The social housing list in Dublin

Penn

bubblypop wrote: »

Are you suggesting that everybody on a welfare payment or social housing is a scam artist or layabout?

Someone: "I think drunk drivers are dangerous"
bubblypop: "Oh, are you suggesting all drivers are drunk??!!?!!?!"

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Someone: "I think drunk drivers are dangerous"
bubblypop: "Oh, are you suggesting all drivers are drunk??!!?!!?!"

Ridiculous
And showing your deep bias there

JimmyVik

bubblypop wrote: »

Are you suggesting that everybody on a welfare payment or social housing is a scam artist or layabout?

Are you suggesting that none of them are?
Same stupid question. Just reversed.

Jinglejangle69

bubblypop wrote: »

Are you suggesting that everybody on a welfare payment or social housing is a scam artist or layabout?

Nope.

Penn

bubblypop wrote: »

Ridiculous
And showing your deep bias there

Not ridiculous. You keep purposefully (imo) trying to take the worst case scenario of people's posts to make exaggerated posts and conflate the issue.

And I'm not biased. I fully believe in the purpose of social housing, and believe that for the most part it serves a vital function and serves it well. I believe that the majority of people in social housing truly need it and should be helped, and that they take good care of the properties and don't engage in anti-social behaviour.

But there are a not insignificant number of those in social housing who take advantage of the help, mistreat the properties and engage in anti-social behaviour, more so than the average of the general population. And it's done at the added expense of taxpayers and gives those who do need social housing help a bad reputation.

In what way is that "deep bias"?

Penn

Penn wrote: »

But there are a not insignificant number of those in social housing who take advantage of the help, mistreat the properties and engage in anti-social behaviour, more so than the average of the general population

Is there? Do you have any kind of proof of this?

JimmyVik

bubblypop wrote: »

Is there? Do you have any kind of proof of this?

I thinbk your head is not just in the sand.
Its probably popped out somewhere in Australia

batman_oh

bubblypop wrote: »

Is there? Do you have any kind of proof of this?

I mean, LOL
Actually to expand - why are the government themselves purposely trying to avoid creating 'ghettoes' like Ballymun/Darndale etc. again by housing people in new estates if there are no issues of this kind in these areas?

JimmyVik

JimmyVik wrote: »

I thinbk your head is not just in the sand.
Its probably popped out somewhere in Australia

I think you don't understand at all.
You grew up in Social housing yes?
So did I, here and the UK.
And I also thought the way you do. However, over 20 years of experience dealing with crime has taught me differently.
The upper & middle classes in this country are just better at hiding their wrongdoing, or buying their way out of trouble, or using favours to keep their issues quiet.

enricoh

agoodpunt wrote: »

As an outlier in western europe with less than 5m they are choosing a country and Dublin city, extra taxes or leaner services will be needed to satisfy this new all inclusive better life destination arrivals to the land of social inclusion for all except those who work and pay taxes

They're after trekking across the globe to get to the welfare land of milk and honey.
So do not begrudge them a free gaff in the dearest part of the country, south dublin. Why should they live in birr, moate, clones etc etc. You try subletting a house there and the pittance you'd get.
Average working paddy taxpayer has no hope of a house in south dublin, they can commute in from Gorey n tullamore to pay for our new arrivals!

enricoh

JimmyVik wrote: »

I thinbk your head is not just in the sand.
Its probably popped out somewhere in Australia

Maybe these lads never actually leave the house, so they never see any of this stuff!

Penn

bubblypop wrote: »

Is there? Do you have any kind of proof of this?

https://www.housingagency.ie/sites/default/files/65.%20Tackling-Anti-Social-Behaviour_International-Probl.pdf

Social housing in Ireland is predominantly provided by local authorities and
occupied by lower-income groups, and some local authority estates are designated
disadvantaged. A community where there is joblessness, poor health, low
education levels and social exclusion is considered a disadvantaged community.
Research shows that there is a correlation between disadvantage and anti-social
behaviour (Carroll et al, 2007; Mulcahy et al, 2005; National Crime Council, 2003).
There is a growing problem of crime and anti-social behaviour in social housing
estates in Ireland. Several reasons have been cited for this phenomenon including
the original design of the estates (Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities, 2007).
However, Norris (2003) suggests that residualisation in social housing may be a
contributing factor. Residualisation occurs when those who can afford to leave
social housing estates and buy houses elsewhere do so, leaving those from the
lower socio-economic groups, the unemployed and uneducated – in other words
the ‘socially disadvantaged’ – living in these estates. The residualisation of social
housing estates has evolved over the past three decades, as the following brief
history of social housing demonstrates.

enricoh

enricoh wrote: »

They're after trekking across the globe to get to the welfare land of milk and honey.
So do not begrudge them a free gaff in the dearest part of the country, south dublin. Why should they live in birr, moate, clones etc etc. You try subletting a house there and the pittance you'd get.
Average working paddy taxpayer has no hope of a house in south dublin, they can commute in from Gorey n tullamore to pay for our new arrivals!

