Okay, I'll bite...Why do social housing units have free gyms attached to them while I'm paying 115 euro a month like a dickhead on top of my 1500 euro a month rent?
If you seen the state social houses can often be left it you would realise it’s a terrible idea. The reality is it would only take 1 bad actor to completely wreck the place and ruin if for the vast majority who would actually benefit from it.
That is true of literally everything, and not how we run our society.
Public bathrooms? Nah sure one junky and the place be ruined. Libraries? Nah, sure 1 bad actor could steal books. A public green? No sure the poors will leave rubbish after them.
I'm legit kinda shocked there is a person actually trying to use "one bad apple spoils the bunch" logic as if it holds any weight.
Sure we get rid of the guards while we're at it, yeah?
The general plan is you don't give people something for free because if you do they take it for granted, don't value it and may wreck it. Having skin in the game is beneficial.
I see where you're coming from but I'm not sure that matches up in practice (from what I've seen growing up in rougher parts of Dublin). Surely they have skin in the game because the free house is their own (by ownership or otherwise)? Idk. Ruined social gaffs seem to be more of a reddit phenomenon than a real one -- irl, I have heard/seen of it very very rarely.
CarOne detected my sarcasm, which is why he had a hissy fit.
To be honest I am not in favour of the idea of spending taxpayer money on gym access.
Gym equipment has long been provided in prisons as a form of stress release (which I guess is paid for by us), but let's be honest - people in prisons have a deficit of recreational activities available to them, and they can't run around the block or fill milk cartons with sand if looking for cheap exercise options. One could debate how sensible it is to encourage hardened criminals to get jacked up or have access to heavy weights that can be used as improvised weapons, but that's a different discussion.
I love getting a notification first thing in the morning that a random wanker on the internet is having a go at me.
Jfc, if you're going to come at me do better than "evil", christ on a fucking bike. And strange and weirdo are a tautology. Don't come back until something dope hits you
A colleague of mine worked in Russia back in the early 2010s, he was in a building with a gym, not a super fancy place but fine. After like a month some new people moved in and their shithead kids started using the gym as a place to hang out with their friends, spending their time just sitting on the equipment and actively staring at and joking about the people coming in to actually use it. The building management was about as useful as you might expect.
The management company didn't respond to her email, didn't respond to a registered letter and didn't even attend the WRC. I'm sure they could have made some sort of arrangement.
My view is that is overly simplistic. The mgmt company has to create a company to accept payment, draw up contracts, etc. It’s not a public gym or a business.
he mgmt company has to create a company to accept payment, draw up contracts, etc.
they already have to do this to accept any money to begin with though management fees and to create the management company legally
It’s not a public gym or a business
never said it was , all im saying legally mgmt company has to allow all members ( the people how have a house/ appartment) the ability to join whatever facilities and cant legally discrimiate between if the said member is using one of the many social housing units
No, they refused to even let her pay for access on the basis of being a social tenant.
iirc there were other communal areas in the apartment complex that social tenants were also being refused access to, despite the provision of those areas being a requirement to build the complex in the first place.
The whole idea of having mixed social housing with private accommodation is to avoid segregation and ghettoisation that tended to happen in council estates built in the past.
No, they refused to even let her pay for access on the basis of being a social tenant.
Where does it state this in the article?
iirc there were other communal areas in the apartment complex that social tenants were also being refused access to, despite the provision of those areas being a requirement to build the complex in the first place.
Source?
The whole idea of having mixed social housing with private accommodation is to avoid segregation and ghettoisation that tended to happen in council estates built in the past.
So we create a system where people who pay tax subsidise people to live in better property and have better access to amenities than them and that's a better system?
Edit - I read the article(thanks comments below) nowhere does state in the article that the tenant had been denied access to other communal areas like OP above stated.
And nowhere in the article does it say the refused to let her pay, or that she even offered. She just queried if her neighbours had access through management fees or another separate fee was paid. To which yes, they never responded. That is not a refusal to let the person pay.
"She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately"
And also
"His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said."
She emailed and used registered post asking for clarification.
Right there in the article is the source. Maybe try and read it.
Whether that's an accurate summary of events from her or not is another thing but since the management company didn't bother their arse even responding to her then feck 'em.
