The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

rdwight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541323#Comment_118541323

That's pure vile. She really should be gone.

StupidLikeAFox

This is one thing I don't get. Mary lou spent years saying FF and FG are the same party. Then she is shocked that they go into coalition together, however still pedals this idea that they only did it to keep sinn fein out.

I also didn't know Leo varadkar was a builder, not much is mentioned about that for some reason

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118531179#Comment_118531179

Ah so more spoofing. I know full well how 'it works'

But you have not shown anywhere to anyone how building is cheaper then buying.

Example A) Developer builds an estate of 50 houses. LA comes in and buys 20 of them when they are done

Example B) LA hires a Developer to build to build 20 houses for them

Where is the savings from A to B

As I said, the only true savings is if Example B is built on land owned by the LA, but other than that here is no real savings, apart from maybe a small margin, and even then if a LA buys up a block of houses in a private development they would be able to negotiate the price a bit.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543498#Comment_118543498

I will tell you something that is even stranger.

Sinn Fein think 450k isn’t enough free money to be given to McMansion owners in Donegal, but 300k is too much for DCC to pay for social housing in O’Devany Gardens.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543498#Comment_118543498

You really don't.

First off, I supplied an article that shows it.

Secondly, I gave you an analogy and asked you a question.

How do hedge funds and cuckoo funds make any money? They pay or invest in builds. They don't buy and sell builds, (unless making a killing off NAMA). Their profits would be our savings if we were building instead of buying. I'm leading you by the hand here.

A) a developer pays for the labour, land and taxes etc. Sells the property. Gets paid and makes a profit.

B) a devolper is hired, no risk, needs no investment, gets paid.

Top tip: when budgeting a job, people include a wage for themselves. Business 101.

If I want a Developer to build me a complex he doesn't say, 'hey I could build my own. Keep your money'. No, he takes the paid work and he can still do his own if he wants, or can raise the money. Thats how it works.

This is reality. This happens.

You've either no clue or are pretending you don't. I won't spoon feed you further.

We lease and buy more than we build even though building is cheaper.

This is where you take a side road....

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543535#Comment_118543535

Its amazing how quickly ordinary people get shat on when they put government in a bad light. #notanormalgovernment

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543569#Comment_118543569

You supplied an article behind a paywall that I was not able to read. When pushed on what exactly in the article you wanted to talk about, you completely ignored it.

Spoofing example 1

Your analogy, if one can call it that is not really an apology, its a made-up example that has little to do with LA's building homes cheaper than buying them off the market.

Spoofing example 2

Hedge funds make money by using capital and gearing that with debt, and buying up assets that generate income and capital growth for their clients, usually pension funds.

The remit of a LA is not that, so again it has nothing to do with my question about building vs buying.. and which is cheaper.

The fact you don't know the difference....

Spoofing example 3

Now we get to the nitty gritty

You buy you pay wages, costs AND the Developer's profit of added market value.

You build, you pay wages, costs.

First of all if you buy you don't pay the wages of the builders, that cost has already been borne out by the developer. They have already paid for the carpenters, bricklayers etc.... you don't have to pay them again!

When you build you do have to pay those wages and manage the entire project yourself.

But essentially you agree with me, the only real difference is the margin the developer is going to charge.... BUT who is going to build the houses for the LA's? An army of volunteers?

No, they will hire a developer to build for them. It does not matter a jot for the developer, they will probably charge the same if it were a private development or a development for a LA... so again, where are these magical cost savings??

Top tip: when budgeting a job, people include a wage for themselves. Business 101.

A) a developer pays for the labour, land and taxes etc. Sells the property. Gets paid and makes a profit.

B) a devolper is hired, no risk, needs no investment, gets paid.

This is reality. This happens.

If I want a Developer to build me a complex he doesn't say, 'hey I could build my own. Keep your money'. No, he takes the paid work and he can still do his own if he wants, or can raise the money. Thats how it works.

You've either no clue or are pretending you don't.

We lease and buy more than we build even though building is cheaper.

This is where you take a side road....

This is getting a bit weird now, so I'll make this brief

In scenario A, who does the developer sell to?

In scenario B, who hires the developer and how is it different from scenario A?

A developer is for hire, but how does it save money by the LA's building their own, with no input from the developer.

You are very very VERY confused on this...

Leasing is a different thing, and not remotely the same as a LA buying houses straight off the developer.

Spoofing example 4

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543594#Comment_118543594

OK, so that article comes with the follows warnings, such as....

However, the SCSI notes that its figures are purely for the Greater Dublin area – the most expensive place in the State for construction.

