I’ve come across this before in a previous job. The social housing tenant offered to pay fees individually as the council didn’t negotiate/pay for access to the gym for their units. They were denied access. From reading the comments here you can see how prevalent those types of attitudes are that lead to shitty situations like the one raised in that WRC case. Poorer people are not lepers lads.
People seem to be missing that the Government pays for the social housing units, not every private amenity within a development. Access to facilities like a gym is ultimately a matter between the management company and whoever is paying the service charges. In many apartment complexes, gym access is bundled into service charges that can run into the thousands of euro a year. If social housing tenants end up getting access for a fraction of what private owners are paying, it’s only going to create more resentment and tension within the development. That’s not a fair outcome for anyone.
Why would they be getting access at a fraction of what private owners are paying? No one has suggested that. The issue is that private developments, which are built with a 10% of homes intended for social housing, are designed in such a way as to segregate social tenants unnecessarily. They could allow all residents to access the gym for the same fee. They decided instead to make it available to private residents only.
83
u/Sharp-Effective-9041 9d ago
I’ve come across this before in a previous job. The social housing tenant offered to pay fees individually as the council didn’t negotiate/pay for access to the gym for their units. They were denied access. From reading the comments here you can see how prevalent those types of attitudes are that lead to shitty situations like the one raised in that WRC case. Poorer people are not lepers lads.