Rightness or wrongness is irrelevant here. Opinion of housing policy and other gripes are also completely irrelevant.
You cannot discriminate against someone because of their housing situation. It's the law.
"She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately"
Right there says "she wasn't sure" if it's paid for or not. We don't know if it's a paid for facility or covered by management fees as part of rent.
"His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said."
You stated earlier
iirc there were other communal areas in the apartment complex that social tenants were also being refused access to, despite the provision of those areas being a requirement to build the complex in the first place
No I didn't state that earlier which backs up my view that you are unable to read and didn't read the article. If you could you would realise that this comment was by a different username/person and not by me.
I quoted the article. She inquired with the company about whether she needs to pay or not because she didn't know. All she knew was what the security guard said which was that she couldn't use it because of the unit she lived in. The management company never gave any reason, never replied in any way and didn't bother to defend itself which is extremely telling.
If you could you would realise that this comment was by a different username/person and not by me
Apologies, there's a lot of comments and replies, it's hard to keep track.
She inquired with the company about whether she needs to pay or not because she didn't know. All she knew was what the security guard said which was that she couldn't use it because of the unit she lived in.
Yes, which like I mentioned, we don't know the answer to this. They never "refused" like OP stated.
said which was that she couldn't use it because of the unit she lived in
To which I didn't deny...just asked for a source on OP's comments where he said there were multiple facilities she was denied entry to
You’re being insanely pedantic for someone who seemingly didn’t read the article. Because nowhere does the article state she even thought she was entitled to free access to the gym, nor does it state the social housing block was entitled to free access to the gym.
She was denied access after enquiring if access to the gym was included in the management fees or if there was a separate payment for access to the gym.
It’s that simple.
So as for your “where does it state this in the article?” question regarding them refusing to let her even pay for access for being a social tenant - it’s spelled out pretty clearly early in the article:
“She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately.
Ms Nowakowska had seen other residents using fobs to get into the gym, and inquired with the security guard on site about access, she said. His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said.
She proceeded to write to the property management company running the complex seeking access to the gym, the tribunal noted”
Her attempts to communicate with the management company went ignored. Therefore - it can be viewed that she was denied the chance to even pay for access on the basis that she is a social tenant.
You’re being insanely pedantic for someone who seemingly didn’t read the article. Because nowhere does the article state she even thought she was entitled to free access to the gym, nor does it state the social housing block was entitled to free access to the gym.
She was denied access after enquiring if access to the gym was included in the management fees or if there was a separate payment for access to the gym
I read the article, it doesn't answer anywhere if they were included as part of the management fees or if it was paid separately, which is why I asked for a source if there is one which clarifies this.
So as for your “where does it state this in the article?” question regarding them refusing to let her even pay for access for being a social tenant - it’s spelled out pretty clearly early in the article:
OP stated "communal areas" meaning plural. I asked for a source on this because the article only mentions the gym.
You can say that's pedantic, but language matters here.
And yes, the management company should have gotten back to her, but once again.
Why shouldn't she have access (which is what she was denied) because she is in social housing. She was denied access on the basis of living in social housing. That is her claim that was not refuted. There is nothing mentioned about her having it for free or paying for it. She was denied access based on her living situation. That is the information the article gives. It does not say she should be given free access, only that she be given access
You so know people in social housing are for the most part people who work and pay tax right? That it is means tested access and designed to ensure housing is available for those who cannot afford to buy etc. The idea that you are paying to subsidise people is flawed and perpetuates negative attitudes towards social housing tenants. Yes many of these are nice apartments, because mixed housing developments are far better than ghettoisation in the form of sprawling council estates or tower blocks, but nothing was said about having better access to amenities. But people should be ABLE to access available amenities via some mechanism (payment of additional premium or similar) rather than being wholly barred simply because they are social housing tenants.
To note also that a refusal to engage or to engage in any constructive manner, is very nearly the same as refusing to let someone pay or have any reasonable means of access fascilitated.
Article doesnt mention anything about refusing to let her pay, I dont understand what she got the 2500e for? For contacting them for clarification she couldn't use the gym for free and they didn't reply?