I find it's mostly paddy nontaxpayer that wants their house in Dublin.
I don't see too many asylum seekers in Leitrim complaining.

Penn

bubblypop wrote: »

The upper & middle classes in this country are just better at hiding their wrongdoing, or buying their way out of trouble, or using favours to keep their issues quiet.

Are you saying all upper & middle class people commit crimes? Do you have any proof they do what you describe above?

Murph_D

bubblypop wrote: »

I think you don't understand at all.
You grew up in Social housing yes?
So did I, here and the UK.
And I also thought the way you do. However, over 20 years of experience dealing with crime has taught me differently.
The upper & middle classes in this country are just better at hiding their wrongdoing, or buying their way out of trouble, or using favours to keep their issues quiet.

Agreed. It’s a pity nobody here shouting about welfare abuse will acknowledge the far greater problem of white collar crime, despite this point being raised a few times already.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Are you saying all upper & middle class people commit crimes? Do you have any proof they do what you describe above?

I'm saying All people commit crime.

Penn

Murph_D wrote: »

Agreed. It’s a pity nobody here shouting about welfare abuse will acknowledge the far greater problem of white collar crime, despite this point being raised a few times already.

Because the thread is about social housing.

Leinster90

bubblypop wrote: »

Well some of us realise there is no point begrudging people who cannot house themselves a home.
If you want to work and own your own home, I can't understand why you would be jealous of others, who don't?

Its not a lazy argument, it's the reality

The point is that healthy people who through their own lifestyle choices decided not to work towards owning a home, should not live somewhere equally nice to people who worked hard to own their home.

Leinster90

Leinster90 wrote: »

The point is that healthy people who through their own lifestyle choices decided not to work towards owning a home, should not live somewhere equally nice to people who worked hard to own their home.

But why do you think that?
It just screams snob.

Also, most social housing is not really super nice

clytemnestra

Not trying to backseat mod here or name names but I would advise some posters not to let themselves be goaded, there's a bit of a pattern going on.

Murph_D

Penn wrote: »

Because the thread is about social housing.

Nice try, but it is also ‘about’ alleged links between social housing provision, immigration policy, and crime, the latter seemingly narrowly defined as petty crime by residents of social housing.

Have you considered the impact of white collar crime on housing policy, for instance? The connections between corrupt politicians and developers, maybe, or the cosy historic relationships between the state and the building trade, or say the very questionable anticompetitive practices that litter the history of the cement business in Ireland?

https://villagemagazine.ie/a-history-of-scandal/

Leinster90

bubblypop wrote: »

But why do you think that?
It just screams snob.

Also, most social housing is not really super nice

Do you really not understand how incentives work?

If people can get something for free as opposed to having to get up every morning and work hard for it, why would anyone work?

It’s not nice for a good reason, because people shouldn't view it as an attractive option and should feel motivated to work and live somewhere nicer.

The definition of fairness is people being rewarded in proportion to how hard they work or how much value they create. It doesn't mean everyone having the same things. You may not agree with that but it’s a universal truth.

Leinster90

Leinster90 wrote: »

Do you really not understand how incentives work?

If people can get something for free as opposed to having to get up every morning and work hard for it, why would anyone work?

And people do work, and they try to better themselves and they want to own their own homes.
So, why the issue with social housing then?

Murph_D

I hate this ‘get up in the morning’ stuff. So disrespectful of night workers, so forgiving of layabouts who like an early start.

It’s wrong to equate work purely with providing for oneself and family. Lots of people work because they enjoy it, and feel it’s part of their identity. That’s one of the reasons why many unemployed people are miserable, even though their food and shelter needs are taken care of.

jrosen

Leinster90 wrote: »

The point is that healthy people who through their own lifestyle choices decided not to work towards owning a home, should not live somewhere equally nice to people who worked hard to own their home.

