Pat Kenny NIMBYism

Cockford Ollie

Fair play to Pat on winning this one. I wouldn't want a bunch of poor people moving in next door either.

blinding

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

Fair play to Pat on winning this one. I wouldn't want a bunch of poor people moving in next door either.

A Victory for the Social Justice Warrior .

Hence forth

Pat to be known as

“ Saint Pat Kenny , Social Justice Warrior for the Rich “

“ Keep Out the Poor " is his Creed .

elperello

Assetbacked wrote: »

It's about time the government declared a state of emergency with the housing crisis and implemented temporary overarching powers to get the houses built. Short term pain for the NIMBYs but long term gain for a more secure, housed society.

Not a good idea to leave existing householders to the tender mercies of developers.

Assetbacked

elperello wrote: »

Not a good idea to leave existing householders to the tender mercies of developers.

It would only be temporary until we get the houses and apartments built.

elperello

Assetbacked wrote: »

It would only be temporary until we get the houses and apartments built.

Not a good idea to give up rights even on a temporary basis.
Such a move would be wide open to abuse and give too much power to developers.

Assetbacked

elperello wrote: »

Not a good idea to give up rights even on a temporary basis.
Such a move would be wide open to abuse and give too much power to developers.

So like the current situation where large international investors (via investment funds) have all the power to build as much commercial space as they want on foot of acquiring the land from NAMA without any obligation to build houses? Look how this is working out - a glut of office space and no homes for the workers the office space is intended to be provided for.

elperello

Assetbacked wrote: »

So like the current situation where large international investors (via investment funds) have all the power to build as much commercial space as they want on foot of acquiring the land from NAMA without any obligation to build houses? Look how this is working out - a glut of office space and no homes for the workers the office space is intended to be provided for.

I am not supporting the type of situation you refer to above just supporting the right of individuals to take part in the planning process.

Proper sustainable development is what we need but taking away the rights of individuals will not deliver that.

AlanG

Assetbacked wrote: »

It's about time the government declared a state of emergency with the housing crisis and implemented temporary overarching powers to get the houses built. Short term pain for the NIMBYs but long term gain for a more secure, housed society.

The quickest solution to the crisis is to get the thousands of Government funded tenants where one or two p[people are living in 3 and 4 bed houses to move into 1 and 2 bed places or else pay market rents for the houses they no longer need - the immediate crisis could be solved in matter of months.

Getting a 4 bed house when you are in your 20's and have 4 kids should not entitle you to a massively subsidised 4 bed house when you reach your 50's and have no kids left at home and a 80,000 a year job but in reality that is how it work.

DEFTLEFTHAND

blinding wrote: »

A Victory for the Social Justice Warrior .

Hence forth

Pat to be known as

“ Saint Pat Kenny , Social Justice Warrior for the Rich “

“ Keep Out the Poor " is his Creed .

Reminds of an old boy in college who protested student fees.

He had a huge placard which read.

'BRING BACK FEES!

KEEP THE RIFF RAFF OUT!

elperello

There is no contradiction between wanting to see a good Government housing policy and wanting sustainable proper development in your own area.

awec

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I posted this on Facebook and might as well post it here too. This whole talk about "seriously injurious to the setting, amenity and appreciation of neighbouring properties" comes off as though the site in question should also be treated as an extension of amenities to neighbouring residents.

I would like to remind the residents of "neighbouring properties" that the only amenities they own are those WITHIN the confines of their walls. I had a look at the plans which weren't bad looking. They were quite smart looking actually. It will be very rich (no pun intended) to hear the head objector complaining about the housing crisis in future NewsTalk broadcasts.

You should probably remind yourself about planning permission and what it entails while you're at it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

elperello wrote: »

There is no contradiction between wanting to see a good Government housing policy and wanting sustainable proper development in your own area.

Ah, there is Ted.

Assetbacked

elperello wrote: »

I am not supporting the type of situation you refer to above just supporting the right of individuals to take part in the planning process.

Proper sustainable development is what we need but taking away the rights of individuals will not deliver that.

The current situation is not sustainable - people who are renting are losing more and more money every year; and ending up with less cash with each passing year. In fact, the boomier it gets the worse off workers are! This screams that something is at breaking point in the economy.

Emergency measures to fix the solution - no objection to house-building planning applications or something along those lines is required to break an unsustainable situation.

elperello

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Ah, there is Ted.

No there is not.
Suggestions on this thread that would seek to "weaponise" the planning system are unhelpful and will do nothing to improve matters.