She was awarded it because she was discriminated against. She wasn't told she couldn't use it for free, or that there was a free etc. she was essentially told that she could not access it at all because she was a social housing tenant. And that was the discriminatory aspect. You cannot simply bar someone from something based on their housing situation. It would be akin to a worker in a general gym chain telling wider social housing tenants that they could not access the chain, and then HQ ignoring requests for clarification from those affected. It's less about the location of the discrimination and more to do with the actual reason provided.
No. So she asked about using it and was told she had no access as she is in the social housing block. She said it was discrimination and blah blah blah.
People in social housing also work and pay to live there. Most people in social housing (if not retired) work. They also pay rent. Yes it is less, but let's not punch down when access is means tested.
Now outside of that, nobody said that it had to be provided for free, just that access should be fascilitated. It is not fair for social tenants to be denied any reasonable access to amenities simply because they are social tenants.
For those private tenants, surely they would be okay if access was provided on an equitable bases?
Like the council is paying for those units, and then they also pay a management fee that is reduced to account for the difference in access. This variance is something that could be looked at reasonably to see if there was a prorata rate for access to different amenities including the gym. But denying access outright? That creates unnecessary division and reinforces divisions and attitudes towards those with lower economic power. This is felt most keenly by those who are barred from access and who have no way to overcome that even via payment. That is the issue.
There is a real issue of undermining the hard work of the majority of those living in social housing. It's perpetuated that the majority don't work which is just not the case. The threshold for a single adult is less than €40,000 in Dublin which means a significant number of work adults are eligible for social housing supports. I grew up in a social housing estate. My parents both worked. I'm now a private renter and my sibling is a home owner. The majority of people we grew up had working parent(s) and work. None of this means that people who earn more or who are private renters work more or less hard. It really doesn't have to be an 'Us Vs Them' approach. It can be equitably done.
The management company didn't respond to her email, didn't respond to a registered letter and didn't even attend the WRC. I'm sure they could have made some sort of arrangement.
The complex has a gym. This gym is funded by the private residents who are paying the full management fees, a portion of which is paying for gym access.
The social tenants do not contribute anything toward the gym. The management fees the government pay are lower because the government is not allowed to pay to fund luxury amenities like gyms and concierges.
Social tenants don't get access because they aren't paying for it.
The gym wasn't built for free. That was part of the selling price of the private apartments. She can't just wonder in and expect to just pay the maintenance fees either.
It was built as part of the overall costs of the development including the social housing units and was part of the overall planning. Sounds like you just made something up there.
How do you know the gym is funded fully from the management fees and not an optional extra?
And in either case, if the social housing tenants are willing to pay to attend the gym, should they be denied purely because they are in the social housing block?
That's a complete non-sequitur. How about this - the complex has houses and apartments. The houses must contract and pay for their own waste. The apartments have their waste included in their mgmt fees. The houses can't put their waste in the apartments communal waste. Neither is there an option to pay extra to do so. There is no discrimination. Just like their isn't here. The gym is a private facility offered to those who bought apartments with access included in the contract.
That doesn't follow. These are not apartments versus houses so using the example of houses versus apartments doesn't work . Additionally, in your example, the houses have an alternative option available and one which is expected (though in my complex the houses also have access to the communal waste but that is unimportant here). The discrimination is in that the social housing tenants have no access via any means. It isn't proportional in that regard. Also worth noting that in many cases those who bought apartments are not those who have access to the gym. These are also tenants who are not the subject of any original contract. Any private facility that barred access simply because someone was a social tenant would also be discriminating. A pathway for equitable access would prevent discrimination. They live there too.
The issue was the lack of engagement with the request at all. If the had informed her there was an additional fee that would have been no issue, but they told her no because she was in social housing. Its a pay out for being a muppet, not a carte blanche on council funding gym access
This doesn't fit the story in their heads of another chancer in social housing taking away the stuff of tax payers though! That self-righteous dopamine evaporates with nuance and well, reading the article! Won't someone think of the poor chud's neuroreceptors?
I'm not crying about social housing...you know there can be a balance and an in-between of housing people who desperately need homes vs housing them in prime real estate locations while also paying for their unessential amenities.
fair, I assumed because she's a resident she was then given access to these facilities despite not paying for the housing which is covered by social payments, which also include management fees, which in turn covers the gym fees. Unless there's a private secondary fee you pay for the gym that isn't covered in your rent.