This is exactly the thing that gets peoples backs up. Living in your home that you had to save thousands in deposits for, signed up to 20+ years mortgage and all the interest that brings, mortgage protection, life assurance, property tax, house maintenance. All the costs that dont land on your neighbour.

Social housing should meet basic housing needs. I dont see why someone who cant provide their own home should live in the same house as someone who is paying for it.

mohawk

bubblypop wrote: »

I think you don't understand at all.
You grew up in Social housing yes?
So did I, here and the UK.
And I also thought the way you do. However, over 20 years of experience dealing with crime has taught me differently.
The upper & middle classes in this country are just better at hiding their wrongdoing, or buying their way out of trouble, or using favours to keep their issues quiet.

Can’t think of any middle class or upper class area with boarded up houses and burnt out cars in the middle of the estate.

While people from all walks of life commit crimes Certain crimes are more prevalent in certain areas then others. There is a reason we are trying to move away from the big council housing estates. Too many nice families in those estates were being negatively effected by the anti-social behaviour surrounding them.

Your post is practically trying to dismiss problems by saying look over there at those problems. Nothing to see here.

mohawk

mohawk wrote: »

Can’t think of any middle class or upper class area with boarded up houses and burnt out cars in the middle of the estate.

While people from all walks of life commit crimes Certain crimes are more prevalent in certain areas then others. There is a reason we are trying to move away from the big council housing estates. Too many nice families in those estates were being negatively effected by the anti-social behaviour surrounding them.

Your post is practically trying to dismiss problems by saying look over there at those problems. Nothing to see here.

No, I definitely am not trying to dismiss those problems, not at all. I agree with everything you have said here.
What I don't like to see, and it is prevalent in this thread and boards in general, is that posters generalise where there is no evidence, where they just decide things based on their own bias.

And I really don't understand why posters have such issues with social housing, it just all reads like jealousy and 'it's not fair' but yet the same posters don't want social housing for themselves. I just don't get it.

jrosen

jrosen wrote: »

This is exactly the thing that gets peoples backs up. Living in your home that you had to save thousands in deposits for, signed up to 20+ years mortgage and all the interest that brings, mortgage protection, life assurance, property tax, house maintenance. All the costs that dont land on your neighbour.

Social housing should meet basic housing needs. I dont see why someone who cant provide their own home should live in the same house as someone who is paying for it.

'it's just not fair' ?

gary550

Murph_D wrote: »

I hate this ‘get up in the morning’ stuff. So disrespectful of night workers, so forgiving of layabouts who like an early start.

It’s wrong to equate work purely with providing for oneself and family. Lots of people work because they enjoy it, and feel it’s part of their identity. That’s one of the reasons why many unemployed people are miserable, even though their food and shelter needs are taken care of.

Strange that, the people who live in next to me who are both unemployed and have been as long as I know, get €1300 a month in HAP and are able to spend their summer days playing music and drinking cans & having a great craic with all of their equally unemployed mates really don't sound all that miserable to me :rolleyes:

ThunbergsAreGo

bubblypop wrote: »

No, I definitely am not trying to dismiss those problems, not at all. I agree with everything you have said here.
What I don't like to see, and it is prevalent in this thread and boards in general, is that posters generalise where there is no evidence, where they just decide things based on their own bias.

And I really don't understand why posters have such issues with social housing, it just all reads like jealousy and 'it's not fair' but yet the same posters don't want social housing for themselves. I just don't get it.

The biggest reason that social housing shouldn't be as nice as private is cost. Social housing exists to provide those who can't home themselves a home.

Not a home with a Seaview, not a home with a certain standard of living but somewhere to live.

Housing a family in a high end apartment costs 2k per month. Look to move outside the city and you could house two families for that.

Social housing is, at present, a massive pyramid scheme were taxpayers get taken for a ride, in both having their taxes spent on it, but also being gazumped by councils for the few homes they have any hope of buying.

jrosen

bubblypop wrote: »

'it's just not fair' ?

Its not just about being fair. I think people who are working and providing for themselves without state support should at the very least expect to have "more" than someone who is relying on state support.

But aside from that its about cost. There is not an endless pit of money and every penny that is spent housing someone should be spent well. The state should be looking at lower cost accommodation and one way to reduce cost would be to build smaller unit. Reduce land cost, reduced build cost. Close to me there is a small development that is long term lease. It 100% social. All people housed in homes that at minimum costs 380K based on the property price register for the area. There is no value add, high cost homes, high cost location, long term lease at the end means no asset for the local authority unless they are willing to buy them after renting them for 25 years.