It also notes that local authorities do not have to bear the same risk premium in securing construction finance and also that, in some cases, they will be building on land that they have bought some years ago at prices prevailing at that time.

It stands to reason, if the developer has to carry all the risk from the project inception to finish, then they will charge more at the end. Also, land is THE most important factor in determining the price of a house.

Again you don't understand profit.

You are paying for all the costs, wages, materials taxes and profit.

You either pay someone to build and pay their wages and all costs.

Or

You buy off the market paying extra because you are paying the profit margin too.

ROFL

So if a LA gets a developer to build for them, there is no profit for the developer? You are funny arent you!

No wonder SF get some much traction with the fuzzy economics when lads like you swallow this stuff up whole..

Who knew that Developers will not charge a profit margin when working for a LA or the State!!

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543611#Comment_118543611

They set costs and factor in a salary. You don't make a profit when you work for others. You get payment. Again, you are confusing profit with payment. Look over the definition of 'profit' I posted.

I suggest you read the article and heed the headline. Maybe read over my comments again too.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543612#Comment_118543612

So the LA becomes the developer is what you are saying..... therefore the LA will have to hire a bunch of people to manage and develop projects for them, and this comes at NO cost?

Who is to say that costs wouldn't be higher if they did it this way. You guys always bang on about the children's hospital for example.... ;)

Payment is what one pays for a product or service

Profit is the margin one makes to provide that service or product less costs.

Whatever way you cut it, the developer will make a profit in both scenarios, those being a LA buying a house post-completion or the LA hiring a developer to build houses for them. The developer will make a profit both ways.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543594#Comment_118543594

Thank you for clarifying the extent of the misunderstanding of the issue out there.

The article makes clear that building houses is €30k cheaper for councils if they use their own land. This implies that the total cost, including the opportunity cost of the lost land will be cheaper for councils if they can source sites at cheaper than €30k. Therefore, it is now simple for you to prove that it is cheaper for councils to build - demonstrate clearly that the site cost for a dwelling in Dublin is less than €30k. If it is more than €30k, it is cheaper for councils to buy. Unfortunately, the author of the article doesn't seem to understand the complexities of costing, and in particular, the opportunity cost of land use and that misunderstanding is replicated in your own post.

Putting it another way, the council can therefore build cheaper, if, for example, it closed St. Anne's Park which it owns and built apartments and houses on it instead. The opportunity cost is that there is no longer a park for local residents. Given Sinn Fein's support for council building their own houses, I am sure that you will be able to point to situations where Sinn Fein have supported building on land such as St. Anne's Park. If I recall correctly, there was such a proposal in recent years - you might point me to Sinn Fein's voting record on that, as it will be a good opportunity to see if they are do as I do, or do as I say.

blanch152

https://sluggerotoole.com/2022/01/27/sinn-feins-operation-delete-tweets-goes-into-overdrive-under-cover-of-a-media-blackout/

"Sitting MPs Michelle Gildernew (a public rep when Twitter began) and Chris Hazard have also had their accounts taken off line last night, presumably for a scrubbing of historical data."

I wonder what they have been saying that needs changing. A Sinn Fein cover-up operation is well under way.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118544757#Comment_118544757

There will be posters on here in a few years, denying that there were any nefarious tweets from SF reps at all at all..... sure it's all an establishment ruse.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543620#Comment_118543620

I can't help you anymore.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118544532#Comment_118544532

So people build for sport and not profit. Okey doke.

Building is cheaper than buying.

Now off youse go and argue with the  Dept of housing.

Local authorities can build homes for considerably less than they are paying private developers for social housing, figures published by the Department of Housing show.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118545572#Comment_118545572

I have already explained the flaws in the logic of that report - it excludes the cost of land, and in the case of council land, the opportunity cost of lost facilities. You might get back to me when you have considered the St. Anne's Park issue and/or located land in Dublin which is cheaper than 30k per dwelling. Until then, your points are completely refuted. If you raise this point again, it will be pointed out that you have failed to address the massive holes in your position.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118546223#Comment_118546223

Its not cheaper if and but...

So we don't gift land in return for housing? No private development is ever built on public land?

You are straining to find exceptions. Dishonest.

I'll take the Irish Times and dept of housing over you, no offence.

Brendan Bendar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118546223#Comment_118546223

Perfectly correct MR. B you have been pointing out the obvious over hundreds of posts and still they can’t see the light.

it’s their ‘go to’ strategy…. Just keep talking and ignore any voices who are contrary……. Perfected by Louise O Reilly.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118546244#Comment_118546244

Neither the Irish Times nor the Department of Housing have said what you claim that they said. You say that it is cheaper to build, full stop. They say that it is cheaper to build, if you discount the cost of land. They are two very different things.