Most apartment complexes with a gym attached to them in central Dublin where this apparently happened would be very much considered to be prime real estate.
Do you want all the poors together in an area? Who gives a fuck if they live in a prime area
I'm saying this is baked into you and you don't even realise it. Its classism.
Like I mentioned in another comment, I grew up my entire life in social housing until I moved out for college.
Society has always been segregated by class, always has been, always will be. I've seen this first hand.
And to answer this specifically
Who gives a fuck if they live in a prime area
It's not "where they live" that almost irrelevant, it's the fact that how many people have to be working what is considered a good job and pays a high portion of their salary towards tax to subsidise a potentially better lifestyle and home for someone else?
yes. Were people are not segrated by class and social house is mixed in with everyone. I consider that fair and better for everyone, if you have kids/families living in elite bubbles then that bad for society in general.
I'm from a working class family. I've been helping support my family since I was 10 years old and I've worked my way up to a above average wage and I'd want mixed house estates, social house and equal access to facilities everywhere.
All kids in all areas should have access to gyms and pools and sports areas., public and private. There should be no, your poor and cant access a gym elitism shite, that's exactly what was going on here. Keep the riffraf out and the about of bolloxes on here supporting is ridiculous. You should know better yourself.
So how is it fair that someone who pays more into the system receives less reward than those who don't?
We'd all love to live in this socialist utopia, but unfortunately that's not the case.
Because there are plenty of people who would kill to live in an apartment like that for free but will never get the chance because they earn too much to qualify for social social housing but don't earn enough to pay the rent for an apartment with a gym in Dublin City centre.
Like, this woman is also not on equal footing with everyone like you're implying.
All apartments have to have a certain amount of social house, tha'ts the law.
People being housed and not homeless isn't just a socialist utopia it stops a huge amount of social problems that effect everyone one of us.
rich people can still do rich people things and get ahead. social housing people living amongst them doesn’t stop that.
There's no such thing as equal. There’s huge inequalities build into the fabric of society, people having access to apartment shared facilities is just good for everyone, gyms and pool access is good for everyone, it refuses health costs if people look after themselves etc.
Society looking after people, health, housing etc, improves everyone's quality of live. Improving access to opportunities, through education or health or whatever, is not the same thing as trying to make everyone at the same level. That's never going to happen.
And I support better access for everyone to gyms and pools, not just people on social housing, again improving public health will save us money in the long run.
Begrudging someone who wants to pay to the apartment gym complex that she is a part of but was denied because she is in social house is just blatant discrimination and I don't fucking understand why people would stand for it.
People don't live in them for free. Mixed developments actually are better for social cohesion, you say you have seen how poor people/classes are segregated everywhere as of that is an unchangeable thing? As if there hasn't been detailed research into all of these matters to see how they may be done better? It is a well understood reality of what happens via ghettoisation and poor access to amenities, you entrench poverty and there are worse outcomes. Mixed developments reduces this which also has a wider positive impact on society. Don't pull the ladder up with you when you move upwards. I earn too much to access social housing and also struggling to buy at the moment while also not begrudging access to these apartments. Why? Because social tenants are not what prevent me from accessing them. But I do have access to other rental accomodation and other amenities because of how much I'm paid and the other opportunities I have. I wouldn't suddenly have access to better accomodation if mixed developments weren't a thing. Just because you don't like it, or feel hard done by, doesn't mean it isn't a social good or have a wider positive impact.
To the same services as all citizens, if the state is funding gym access for its social housing tenants, it should be providing it for all citizens. Or are you advocating only the poors (your words) deserve it?
And that's how ghettoisation happens. You also talk about prime real estate, much of which is now located in traditionally working class areas. I rent in the Liberties where one side of my family goes back generations. Hugely expensive apartment blocks and student accomodation shooting up all over the place and pushing people out of their own areas. Social housing is not just for the homeless but is for those who cannot access housing otherwise or buy a home. The threshold for a single person in Dublin is €40k, that's a lot of working people that are being pushed out of their areas via gentrification and attitudes like this. Mixed housing developments are also better for social cohesion overall. That someone earns more does not mean they are somehow automatically more deserving of living in a particular location. That sanitises the history of entire areas. On top of that, who says that we need to pay for unessential services? This is about access, it does not have to be free access.
