Ronan plans to sell €960,000 apartment to council for social housing

Thelonious Monk

DraftDodger wrote: »

People in social housing are in work this morning paying for it also.

Maybe they are, but that doesn't mean they should get apartments in the most expensive land in Ireland.

Idbatterim

DraftDodger wrote: »

People in social housing are in work this morning paying for it also.

Looooooooool! IF they are working , the taxes they contribute at those threshold directly are very little. Then the question is, are they even bothered paying the token gesture rent...

TomTomTim

DraftDodger wrote: »

People in social housing are in work this morning paying for it also.

Is there stats for this kind of stuff? I doubt there is, but there really should be.

DraftDodger

Idbatterim wrote: »

Looooooooool! IF they are working , the taxes they contribute at those threshold directly are very little. Then the question is, are they even bothered paying the token gesture rent...

Was going to respond then i noticed every other post by yourself seems to involve social housing bashing. Enjoy.

IngazZagni

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Am I looking at the right development, the orange buildings?

Heres a video of the proposed development. It's super cheesy but there's some good images of it from just before the 3 minute mark.

https://youtu.be/Nig_cQP-T94

Also the actual website with all technical information.

http://www.waterfrontsouthcentralshd.ie

um7y1h83ge06nx

Easy for council employees to spend that kind of money - it's not their personal money.

I don't think any individual or couple would spend nearly a €1M on an apartment in Ireland unless it was a crazy penthouse - this is an 88sqm 2 bed.

twowheelsonly

I love how these threads always turn in to tenant bashing as the default.

No mention of how the Politicians and their wealthy developer buddies have created this situation.

The cessation of direct building by Councils and the emergence of Public/Private Partnerships are what has directly led us to this situation. But sure, let's all complain about the tenant.

DraftDodger

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Maybe they are, but that doesn't mean they should get apartments in the most expensive land in Ireland.

Of course not that's ridiculous but this belief that people in social housing don't work or pay tax is ludicrous. Myself and my wife lived in social housing for 12 years me as a truck driver and herself as a nurse before we bought our own place. There are some who are lazy and don't bother their arse but the majority in the area we lived in worked, be it carers, cleaners, bus drivers etc... Social housing exists to cater for these people on low incomes and is the cornerstone of any properly functioning society.

whippet

marieholmfan wrote: »

North Strand wasn't a ghetto I suppose?
Hollybank wasn't a ghetto I suppose?
Summerhill wasn't a ghetto I suppose?
Sherriff Street wasn''t a ghetto I suppose?


The areas that people were moved from had huge social problems and so did the areas that they were moved to.


Anyway the answer is CPO low density inner city , knock it down and rebuild high denisty inner city.

I had never said anything about where they came from. But the developements of the 70s and 80s were a reaction to the conditions of the city centre slums and it didn't work.

I was reacting to someone suggesting making the same mistake again.

What is the solution now ? I don't really know ... but you can be sure that creating social housing pockets isn't the answer .. so naturally you need to then have mixed developments - and what is being suggested here is that people are not happy to have social housing in areas that are perceived to be upmarket.

so as a society we either want social housing projects as standalone projects or we want to cherrypick mid market areas .... so who decides what is justified?

Can anyone point to a sucessful project like this in a large european city ?

Gatling

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt for Johnny Ronan ,
His towers aren't going to get permission to be built they breach multiple planning restrictions as it is ,
By going to the media he's getting his name out there for whatever reason.
Nothing more

timeToLive

DraftDodger wrote: »

Of course not that's ridiculous but this belief that people in social housing don't work or pay tax is ludicrous. Myself and my wife lived in social housing for 12 years me as a truck driver and herself as a nurse before we bought our own place. There are some who are lazy and don't bother their arse but the majority in the area we lived in worked, be it carers, cleaners, bus drivers etc... Social housing exists to cater for these people on low incomes and is the cornerstone of any properly functioning society.

The problem is that people on 'high' incomes can't afford family homes either and yet they're given out to other people.


