Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

Idbatterim

maybe if those in social housing, werent put there at nearly 100% cost to the taxpayer, they could afford more cost plus homes?

Idbatterim

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Pretty much sums it up for me.



Less private profit in looking after the tax payer, that's the real barrier for FG.

I agree with much of what that article says. But the total overlooking of giving some people very expensive housing for nothing, and not seeing that as part of the problem, is comedy! COMEDY!

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

maybe if those in social housing, werent put there at nearly 100% cost to the taxpayer, they could afford more cost plus homes?

Do you think the developer is breaking even? Is he f***. That's the problem with PPP. We the tax payer seem to get the raw end of the deal. The developer is in situ now and Murphy is talking about homes being to costly to buy off the man building them on our own land. I don't believe Fine Gael are the complete f***wits they come across as. This is what they want, so I can only guess they're in no hurry to tackle the housing crisis if it mean loss of private profit for the market. In other words f*** the tax paying donkeys, we're looking after our own.

Idbatterim

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you think the developers is breaking even? Is he f***. That's the problem with PPP. We the tax payer seem to get the raw end of the deal. The developer is in situ now and Murphy is talking about homes being to costly to buy off the man building them on our own land.

yeah, I dont think the process is a great one. I am sick to death of the local Councillors etc crying about the lack of housing though, when they block as much as possible at every attempt, wont increase the laughably low LPT etc, allow farcically low "rents" on social housing etc. Its a joke for everyone except those at the receiving end paying well over the odds. While their likely neighbors, give nothing a good work out except their mouths!

This might not go down well, but Im not a politician looking for a vote! The more working people they get into those areas, the better!

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

I agree with much of what that article says. But the total overlooking of giving some people very expensive housing for nothing, and not seeing that as part of the problem, is comedy! COMEDY!

You can choose to read it that way. I see it as the government/LA's stepping in to help hard working tax payers buy or rent at affordable rates rather than keeping the developers and vulture funds in more profit by subsidising their customer base or giving them business.

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah, I dont think the process is a great one. I am sick to death of the local Councillors etc crying about the lack of housing though, when they block as much as possible at every attempt, wont increase the laughably low LPT etc, allow farcically low "rents" on social housing etc. Its a joke for everyone except those at the receiving end paying well over the odds. While their likely neighbors, give nothing a good work out except their mouths!

This might not go down well, but Im not a politician looking for a vote! The more working people they get into those areas, the better!

I agree.
People are charged rent based on income. If they are on the dole that's for the welfare to vet, also they have to be housed somehow why not the cheapest option, (if done right)? Doesn't take away from the concept.
Nobody on the dole will be buying an affordable house.

hatrickpatrick

Idbatterim wrote: »

they can magically increase the amount of units, by increasing the density permitted on the site...

Or, the government could stop trying so desperately to force the council into selling public land on the market to the highest bidder.

I fully agree about increasing the density btw, but there are two distinct issues here. One is DCC's total lack of vision for high rise development, and the other is the central government's ideological refusal to accept that a large number of people cannot afford market rents and shouldn't be being asked to make the kinds of sacrifices necessary in order to do so.

Idbatterim

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Or, the government could stop trying so desperately to force the council into selling public land on the market to the highest bidder.

I fully agree about increasing the density btw, but there are two distinct issues here. One is DCC's total lack of vision for high rise development, and the other is the central government's ideological refusal to accept that a large number of people cannot afford market rents and shouldn't be being asked to make the kinds of sacrifices necessary in order to do so.

they government can literally massively increase the site value, by dictating reasonable densities, would raise way more in the sale of land if choosing that route or could negotiate far more units if going down the ppp route. Would take in a lot more from LPT, the large increase in the cost of the development, a decent chunk goes back to government anyway.

They really are morons of the highest order here!

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

they government can literally massively increase the site value, by dictating reasonable densities, would raise way more in the sale of land if choosing that route or could negotiate far more units if going down the ppp route. Would take in a lot more from LPT, the large increase in the cost of the development, a decent chunk goes back to government anyway.

They really are morons of the highest order here!

I disagree. They know what the outcome of their actions are at this stage.

NewbridgeIR

Scoundrel wrote: »

And?? What has this got to do with the topic?

That person wrote the tweet (criticising Gary Gannon) quoted by the OP in the very first post in this thread. So quite a lot to do with the topic.

Scoundrel

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

That person wrote the tweet (criticising Gary Gannon) quoted by the OP in the very first post in this thread. So quite a lot to do with the topic.

Oh I see that now I thought it you were on the wrong thread or something my bad. That person seems like a head banger to be fair.

Geuze

Why didn't the City Council cut out Bartra and develop the site itself?

They own the land.

They have an architect and planners.

Then appoint a contractor.

Sell some as regular apts for sale into normal market.

Sell some as "affordable" homes.

Keep some for social housing tenants.

BattleCorp

Geuze wrote: »

Why didn't the City Council cut out Bartra and develop the site itself?

They own the land.

They have an architect and planners.

Then appoint a contractor.

Sell some as regular apts for sale into normal market.

Sell some as "affordable" homes.

Keep some for social housing tenants.

Given the shennanigans around the costs for the children's hospital (escalating expedentially), I doubt that the city council have the expertise to effectively manage such projects.

hatrickpatrick

Geuze wrote: »

Why didn't the City Council cut out Bartra and develop the site itself?

They own the land.

They have an architect and planners.

Then appoint a contractor.

Sell some as regular apts for sale into normal market.

Sell some as "affordable" homes.

Keep some for social housing tenants.

Because Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in the central government won't allow this. Since the early 1990s, the idea of directly built social housing has been ideologically rejected by the two main parties and unfortunately because people keep voting for them, we're stuck with that paradigm until something changes electorally.

What you're describing is precisely what was voted for by Dublin City Council a few years ago, but the government point blank stated that they would refuse to fund anything which didn't involve sell-offs to private developers. And in this particular case, they're stating point blank that they will not even fund a deal which involves buying units back from a private developer. They simply do not believe in publicly owned housing because it doesn't suit their neoliberal, devoid-of-empathy "everything is about market economics and not about people" ideology.

James Brown

BattleCorp wrote: »

Given the shennanigans around the costs for the children's hospital (escalating expedentially), I doubt that the city council have the expertise to effectively manage such projects.

That's irrelevant. This project we are discussing is in the ****ter and it's PPP, so we stop PPP and say 'sure look at O'Devany Gardens'? I wish.
TBF, as regards the National Children' Hospital it's not a DCC project and the Ministers of Finance and Health not only took their hands off the wheel, they were in the back seat playing Punch Buggy.

James Brown

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in the central government won't allow this. Since the early 1990s, the idea of directly built social housing has been ideologically rejected by the two main parties and unfortunately because people keep voting for them, we're stuck with that paradigm until something changes electorally.

What you're describing is precisely what was voted for by Dublin City Council a few years ago, but the government point blank stated that they would refuse to fund anything which didn't involve sell-offs to private developers. And in this particular case, they're stating point blank that they will not even fund a deal which involves buying units back from a private developer. They simply do not believe in publicly owned housing because it doesn't suit their neoliberal, devoid-of-empathy "everything is about market economics and not about people" ideology.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.