The social housing list in Dublin

lazygal

20/20 wrote: »

I do not live in the development.
Most apartments do not allow clothes on a balcony, especially on a very nice major road.
People would be offended passing the development and looking up at Rab C Nesbitt drying his clothes.

A lot of the property's on the road may be worth a million. The residents paid a lot of money to live there and a lot in taxes. Those taxes are now been used to subsidize social housing on their doorsteps.
You can debate all you want with USERNAME2020 about crime and social housing, but one thing very clear to me over the last month is lots of social housing tenants do not like to follow rules.

A lot didn't. They inherited their homes. Or bought at far lower prices. And no one is telling them what they can have in their front gardens. I couldn't care less where people dry their clothes. Rules like that are ridiculous anyway.
We all pay taxes. Including people in social housing.

ThunbergsAreGo

lazygal wrote: »

A lot didn't. They inherited their homes. Or bought at far lower prices. And no one is telling them what they can have in their front gardens. I couldn't care less where people dry their clothes. Rules like that are ridiculous anyway.
We all pay taxes. Including people in social housing.

This is a general rule for alot of apartments, not just social housing.

At least they aren't tipping rubbish onto the street, have had to take evasive action on James Joyce Street a few times

lazygal

And its a stupid rule. Drying clothes outside makes sense.

zerosugarbuzz

lazygal wrote: »

And its a stupid rule. Drying clothes outside makes sense.

I’d be pissed off if my neighbours erected clothes lines in their front gardens. Not what you want to see when returning home.

20/20

20/20 wrote: »

I do not live in the development.
Most apartments do not allow clothes on a balcony, especially on a very nice major road.
People would be offended passing the development and looking up at Rab C Nesbitt drying his clothes.

A lot of the property's on the road may be worth a million. The residents paid a lot of money to live there and a lot in taxes. Those taxes are now been used to subsidize social housing on their doorsteps.
You can debate all you want with USERNAME2020 about crime and social housing, but one thing very clear to me over the last month is lots of social housing tenants do not like to follow rules.

Have you ever tried to dry wet clothes living in an apartment?
Balconies are there to be used. Are you seriously trying to claim that people that live near this apartment block are offended by the sight of clothes during outside? What about in gardens?

You're posts just scream snobby begrudery.

zerosugarbuzz

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

I’d be pissed off if my neighbours erected clothes lines in their front gardens. Not what you want to see when returning home.

Jaysis, some of ye are easily bothered.
Clean clothes drying outside is really far far down the list of 'things to be annoyed about'

lazygal

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

I’d be pissed off if my neighbours erected clothes lines in their front gardens. Not what you want to see when returning home.

Haven't you little to be worrying about. Do bins bother you? Bikes chained to fences in gardens? Rewilding of grass patches?

yoke

TomTomTim wrote: »

But statistically the person in the council house is more likely to commit said act. Some would even argue that it's a product of a lifestyle that the state facilitates, so it is relevant. If the state didn't hand out resources like they meant nothing, the council house living, brick thrower might be forced to live an honest life.

I’d hate to be punished because I’m part of a group that statistically commits more crimes. That’s akin to the teacher punishing the whole class because they can’t figure out who is doing the messing, it never works.

The Gardai often know the location where known drug dealers live. If they started restricting movements for the entire neighbourhood based on that, it’d just create even more support in the neighbourhood for the drug dealers/gang members.

This is kind of what’s going on right now in the USA with black people and the police...

Mimon

bubblypop wrote: »

I think so, social housing is for people who cannot house themselves, all people who cannot house themselves, for whatever reasons.
yeah, I didn't mean that everyone doesn't contribute, probably didn't explain myself very well!

It needs to be for people who genuinely cannot house themselves not people who choose to live on handouts as a lifestyle choice.

Being temporarily unemployed 10 years ago and standing in the dole queue listening to lads bragging about where they are going for their sun holiday when I could barely survive is an eye opener.

Murph_D

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Interesting study here https://www.iprt.ie/site/assets/files/6264/position_paper_final.pdf from the Irish Ppenal Reform Trust.

I'm quite surprised anyone is surprised that more crime is committed in deprived areas. Traditionally in Ireland most deprived areas are social housing estates. Its always been that way with Crime, far more of the prison population coming from Dublin 1 than Dublin 4 ect.