I have pointed out that the cost of land isn't zero, at the very least, you have the opportunity cost of the lost facilities. I have then pointed to the St. Anne's Park issue as an example of what happens when you try to use public land.

It might be easier if you told us which council parks Sinn Fein are looking to cheaply build houses on.<snip> - off topic section deleted

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118546480#Comment_118546480

We gift public land to developers for a percentage of housing. We sell public land off. You speak like it never happens. When you build if you sell you make a profit. If you pay someone to build for you, you save yourself from having to pay that profit. That goes for any senario you care to magic up.

How do developers make a profit? Shouldn't they be buying rather than building? Throwing their money away :) :)

Your boys like to line pockets of private investors.

I would be against building on most parks. I think gifting public land so we can lease what's built on it is either incompetence or thievery.

Never claimed he broke the osa. More convenient lies.

Discredited by you? :)

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118546615#Comment_118546615

So what public land do you want built on, if you don't want parks built on? Are you in favour of the Dunsink proposal?

Spit it out, if there is loads of this public land lying around doing nothing, it must be obvious to you.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118546889#Comment_118546889

No need to get so testy. You want me to research all the publicly owned property and deliver a list of potential building sites? I'll get right on it.

We gift and sell public land to developers.

If a developer can buy land to build and make a profit, we can also buy land, build and save that profit. You can't escape that.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118546973#Comment_118546973

Eh, not according to the Department of Housing. According to your link, the site cost for each dwelling has to be less than 30k if we are to do that cheaper than developers.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118548893#Comment_118548893

You are dodging and denying base fact.

If people are selling to us and making a profit, we can do it ourselves and save paying that profit. Its very basic stuff.

If a developer can buy land to build and make a profit, we can also buy land, build and save that profit. You can't escape that.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118548916#Comment_118548916

Name 1, maybe 2 locations, that you want to gift over for building, no one would expect you to name all of them, but a couple of examples should be easily possible if your position has any weight.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118549445#Comment_118549445

By gift, do you mean private or public builds? For private, zero.

For public: the st Michaels estate site in the heart of Dublin 8.

Seems there's other areas...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-councillors-to-limit-sale-of-public-land-to-private-developers-1.3928782

what do you believe my position is?

Public land or land we buy, building is cheaper than buying.

If someone is selling to us its at a profit.

If we build our own we save on not paying that profit. Everyone gets paid, we get houses cheaper.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118550107#Comment_118550107

OK, we're getting to something approaching a policy (I assume you mean the site beside the barracks which is currently going through planning for affordable housing?).

You assume that the government will be able to build cheaper than private developers (ignoring the price of land), is that realistic? Elaborate a bit more on who owns the houses when built, is it a mix or purely social, how do we set the price, then, what is the opportunity cost if that land was sold to a developer and the money received used by the council for other purposes (e.g. renovating existing council stock)?

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118550752#Comment_118550752

No I don't assume that. Never said it.

When a developer pays people to build for him he's left with houses. Hes paid everyone and a wage to himself. He sells those houses to us at a profit. Profit is what he gets above all the costs, (wages, materials, taxes, land etc.). It will be as much as he can get.

If we pay others to build for us, we get houses, less any added on profit, be it our land or land we bought. These would be either social or affordable. We set our own price for the public to meet.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118550824#Comment_118550824

OK, be specific on the one location you want to use (what an odd antagonistic response by the way).

Which builders/planners/architects are we going to use? Who will they work for?

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118551293#Comment_118551293

Antagonistic? I was speaking as plainly as I could. I felt you were being condescending but I ignored it. St. Michael's is lying idle for many years.

I don't have a specific location in mind. Does it matter? Instead of gifting our land to private companies we should be using our land. Where we don't have the land we could buy the land. Any developer needing to purchase land will factor that in to their sale price so we are paying more anyway.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-owns-enough-zoned-land-to-build-114-000-homes-1.3481853

We build roads, Luas, hospitals and lay pipes by hiring professionals to carry out the design and build. We did it with housing on a very large scale over the years before we start using/being used by private interests.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118551792#Comment_118551792

OK, so you can't even name one or two locations, whatever.

So now you want to hire private companies to do all of the work and have them managed by the councils? Or who? Those private companies will be making profit on all the work they do and will charge accordingly. How do you make sure the prices aren't inflated or start rising after tenders?

And now we're bidding against developers to buy land to build on? How does that process work, how does the state get value for money out of the process?

I also think you're completely missing the value of an asset such as a piece of land, even if state owned, but again, whatever.