The actual rich people (Generational wealth, Tubirdy-ish types, CEOs, some politicians) are unaffected by any of it.

Thelonious Monk

DraftDodger wrote: »

Of course not that's ridiculous but this belief that people in social housing don't work or pay tax is ludicrous. Myself and my wife lived in social housing for 12 years me as a truck driver and herself as a nurse before we bought our own place. There are some who are lazy and don't bother their arse but the majority in the area we lived in worked, be it carers, cleaners, bus drivers etc... Social housing exists to cater for these people on low incomes and is the cornerstone of any properly functioning society.

I live in a social housing estate, in Dublin 5. I bought my property but many of my neighbours didn't. That's fine, it's a requirement in a civilised society.
However, why should people be given social housing in D4 and in Grand Canal Dock and along the Liffey?
Do you not think that's unfair when no one on less than 100 grand or so would ever be able to afford to buy something there?

IngazZagni

IngazZagni wrote: »

Heres a video of the proposed development. It's super cheesy but there's some good images of it from just before the 3 minute mark.

https://youtu.be/Nig_cQP-T94

Also the actual website with all technical information.

http://www.waterfrontsouthcentralshd.ie

I was looking at the wrong thing I was looking at the social housing development on sheriff street which really is **** looking.

That waterfront development looks amazing. Have they planning for the tallest buildings already? I hope so.

doublejobbing 2

Kivaro wrote: »

News like this does not shock me anymore.
Meanwhile, a good chunk of people who went to work this morning in order to pay for these social housing projects are struggling themselves; just about keeping their heads above the water.
It is a ludicrous situation.

And another chunk of us have been set back months in our plans because Mehole left the border open over Christmas (or since last summer, to cast the net of blame more widely) and has condemned me to, at least, another month on a poxy 350 per week. Worked like a dog every hour I got last year to try get my own piece of FG's overpriced property pie.

marieholmfan

Blaming the apartments in Ballymun for the social problems lets the council off the hook for failure to provide facilities, it lets the lawmakers off the hook for failure to change the licensing laws, it lets the cops off the hook and it lets the citizens of Ballymun off the hook.


That said I agree with mixed social class development ; built by the state after the compulsory purchase of low density inner city.

Also what are your success criteria?

whippet wrote: »

I had never said anything about where they came from. But the developements of the 70s and 80s were a reaction to the conditions of the city centre slums and it didn't work.

I was reacting to someone suggesting making the same mistake again.

What is the solution now ? I don't really know ... but you can be sure that creating social housing pockets isn't the answer .. so naturally you need to then have mixed developments - and what is being suggested here is that people are not happy to have social housing in areas that are perceived to be upmarket.

so as a society we either want social housing projects as standalone projects or we want to cherrypick mid market areas .... so who decides what is justified?

Can anyone point to a sucessful project like this in a large european city ?

TomTomTim

DraftDodger wrote: »

Of course not that's ridiculous but this belief that people in social housing don't work or pay tax is ludicrous. Myself and my wife lived in social housing for 12 years me as a truck driver and herself as a nurse before we bought our own place. There are some who are lazy and don't bother their arse but the majority in the area we lived in worked, be it carers, cleaners, bus drivers etc... Social housing exists to cater for these people on low incomes and is the cornerstone of any properly functioning society.

If that were truly the case, we'd have little to no social issues from these areas.

Geuze

subpar wrote: »

He has no intention of selling anything in that development to the City Council for social housing or does the City Council have any intention to buy them.

It is merley an advertising stunt by Ronan . He wiil meet his obligations under the Act by agreeing a financial settlement with the Council in lieu of property.

It is no longer possible for developers to fulfil Part V obligations through financial payment, making available serviced sites on the development or by transferring undeveloped land outside the application area.

https://www.housing.eolasmagazine.ie/part-v-overview/

doublejobbing 2

kildare lad wrote: »

It's mind boggling looking at the stupidity of people in power here . Why not build social housing outside of Dublin on cheaper land . You could build 5 or 6 times the amount of houses outside of the capital at them prices.