A big part of our current housing problems stem from the property/banking/financial crisis of ten years ago. The country wasn't brought to its knees then by street criminals - the 'perps' were mostly rugger-loving privately educated chaps and their well fed developer friends. The chaos they wreaked puts petty crime in the ha'penny place.

Have a look at the section in that paper about white collar crime. Here's an excerpt:

White collar crime is a preserve of wealthy and powerful groups in society, and in this regard the uneven nature of the criminal law is most clearly illustrated; although white collar crimes can have a massively detrimental impact on society they are not treated as seriously, nor are those who commit such crimes punished as severely as the crimes of less wealthy and less powerful groups in society.

The criminal law should treat all transgressors in an equitable manner, whether they are white collar or street criminals. If the gains from certain types of crime – for example insider trading – are disproportionately greater than the penalty likely to be paid, the rule of law breaks down.40 The opposite is also true; many low level street criminals are committed to prison instead of being given community service whereby the harm of imprisonment is grossly disproportionate to any profit or benefit they might have made or from any benefit the sentence might serve.

The categorisation of ‘white collar crime’ is problematic in many respects. It is not merely the economic (as opposed to violent) nature of the crime that distinguishes white collar wrongdoing from street offences. It may also relate to the type of perpetrator. White collar criminals tend to be more educated, privileged and therefore empowered than street criminals. The decision to penalise white collar criminals, therefore, impacts on the powerful much more than the punishment of street criminals.

Another thing - there's a huge number of people in this country whose parents and grandparents would have been in the slums if it weren't for state built housing in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s especially. Glass houses, stones.

clytemnestra

Murph_D wrote: »

A big part of our current housing problems stem from the property/banking/financial crisis of ten years ago. The country wasn't brought to its knees then by street criminals - the 'perps' were mostly rugger-loving privately educated chaps and their well fed developer friends. The chaos the wreaked puts petty crime in the ha'penny place.

Have a look at the section in that paper about white collar crime. Here's an excerpt:

White collar crime is a preserve of wealthy and powerful groups in society, and in this regard the uneven nature of the criminal law is most clearly illustrated; although white collar crimes can have a massively detrimental impact on society they are not treated as seriously, nor are those who commit such crimes punished as severely as the crimes of less wealthy and less powerful groups in society.

The criminal law should treat all transgressors in an equitable manner, whether they are white collar or street criminals. If the gains from certain types of crime – for example insider trading – are disproportionately greater than the penalty likely to be paid, the rule of law breaks down.40 The opposite is also true; many low level street criminals are committed to prison instead of being given community service whereby the harm of imprisonment is grossly disproportionate to any profit or benefit they might have made or from any benefit the sentence might serve.

The categorisation of ‘white collar crime’ is problematic in many respects. It is not merely the economic (as opposed to violent) nature of the crime that distinguishes white collar wrongdoing from street offences. It may also relate to the type of perpetrator. White collar criminals tend to be more educated, privileged and therefore empowered than street criminals. The decision to penalise white collar criminals, therefore, impacts on the powerful much more than the punishment of street criminals.

Another thing - there's a huge number of people in this country whose parents and grandparents would have been in the slums if it weren't for state built housing in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s especially. Glass houses, stones.

Those people (my relatives) who lived in council housing in the 30s/40s/50s *worked*. They did not arse around in pyjamas or tracksuits, going to the offy and the bookies at noon and smoking weed in the street. You might accuse me of stereotyping but I spent a good long time living in a "daytime pyjamas" neighbourhood and there are many of them. I would be delighted to see council housing allocated on a preferential basis to low and middle income Irish workers. That is hardly a controversial viewpoint but amazingly for some it is.

clytemnestra

Oh and it's interesting how the language has changed. Social welfare used to be called "the labour" and social housing was "council/corpo". It's as though the link between work and the payments or help received when unemployed is being eroded all the time.

Exactly Murph

I grew up in social housing, both here and the UK. When I was younger, I thought the same as posters here, that I was living in areas full of criminals.
Now, with over 20 years experience of working with in our criminal justice system I see I was wrong.
There are huge amounts of crime committed in this country by people from all walks of life. Some are far more likely to 'get away with it' because of their middle of upper class backgrounds.
Different crimes are committed by different sections of society also, just because you hear of one type all the time, doesn't mean the others are not there.

ELM327

lazygal wrote: »

A lot didn't. They inherited their homes. Or bought at far lower prices. And no one is telling them what they can have in their front gardens. I couldn't care less where people dry their clothes. Rules like that are ridiculous anyway.
We all pay taxes. Including people in social housing.

