To defend the social housing policy, Andrew says everyone pays tax every time they go into a shop!

    That's a brilliant point, Andrew. How could I have missed it!

    This entitles them to a house similar to others who have made massive mortgage commitments.

    Goodnight.


Advertisement