'supported living for challenging youngsters' being built next door.

[getyourselfchecked]

NC for this as could be outing. This is more of a WWYD really. I am at risk of sounding like a right NIMBY and I hate that its bringing this out in me but...
I am a single parent about to move to a new house. Building work has started on a 'supported living for challenging youngsters' development right next door.
Now, I have lived in some of the most gang-riven areas in the country without a thought but in my old age and with a child I admit I am worried about crime, drugs and ability to sell house on. I love the house and everything else is good.
WWYD? Still proceed with the purchase?

This is a genuine post, I don't have many people to discuss this with and I have never worried about house values etc in my life! I am genuinely surprised at my reaction to this.

OP, shame this thread has been derailed a bit. In answer to your question, I wouldn't buy this house for two reasons:

1. if I ever wanted, or had, to sell it in the future it is likely to be difficult to do so and/or the value of the house would drop (so potential for negative equity for instance).
2. I would not buy next to an HMO of any description, and especially not one full of teens/young people. Add in the additional issue of the residents being young people who are likely to have more problems than average teens, and I definitely would steer well clear.

I don't see any cognitive dissonance between being generally supportive of there being support services and so on for these young people whilst not wishing to put yourself at a financial disadvantage when buying a house by buying a house close to this development. I don't think it is unreasonable to not want to live next door to a HMO where large(ish) number of young people live. It's not even just this cohort of people- lots of people don't want to live next door to HMO where students live or halls of residence, for instance.

I do recognise not all of the residents of this development will be problematic. However, some will and although there may well be reasons (whether those are disability, mental health, drug or alcohol problems, or simply a difficult upbringing), that doesn't change the impact of those who do cause problems. The same is true of students, BTW- not all are heavy drinking, noisy, party throwing or inconsiderate neighbours but the fact that some are has put people off living next door/flat below etc.

OP I hope you're ok after this shit storm.

Really, who would bother asking anything here anymore?!

FWIW, I wouldn't invest a huge amount of money, get a mortgage for, or tie myself down to anything I thought had potential to devalue. Why would you?

None of us are fortune tellers but if you think this residential home will decrease the resale value of the property it would be utter madness to buy it!

It's not your job to save the morality of Britain. This is an anonymous forum. You would be foolish in the extreme to let posters talk you into losing money just so you don't appear disablist to them.

They have their homes. You need to find the right one for you and your family.

Haven't read last night's contributions but nothing would surprise me about this place.

OP, do not buy. End of.

None of us are fortune tellers but if you think this residential home will decrease the resale value of the property it would be utter madness to buy it!

Buying a home based on how you think your lifestyle in that home might be is not something that should be called disablist. If I viewed a property and a dog barked next door the whole time I was viewing it, then I'd be concerned that the dog would be an ongoing issue and wouldn't buy there. If there was yelling from the neighbours house for the whole time I viewed the property then I wouldn't buy it and I would suspect it was an continuing situation. Choosing not to buy next to a disrupted property is not disablist. It is choosing to make what is probably the biggest investment of your life based on the available variables that will impact on you living there.

I still don't understand why some people are insinuating that the OP's family shouldn't have the right to not want to live next door to a homeless hostel and maybe lose a lot of money if they then have to sell without being called disabilist??

bois a lot of people would consider calling people 'nuts' disabilist, just sayin.

www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/soup-kitchen-to-close-a63057/

This closed after a campaign by the neighbours, it was really sad and I was happy to support it.

There but for the grace of God and all that.
I doubt that the OP will buy/not buy on the basis of this thread, it surely would not be her only source of guidance.

Oh well. I'll live.

Classy

Ooh! I was going to add a word or three... and then thought, no!

There is no inoffensive way to say that someone is acting an a less than logical manner!

Oh! Illogical! "It's illogical, Jim!"

You know why I pulled that up. It was clearly a deliberate attempt at goading due to the sensitive nature of the thread. Pointing out that some people would find it offensive was what I thought was right. And as I have been accused so many times, I wasn't aggressive, confrontational, etc... 🙄

Blanche. Erm.

And to you navy, all of those words are insults right? Surely all insults are offensive one way or another? Whether it be 'silly sausage' or 'head case' ... They just vary in offensiveness.

Well I wasn't talking to you so don't worry yourself dear

Not that it's any of your business but Blanche and I have discussed this thread at length outside of the thread, so no, most of what I said wouldn't make sense to you. But that's for your opinion

Navy I think Moz wrote the wrong NN.

It was Boisderose she replied to.

Oh yes. They certainly do navy. They certainly do.

My third message was to Blanche