If you receive X in benefitted amount from the public purse, and contribute back 0.4X in taxes, have you contributed anything really?

yoke

clytemnestra wrote: »

Those people (my relatives) who lived in council housing in the 30s/40s/50s *worked*. They did not arse around in pyjamas or tracksuits, going to the offy and the bookies at noon and smoking weed in the street. You might accuse me of stereotyping but I spent a good long time living in a "daytime pyjamas" neighbourhood and there are many of them. I would be delighted to see council housing allocated on a preferential basis to low and middle income Irish workers. That is hardly a controversial viewpoint but amazingly for some it is.

And back then you would have had the college graduates complaining that the people who didn’t put any effort into school or college and became a low wage worker were being “rewarded” by getting a free house, I’m sure...

Can we all agree that there would be no animosity towards social housing recipients, if people who actually commit crimes (or are “acting the maggot”) were suitably punished/deterred from doing so?

JimmyVik

I grew up in a council estate.
90% of families were lovely.
10% and especially 2 families in the estate had the place like a warzone.
My other friends from school were afraid to come up to our house, or anyone else house who lived in the estate.
While I was still a teenager, 3 of my best friends got into drugs and crime, encouraged by the families i referred to earlier.
2 of them were dead before they reached 30 and one is on his second stint in prison.
We moved out when I was 16.
The estate is even 10 times worse nowadays.
What needs to be done in these places is that the bad seeds are removed and put in shipping containers like they do in Holland.
Let them be neighbors with their fellow bad seeds from other areas, and let the nice people have nice neighbors.

yoke

JimmyVik wrote: »

I grew up in a council estate.
90% of families were lovely.
10% and especially 2 families in the estate had the place like a warzone.
My other friends from school were afraid to come up to our house, or anyone else house who lived in the estate.
While I was still a teenager, 3 of my best friends got into drugs and crime, encouraged by the families i referred to earlier.
2 of them were dead before they reached 30 and one is on his second stint in prison.
We moved out when I was 16.
The estate is even 10 times worse nowadays.
What needs to be done in these places is that the bad seeds are removed and put in shipping containers like they do in Holland.
Let them be neighbors with their fellow bad seeds from other areas, and let the nice people have nice neighbors.

Exactly, the bad seeds need to be punished properly. Prison obviously isn’t good enough. We should be thinking of punishments for “bad seeds” which will deter them, not just having a go at anyone unfortunate enough to require some help in the form of social housing.

JimmyVik

yoke wrote: »

Exactly, the bad seeds need to be punished properly. Prison obviously isn’t good enough. We should be thinking of punishments for “bad seeds” which will deter them, not just having a go at anyone unfortunate enough to require some help in the form of social housing.

The problem now is that you put one of these bad seed families into a brand new estate where people paid half a million euros for a house and you wont be long realizing you spend a half a million euro for a life of misery.

Its happened near me. New estate of about 50 houses. Really well built, lovely houses. Were for sale new for around €450k a few years ago. Everyone moved in a few years ago when the place was finished.
One family have ruined the place. Now it is so bad anyone who can are selling up. Council is buying the houses at knock down prices, even though its their fault the place has gone down in value, because they wouldnt do anything about their tenants. Instead they move more in. If you drove into the place today with a view to buying, you would drive straight back out and swear to never go there again.

The simple answer is that if you act anti-socially you get evicted. But this doesnt happen.

yoke

JimmyVik wrote: »

The problem now is that you put one of these bad seed families into a brand new estate where people paid half a million euros for a house and you wont be long realizing you spend a half a million euro for a life of misery.

Its happened near me. New estate of about 50 houses. Really well built, lovely houses. Were for sale new for around €450k a few years ago. Everyone moved in a few years ago when the place was finished.
One family have ruined the place. Now it is so bad anyone who can are selling up. Council is buying the houses at knock down prices, even though its their fault the place has gone down in value, because they wouldnt do anything about their tenants. Instead they move more in. If you drove into the place today with a view to buying, you would drive straight back out and swear to never go there again.

The simple answer is that if you act anti-socially you get evicted. But this doesnt happen.

That’s exactly my point. How does “moving them to a new estate” equate to “punishment”?

The only people who can punish you is the courts, and that’s the way it should be. Not some social housing officer.

