"I just want a house, I think I deserve a house"

Just read an article in the Irish Times about yet another cancelled regeneration scheme, this time Croke Villas in Ballybough.


There is not much of a doubt that many of the people there experience bad enough conditions but I nevertheless find the attitude slightly interesting - hence the thread title

The logical end to this sentence, that’s been left unsaid, is of course: “for free”.

While you can have sympathy for this individual family’s situation, it hard to see how that sense of entitlement would be workable in reality.

Without an incentive being there for most people to sort themselves out with accomodation, either buying or renting privately, then the whole welfare system would collapse.

And of course the incentive is that public housing isn’t “as good as anywhere else”, otherwise we’d all be on the housing list.

I think you would find that people want security of tenure. We don’t have that in Ireland and if we did, you might find that a lot of the “I deserve a house” for free or for cheap attitude would go.

What are you on about Calina, there is security of tenure.

On the one hand the council is cutting these people adrift and it does frustrate me when a developer can walk away from a PPP when it suits him to do so.

On the other hand areas like this have been destroyed by the people living there, no-one else.

Who stole that childs wheelchair? who smashed glass all over the green? who crashed a car into the gates?

The over-riding theme I pick up from stories like this are “Why are the govt. not building me a new house” “Why are the govt. not doing up my area” . Basically waiting for someone else to make their life better.

Do it your fucking self like everybody else.

And you’re taking one case and extrapolating it to a majority. This subject has come up for discussion before, particularly with respect to the AH schemes and initiatives. I’ve rented for more than 15 years and I still want to buy because I have no security of tenure. Admittedly I am not in council housing but the principle is the same.

As for blaming people for other people’s behaviour…that’s just childish. There are issues with social housing estates yes, but you are making individuals collectively responsible for other individual’s behaviour. That’s not fair or right.

Again, if this country sorted out its tenancy legislation and got rid of loopholes and optout clauses across the board, we’d be better off and you wouldn’t see so much of this attitude. This story wouldn’t have happened because the developers would have nowhere to go.

Calina, I really don’t think having better tenancy laws would bother (some, not all) people living in council houses one bit.
The principle is not the same.

  1. It would easily take a generation, possibly more, for the general attitude towards renting to change. Only last night I had some one burning my ears off with the rent is dead money rubbish.
  2. There is a welfare culture in this country wether you recognise it or not. Some people do not want to rent, they want the council to provide them with a home. Where in that story did you read “If only the tenancy laws were stronger I could rent somewhere nice and feel secure”.
  3. The residents have let that estate go to rack and ruin, the council did not come in and destroy the place. If the majority of residents were engaged in looking after the place it would not be in such a state.

I agree with what you are saying re: renting but in this case I don’t think it applies.

The people in this story do not want to rent, they want the state to provide a house.

I’ve already said something simialr to your point on developers walking away from PPPs.

On the one hand the council is cutting these people adrift and it does frustrate me when a developer can walk away from a PPP when it suits him to do so.

On the other hand areas like this have been destroyed by the people living there, no-one else.

Who stole that childs wheelchair? who smashed glass all over the green? who crashed a car into the gates?

The over-riding theme I pick up from stories like this are “Why are the govt. not building me a new house” “Why are the govt. not doing up my area” . Basically waiting for someone else to make their life better.

Do it your fucking self like everybody else.

How do you propose that they do that Django - for the past ten years people who worked couldn’t afford a house and those who finally achieved that goal are up shit creek for the next 40 years.
There will always be those who are less well off in society - that doesn’t mean that they should live in squalor and in circumstances such as these.
These people do pay rent - its proportionate to what they receive from the state or to their low earnings.
I think it’s shameful in this day and age to see an elderly man carrying his disabled grandson on his back up stairs several times each day.

I’m saying they should all go out and buy a 2 bed apt for 400k.

The premise of that article is that they live in a run down shitty complex. It was not always like that. They are the residents, if they care so much about their homes and the surroundings do something about it.

The residents and no-one else have destroyed that complex.

I propose they stop waiting for someone else (the state) to tidy up their own mess and do it themselves. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Obviously there must be more suitable for accomodation for that man and his grandson. But he is the exception in that story.

Why is there no half way here. Yes the state has an obligation to provide housing to people not in a position to provide their own, but the state is not obliged to continuously regenerate areas run down by the very people living there.

The residents have a responsibilty to maintain their homes too you know.

These people would be the norm - not the exception. This is the result of bad planning, inadequate resources. These people all around Dublin and beyond live in fear if they complain about the youths destroying every community around them. This goes much deeper then maintaining their surroundings as you know. As to continuous regeneration - this was a project much like Ballymun, it wasn’t just a physical regeneration programme - it got to the heart of the problems and along with new accommodation, community centres were built which were run by the community - for the community, crèche, training courses to allow the community to become skilled, resourceful and improve their chances of making their situation better - to improve the next generations chances. I know you know this I just think you are a little hard line on this issue.

The issue I’m hardline on is responsibility.

There are many reasons complexs like this are the way they are but the one that is constantly overlooked is the residents themselves.

I agree that the security of tenure situation for private rental accomodation is totally lop-sided. And now is the opportune time for reform - the old counter-arguments that secure tenure would disrupt that market and tend to reduce the number of properties available for rent, holds no water in the current climate. Like, what is Mr. Greedy Landlord gonna do, sell that appartment out from under you? I don’t think so, not with prices falling like a stone.