.

A co op firm in Ballymun built terraced housing on state owned land for affordable purchase, looking to make only something like 5% profit.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5IUIHbbVidkJ:https://dublininquirer.com/2017/06/07/how-did-a-co-op-build-affordable-homes-in-ballymun-and-can-it-be-done-elsewhere+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Contrary to what FG would tell you it does not cost 220- 380K to build a social/ affordable home. It only costs this because they want their developer pals to make a killing. Part V should not be about buying homes off the developer- it should be about the developer providing new build homes on council owned land for free. If there's 100 homes in a development, and 10 are to be sold to the council for 350K, instead have the council pay them 3.5 million to build TWENTY homes on council owned land. Then promote a "social mix" by offering half of them for affordable cost price purchase. This in turn brings down prices in the wider market.

Pretty much every council housing estate in the wider Dublin area (including Fingal, South Dublin) has an excessive amount of green space which the council owns, which should be used to infill more social and affordable homes, built for around the 170K mark by a state run not for profit company.

doublejobbing 2

whippet wrote: »

because we developed ghettos of unemployment, crime and drug usage with this policy in the 70s & 80's

No it didn't. A drunken, feckless parent will invariably raise useless kids whether they are housed in a Part V home surrounded by the children of Google workers and solicitors, or whether they live in Ballymun. The state has en masse been housing social tenants in private owned estates for 20 years now and it hasn't resulted in some sort of enlightenment.

Idbatterim

DraftDodger wrote: »

Was going to respond then i noticed every other post by yourself seems to involve social housing bashing. Enjoy.

Couldnt dream of affording that million euro luxury and to not work and live in it. But I'm paying for the likes of the lunacy, you thi k I going to say, ah contine on , its great? Funded by a marginal tax rate if fifty percent over a pittance of an income. Banana republic

doublejobbing 2

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Clicked on the OPs link and that apartment block looks awful. Really, it’s **** looking.

I live in Leitrim but even I know that Sherriff Street isn’t the best of locations. Why would someone pay crazy (really crazy) money to live there as it now is?

Feck all Irish people actually live in these blocks. Why would you? If you had the approval to spend 700k on a property, what would you rather? A spacious 4 bed semi in Foxrock? Or a flat in town?

Few to any Irish people live in the likes of Grand Canal Dock, the vast majority of the properties are rented to either

a- Europeans who work in Google, Facebook etc. Many of these people are actually on very poor money, but they are odd fcukers and have no issue paying 900 per month for a room

b- Brazillians living 12 to a flat

Yakov P. Golyadkin

Gatling wrote: »

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt for Johnny Ronan ,
His towers are going to get permission to be built they breach multiple planning restrictions as it is ,
By going to the media he's getting his name out there for whatever reason.
Nothing more

All developers are obliged to submit Part 5 details as part of the planning process, the documents are available on the website and include a breakdown of how the price is arrived at and what units it is intended will be provided for Part 5 housing. The media look for, and print this information knowing the response it will engender, see this thread for example.

marieholmfan

I disagree about the use of green space.
Low density housing beside public transport as is found in Sydney Parade, Drumcondra, Shankill should be CPOd and the high density should be built there.

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

A co op firm in Ballymun built terraced housing on state owned land for affordable purchase, looking to make only something like 5% profit.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5IUIHbbVidkJ:https://dublininquirer.com/2017/06/07/how-did-a-co-op-build-affordable-homes-in-ballymun-and-can-it-be-done-elsewhere+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Contrary to what FG would tell you it does not cost 220- 380K to build a social/ affordable home. It only costs this because they want their developer pals to make a killing. Part V should not be about buying homes off the developer- it should be about the developer providing new build homes on council owned land for free. If there's 100 homes in a development, and 10 are to be sold to the council for 350K, instead have the council pay them 3.5 million to build TWENTY homes on council owned land. Then promote a "social mix" by offering half of them for affordable cost price purchase. This in turn brings down prices in the wider market.