One big problem that the councils.caused.for.themselves was selling off their social housing. I understand what posters are saying about value for money, of course now, they dont have the land or the houses.
There should be no more selling of state assets.

Where do you house the people in the list now though?

ThunbergsAreGo

bubblypop wrote: »

One big problem that the councils.caused.for.themselves was selling off their social housing. I understand what posters are saying about value for money, of course now, they dont have the land or the houses.
There should be no more selling of state assets.

Where do you house the people in the list now though?

And not treating people like renters. Should be a review every 5 years with people rehoused according to need.

Families in houses, retired in apartments (you could make them retirement friendly etc), and maximise the beds by need.

But there is no political will anywhere to sort this pyramid scheme, nor any will in the media to report properly on it.

ThunbergsAreGo

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

And not treating people like renters. Should be a review every 5 years with people rehoused according to need.

Families in houses, retired in apartments (you could make them retirement friendly etc), and maximise the beds by need.

But there is no political will anywhere to sort this pyramid scheme, nor any will in the media to report properly on it.

Agreed.
Only problem is adult kids not moving out to their own place!
A normal housing market would normally sort that out.

ThunbergsAreGo

bubblypop wrote: »

Agreed.
Only problem is adult kids not moving out to their own place!
A normal housing market would normally sort that out.

But then the need is still there, the house is being fully used.

Social housing having more rights then renters is ridiculous

mohawk

bubblypop wrote: »

One big problem that the councils.caused.for.themselves was selling off their social housing. I understand what posters are saying about value for money, of course now, they dont have the land or the houses.
There should be no more selling of state assets.

Where do you house the people in the list now though?

They definitely shouldn’t of done this. I know loads of families who bought their council house they are very comfortable financially now and have lovely homes that they really looked after. They raised 6,7,8 kids in three bed terraced houses. I don’t begrudge those families a thing in life and buying the council house gave them great security. My head says the state should of kept ownership and my heart says but all those nice families.
Also I couldn’t imagine raising a family in a home for 20 years and then sent off to some retirement village. Leaving behind all your neighbours and no room to have your kids and grandkids stay for a few days.

ThunbergsAreGo

mohawk wrote: »

Also I couldn’t imagine raising a family in a home for 20 years and then sent off to some retirement village. Leaving behind all your neighbours and no room to have your kids and grandkids stay for a few days.

Then own your own house..

By staying in a house to "have grand kids over", you are preventing a family being housed.

Obviously don't mean you specifically..

I can't imagine paying extortionate rent all my life in an apartment and having to bring my family up in one as I can't afford to buy/rent a house without commuting two to three hours a day.

jrosen

Whats Daragh O'Brien up too with the caps on the shared equity? Does anyone else feel they are stupidly high? If someone can afford to enter into a shared equity agreement with a LA for a property worth almost 500K surely that same person should reduce their expectation and buy a home using a traditional mortgage but for much less?

I remember years ago with the shared ownership it went the same way, people using it as a means to buy a larger home for less money. People who had no problem securing a traditional mortgage.

Jizique

jrosen wrote: »

Whats Daragh O'Brien up too with the caps on the shared equity? Does anyone else feel they are stupidly high? If someone can afford to enter into a shared equity agreement with a LA for a property worth almost 500K surely that same person should reduce their expectation and buy a home using a traditional mortgage but for much less?

I remember years ago with the shared ownership it went the same way, people using it as a means to buy a larger home for less money. People who had no problem securing a traditional mortgage.

Complete and utter madness, but FF and builders...

I don't believe any government really wants to help people buy, they want to help builders

Idbatterim

QUOTE=Geuze;117159537]The LPT is one of the best taxes. That is widely agreed.

Most commentators suggest it should be expanded.[/QUOTE]
In a properly run country it would be. Here we have nothing but exemptions and many homeowners paying nothing or as good as nothing... then everyone under declaring their home value. To raise way less than they were increasing welfare every year, during the boom that ended as covid hit... there are far far too many here, with lpt and income tax, contributing a hell of a lot less than they would it other countries. But as its Ireland, you can be damn sure ffg wont be going after those paying way less than their fair share, as it would be " regressive " funny how they never report from the other side, from the oppressed paying in way more than their fair share. But as everyone's votes count equally they can absolutely screw the mid and particularly high earners...