However, somewhat counter-intuitively, I think the cast-iron multi-generational security of tenure in public housing is major contributor to the problems in these areas, as it reinforces the poverty trap across generations.

For much of the early-tiger period I lived in an artisans two-up-two-down in the south inner city, across the road from a big 1930’s corpo flat complex. The cars parked by the corpo tenants were generally an order magnitude better that the clapped-out bangers driven by the young middleclass blow-ins across the road. So clearly many of the residents had some means, and probably could have streched to one of the little red-brick gaffs that were going in those days for little more than 100k in old money. But they never did … Why? Maybe the allure of free-stuff was just too strong. Or maybe they were concerned to “pass on” their plumb flat in a mature area to one of their children.

Then it is any surprise, given the signals from the parents, that the next generation succumb to the illusory charm of a life of dependency? What’s not to like about free stuff? The teenage daughter can even get free formula & nappies if she pops a sprog of her own, so she can blow all the single mother allowance on fags, ring-tones and lottery tickets.

In fact none of this nannying actually does any good, as dependency strongly reinforces poverty in the long term. So all social housing policy (and welfare policy in general) needs to be completely focussed on one aim: getting the recipient off benefits and out of social housing. Not just because of the cost, but also because its the only way to help in the long term.

Gutter journalism.

This family is representative of many families in Ireland who, for whatever reason, lack the will or the ability to look after themselves.

If the rest of us are willing to feed their habit well then of course they are going to take as much as they can. Another hard luck story to make the rest of us feel that we are not doing enough.

“32 years in this kip” nuff said.

Yes I don’t understand it either! In this land of boundless opportunity, of equality of opportunity and outcome. Where all the children of the nation have been cherished equally. Where for generations everyone has had access to education, well paid employment and easy access to mortgage credit and where house prices are low why don’t these people just buy a f**king house? Perhaps they are untermensch or just plain good for nothing s.o.b.s who lack moral fibre. They should all be transported with their “sprogs” to work camp number one in Bad Malin Head without delay. 88!

Oh no we couldn’t do that. We have to look after the poor. We have to be good citizens.

Give me a break. I grew up with people like these who expect the state, which is us, to look after them.

Many families have disabled children but they don’t expose them to the media. It would be interesting to see what/if the media paid this family for this expose.

The irish social security is at least generous and if they can’t live on that, well tuff.

I can understand short term hardship which is understandable in a falling economy but “32 years in this kip”
Forget it.

So many feeders in this country feeding from the trough of generosity of their political lovers.

I blame them and I blame the government.

Look at (just some) of the shootings in Ireland recently (that of the rugby player in Limerick, the father in Dublin shot by a teenager).
I believe that much of this is as a result of the hand-out attitude of the governments (all of them) over the past too many years.

I do think that everyone deserves some assistance to get onto ones feet again, but let’s limit it to a reasonable time duration.
Furthermore there’s a nearly new estate built to where I live, something like 15 council houses there, most of which are occupied by reported “single” mothers, who nevertheless have partners living with them. Load of failure to deal with this hand-out culture.

Not sure I’ve said this before, but my observations at work seem to support it, there’s only about 40% of the population actually really doing useful productive work.
Ireland is showing itself to be very much a society that I don’t want to be living in for much longer.

Equality of opportunity is indeed a luadable goal, but equality of outcome?

So everybody’s life has to be as kept as sh1ty as the worst-off just to keep things “fair”? Get off the stage! Why don’t you give the North Koreans a holler and check how that sort of codology is working out for them?

Your use of the work “access” is revealing, as if well-paid jobs should be available on-tap with no effort from the job-seeker. That’s just not how things work in a competitive economy. Excepting a tiny minority who are born with the proverbial silver spoon, jobs aren’t handed on a plate to anyone. Yet that doesn’t seem to stop most people sorting themselves out with employment.

And all this guff about poor people not having access to education, or being “failed by the education system”. What exactly is the difference between a state school in the inner city and a state school in a middle class suburb? The teachers are all paid the same, and the capitation grant per pupil is also the same. So how come the outcomes in the middle class school are an order of magnitude better? Its because the parents actually give enough of a f*ck to do the simple things, like give their kids a proper breakfast before school, supervise their homework for half an hour, chat to the teacher off-the-cuff about how their kid is getting on, I dunno read them a story before bed. Basically projecting a positive attitude to education. That’s how middle class kids get their supposedly unfair advantage.

Actually its not limited to the middle class, the less well off in rural areas seem to have a lot less trouble joining the dots on this. How many large families raised on small farms all went to college, coz Mammy made darn sure they got the message that’s where the opportunities lay?

And don’t start on about voluntary contributions in middle class state schools excluding the poor. In the school my son goes to, this is the princely sum of 90 euros per family per year. That should exclude no-one, partly because it really is voluntary, and partly because I’d argue many on welfare could afford this if they really wanted to. Give up the fags for a week and there ya go, school money for the kids. The problem is they’re so embedded in the culture of dependency that making such a minor sarcrifice would be seen as a rediculous idea. What the fook, give up da fags, no way bud!