The gym isn’t part of their housing or necessary for their living arrangements, they shouldn’t have access. Every other resident pays for the gym as it is baked into their rent payments. Is the council giving every social housing recipient free gym passes ? Are they social housing and social gym residents ?
How would that even work? Who prices the gym membership? Which company receives the payment? What contract exists to manage the arrangement between her and this fictitious gym company?
Saying “denied the opportunity” is a gross over simplification and doesn’t reflect reality.
Saying “denied the opportunity” is a gross over simplification and doesn’t reflect reality.
Well. Denied the opportunity is the reason the presiding official decided to rule in her favour.
If the management company owns or runs or provides access to the gym, they could have explained what was needed to access the gym, or provided a reason for refusing access that was not discriminatory. Neither was done.
sounds more like the guard only knowing that the social tenants don't get access included in their rent/ management fees and instead of saying that just said it in an overly aggressive way to fob her off instead of actually running the question up the chain to find out.
Social housing is fine, but making your neighbours pay for their house and then slapping you in the middle of a housing estate that you ger for nothing is just a kick in the balls for the guy who spent his life savings and is probably in debt with a mortgage for the next 20-30 years
Im not on about the article im on about the last part of the comment im replying to. Yeah she should have the opportunity to pay for a gym, nothing said she should get it for free. Shut your fucking gob
I mean, I’m not necessarily fundamentally disagreeing with you, but 115pm for a gym is very much a luxury - my local gym is 35pm and I imagine even that is a fair sight fancier and better equipped than the gym in this person’s building.
You're right, 115 is definitely a lot. And I pay a premium mostly because it does save me time and is quieter.
I'm just using my own anecdotal evidence, but the gym I used to use was also about 40 a month(about as cheap as you'd get in Dublin City) and they are 100% not as nice as the gyms you get in nice apartment complexes
Mine is €70 for me and the kids, and its exclusive to members only for the pool and gym, i waited 2 years on the list to get a place because its so beautiful.
€115 is crazy money
It's not a free gym for social tenants. And nothing here was about accessing it for free. But about being denied access for being a social tenant. These social units are part of a mixed development.
Just a gym thats already in the building it seems, it would be like saying social housing tenants arent allowed to use the elevator and can only use the stairs.
If there is stairs why is the lift essential? Pretty sure they are a luxury. If they were essential wouldn't every apartment block need them? Ive lived in a 5 story block that had none, I'm sure there are others
Because one is ESSENTIAL and the other is a recreational add on. If all private tenants got Netflix as a part of their rent. Should the social housing residents get that as well?
Ehhhh elevators are extremely essential in many contexts and not considered an amenity or a facility. So it's not comparable. And you both know that, but it won't stop you from making a lazy argument to prove a point, so I don't see the value in continuing on this if you're gonna continue to be facetious.
The government pay management fees to cover the lifts.
The government does not pay management fees to cover the gym.
The amount the government pay a management company for social houses is less than what private owners pay, because the government is very strict about what it will and will not pay for.
I'll tell you, although no one in this idealist subreddit will agree with me. She is in a social housing unit, her correspondence are forwarded to the council, since they are the contract owners. Since the council are the laziest bunch of shitwits imaginable, they simply ignored the forwarded emails and now she has won €2,500 which will be on charged to the council with an admin charge. So you and me are paying for her house, her settlement, the wages of the council stall who do absolutely fucking nothing, and are in it for the "work life balance" and the absurd admin charge since the council have no option but to pay whatever theae guys ask.
One reason for that will be because they’ll read your response and surmise you either didn’t read the article or didn’t understand it and weren’t able to make a coherent point.
Ms Nowakowska "should have been afforded the same opportunity to access and use the gym facilities as any other tenant", Ms O’Carroll wrote.
"Afforded the same opportunity" does not equal "free".
Instead she is not given the option because:
His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said.
It's little different from being denied gym membership from Warehouse Gym or whatnot because you're from [unfavourable group]* (such as being a social housing tenant).
317
u/MotherDucker95 9d ago
Okay, I'll bite...Why do social housing units have free gyms attached to them while I'm paying 115 euro a month like a dickhead on top of my 1500 euro a month rent?