We need to come up with a new form or multiple forms of punishment for the courts, since prison is not working for a large segment of people as a deterrent.
What these new punishments could be, would make for a good discussion in itself.

Murph_D

clytemnestra wrote: »

Those people (my relatives) who lived in council housing in the 30s/40s/50s *worked*. They did not arse around in pyjamas or tracksuits, going to the offy and the bookies at noon and smoking weed in the street. You might accuse me of stereotyping but I spent a good long time living in a "daytime pyjamas" neighbourhood and there are many of them. I would be delighted to see council housing allocated on a preferential basis to low and middle income Irish workers. That is hardly a controversial viewpoint but amazingly for some it is.

Once you start conflating welfare fraud and immigration and housing security you’re only going to paint yourself into a predictably intolerant and shouty corner.


There will always be a small percentage of freeloaders. But they are not confined to any particular class.

Plenty of privileged people have no work ethic. The difference is they end up getting ‘jobs’ in the family firm, or elsewhere in mummy and daddy’s network. Anyone who’s worked anywhere has come across this sort of nepotism, which is effectively subsidised by the people who do the actual work.

Murph_D

ELM327 wrote: »

If you receive X in benefitted amount from the public purse, and contribute back 0.4X in taxes, have you contributed anything really?

It’s not only individuals who benefit from the ‘public purse.’ Have you ever heard of corporate welfare?

JimmyVik

yoke wrote: »

That’s exactly my point. How does “moving them to a new estate” equate to “punishment”?

The only people who can punish you is the courts, and that’s the way it should be. Not some social housing officer.

We need to come up with a new form or multiple forms of punishment for the courts, since prison is not working for a large segment of people as a deterrent.
What these new punishments could be, would make for a good discussion in itself.

Boot them out of the house that they spent their lives waiting on the list to get and put them in a shipping container beside other people like them. See how they like having their own anti-social neighbors.

ELM327

Murph_D wrote: »

It’s not only individuals who benefit from the ‘public purse.’ Have you ever heard of corporate welfare?

How is that in any way related to what I said?

20/20

lazygal wrote: »

A lot didn't. They inherited their homes. Or bought at far lower prices. And no one is telling them what they can have in their front gardens. I couldn't care less where people dry their clothes. Rules like that are ridiculous anyway.
We all pay taxes. Including people in social housing.

Incredibly stupid statement. I dont think anybody inherited a house there in the last 30 years. Because the area is so nice homes dont come onto the market very often, the last one been five years ago. (which is why its hard to put a value on the area).
Even if a house was a lower price years ago ,they were also lower everywhere else at the same time.

Taxes ?? most of us pay taxes. Some pay a lot more then others. I dont think you realise that if a parent left a house to a child worth a million. That child will have to pay a tax in excess of €200,000 for the privilege.

Cilldara_2000

20/20 wrote: »

Incredibly stupid statement. I dont think anybody inherited a house there in the last 30 years. Because the area is so nice homes dont come onto the market very often, the last one been five years ago. (which is why its hard to put a value on the area).
Even if a house was a lower price years ago ,they were also lower everywhere else at the same time.

Taxes ?? most of us pay taxes. Some pay a lot more then others. I dont think you realise that if a parent left a house to a child worth a million. That child will have to pay a tax in excess of €200,000 for the privilege.

Oh noes. Imagine having to pay €200k after getting an asset worth €1m. That's awful.

They can either sell that house or sell their current gaff and move in to pay the tax.

Inherited wealth is a pox to any idea of meritocracy. Taxing it is fair enough.

20/20

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Oh noes. Imagine having to pay €200k after getting an asset worth €1m. That's awful.

I agree.

20/20

20/20 wrote: »

I dont think you realise that if a parent left a house to a child worth a million. That child will have to pay a tax in excess of €200,000 for the privilege.

Oh boo hoo hoo, imagine getting a million euro house for 200K!
Seems pretty good value to me.

JimmyVik

bubblypop wrote: »

Oh boo hoo hoo, imagine getting a million euro house for 200K!
Seems pretty good value to me.

Not much worse than getting a €500k house for nothing.

JimmyVik

JimmyVik wrote: »

Not much worse than getting a €500k house for nothing.

Who gets that?
You couldn't mean social housing, seeing as the tenants pay rent and don't actually own the house?

Jinglejangle69

bubblypop wrote: »

Who gets that?
You couldn't mean social housing, seeing as the tenants pay rent and don't actually own the house?

Some pay rent.

A lot don't.