Of course, there are many, perhaps the majority, who resent social housing developments being anything other than sink holes.
Has this not been borne out by experience across the country when done on a large scale in previous generations? Chief among them Government agencies moved people with no income into these areas who freed from market discipline proceeded to destroy the lives of their low income earning neighbours imposing higher costs on and them forcing them to move if they could, the government then followed up by moving more people with no income into these areas and led to the creation of high crime ghettos that were unpleasant places to live for low income earners who aspired to improve their lives. The areas got such a bad reputation that potential employers would not employ anyone who gave an address from there so low income earners got hit again. This cycle broke for the first time in decades during the boom and many people who grew up there seized their opportunity and escaped the trap.
I don't think there is much objection to providing social housing for low income earners among the population at large, the chief objection seems to be the carrying the costs imposed on them by those that are seen to abuse the system.
But the fact remains that the market does not provide for everyone so it either gets built or you ignore the housing needs of low income earners.
The property market is highly regulated by a several government agencies on behalf of several vested interest groups, notably since 1963. Want to build a house or apartment? you need a site with access to services (water, sewage, electricity, telecommunication) - there is an upfront cost to connect these services, You need planning permission (you cannot build the same house as your parents did many years ago, the specification inflation imposes higher upfront costs), the councils now impose several thousands in costs on developers to provide amenities beyond shelter on greenfield sites, this is a higher upfront cost to the end buyer. Even the costs of redeveloping brownfield sites in the city center is high and there are severe restrictions on height and orientation which means apartments sizes are smaller in order to recoup the cost and make a profit. Want to build near the Luas, that will cost you more. All of this regulation is a upfront cost to the buyer that exists even without government agencies interference, and it is much higher that it should be, because the organisations that regulate the market are free from market discipline.
During the boom there was a provision to provide for social housing and a provision for the developers to buy their way out of it, the councils used the proceeds to build shiny new offices and boost income for themselves. Now they have shiny offices, they would like to boost their incomes and cover the deficits, they will continue to offload the costs on to the buyer.
Another aspect to consider is that we importing low income workers, large scale migration must also be priced into subsidising the price of shelter. The mass migration of people into the European Union is causing political upheaval across the continent since the immigrants are direct competition for native populations low income earners. The scale of the migration is such that political calculations cannot be avoided in the provision of subsidised shelter.
Step over the homeless in the street or agree to pay for the necessary market intervention through your taxes.
Instead of stepping over them you might listen to them some time and you may learn the reason they are homeless is not lack of shelter. If you want to make a case for providing affordable accommodation for low income earners leave the homeless out of the discussion, heartless as this sounds their cases are not relevant to providing low income earners shelter.