Pretty much every council housing estate in the wider Dublin area (including Fingal, South Dublin) has an excessive amount of green space which the council owns, which should be used to infill more social and affordable homes, built for around the 170K mark by a state run not for profit company.

Idbatterim

Gatling wrote: »

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt for Johnny Ronan ,
His towers aren't going to get permission to be built they breach multiple planning restrictions as it is ,
By going to the media he's getting his name out there for whatever reason.
Nothing more

Another farce, cait even build anything that isn't a low rise box here... back again to the councils..

doublejobbing 2

marieholmfan wrote: »

Blaming the apartments in Ballymun for the social problems lets the council off the hook for failure to provide facilities,

The only crap facilities in Ballymun was broken down lifts.

Ballymun is within 10 minutes walk of Glasnevin and Santry. Neither of which moaned and whined about a lack of facilities. There are plenty of well to do estates in Dublin with no nearby shops and poor bus services.

Richard Hillman

Having Ghettos is better than the oblivion facing people in their 30s-40s who will never access property ownership or social housing and will have to retire at 70 (or never at all) whilst still attempting to pay whatever rent will be in 30 years time. Homeless OAPs will be the future.

At least ghettos are solvable with crime enforcement.

The reality is, the housing crisis is beneficial to all politicians right now. The FG/FF are the parties of developers. The opposition need the crisis to rumble on to try and get elected. Which is why they are objecting to proposals left right and centre.

Idbatterim

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Having Ghettos is better than the oblivion facing people in their 30s-40s who will never access property ownership or social housing and will have to retire at 70 (or never at all) whilst still attempting to pay whatever rent will be in 30 years time. Homeless OAPs will be the future.

At least ghettos are solvable with crime enforcement.

This whole **** will collapse way before that people living in squalor pay for the luxury of wasters

Lads you know the way the " high rise" lol, ballymun towers turned the people to wrecking their own homes, atea etc. How come this phenomenon doesn't happen in high rise residential towers all over the world, usually lived in by the mid to high income?

jimmycrackcorm

whippet wrote:

What is the solution now ? I don't really know ... but you can be sure that creating social housing pockets isn't the answer .. so naturally you need to then have mixed developments - and what is being suggested here is that people are not happy to have social housing in areas that are perceived to be upmarket.

It used to work when we built council housing estates that weren't all bad. Large scale no, but the real problem is that the bad apples don't get removed because of the bleeding heart brigade saying they'll be homeless, and the council has to rehome them. There is no consequences to antisocial behaviour.

doublejobbing 2 wrote:

Contrary to what FG would tell you it does not cost 220- 380K to build a social/ affordable home. It only costs this because they want their developer pals to make a killing. Part V should not be about buying homes off the developer- it should be about the developer providing new build homes on council owned land for free. If there's 100 homes in a development, and 10 are to be sold to the council for 350K, instead have the council pay them 3.5 million to build TWENTY homes on council owned land. Then promote a "social mix" by offering half of them for affordable cost price purchase. This in turn brings down prices in the wider market.

Your example is in Ballymun, do you think it's as cheap to build in the city centre?

Guess what, it's even cheaper to build in Leitrim.

Thelonious Monk

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

the real problem is that the bad apples don't get removed because of the bleeding heart brigade saying they'll be homeless, and the council has to rehome them. There is no consequences to antisocial behaviour.

And where would you move them to?

Idbatterim

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It used to work when we built council housing estates that weren't all bad. Large scale no, but the real problem is that the bad apples don't get removed because of the bleeding heart brigade saying they'll be homeless, and the council has to rehome them. There is no consequences to antisocial behaviour.



Your example is in Ballymun, do you think it's as cheap to build in the city centre?

Guess what, it's even cheaper to build in Leitrim.

Workers commute from leitrim to city centre... what's your excuse for these work shy, the full unemployment we had up to last year or the boom before ?