Sinn Fein and how do they form a government dilemma

moon2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122178782#Comment_122178782

I was curious about FFs green energy policy. They've actually listed targets and pathways to grow generation capacity through green sources, as well as promoting an import link between Ireland and France. Similar statements about fracking and new licenses for fossil fuel exploration. No mention of shutting down fossil fuel plants which is reasonable. That has to come after we increase renewables and we're a long way from that unfortunately. They have a half way point wrt peat. It talks of reviews and amendments rather than outright shutdowns.

If we can reasonably shut down generators I would hope we kill the most polluting ones first. Those generally have the best ramp up times to meet surges in demand though.

I wish someone was talking more about storage though. I was a bit disappointed to not see either policy committing to targets around storage capacity.

Objectively the FF policy is more detailed and provides a clearer structure on how we get to net zero and renewable generation. If green energy would win your vote, FF is better than SF in terms of vision, approach and targets

Finty Lemon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122173558#Comment_122173558

Which types? And if the investor is not private then by definition are they public? Why would a leasehold model be advantageous in this instance? Y

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122181349#Comment_122181349

What I read in their housing policy says that the LA's would hold the no charge leases,

Finty Lemon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122183375#Comment_122183375

So the purchaser buys a house but doesn't own the land it stands on? The land is owned by the council.

What is the advantage of the council retaining ownership of the land?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184010#Comment_122184010

The buyer isn’t paying for the site. It’s proposed as an alternative to shared equity I assume.
Will it work? I don’t know but it seems as sound as shred equity does to me.

hotmail.com

Another disastrous opinion poll tonight for Sinn Fein tonight, down 4 to 23.

I can only see the figures further dropping after some disastrous media performances of their candidates in the upcoming elections and their continued soft approach to refugees.

Finty Lemon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184038#Comment_122184038

The advantage is that the buyer isn't paying for the site? Is that to reduce the cost? Who pays the cost of the site then? If buyer isn't paying for the site then they will not own the site their house stands on.

That's very different to shared equity, where the buyer can purchase the house outright over time as a freehold property.

Finty Lemon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184047#Comment_122184047

Plus the fact that they want you to pay full whack for a house and not own it at the same time

hotmail.com

The bubble has burst for Sinn Fein.

I've made the prediction that Lynn Boylan is in serious danger of not winning a seat in Dublin.

Not sure how Kathleen Funcion became a TD. One of the worst TDs I've ever seen. Her only luck is that the South has 5 seats available, only 4 in Dublin.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184084#Comment_122184084

Who pays for any of the incentives/ grants/ etc at the moment?
Its an idea, doesn’t seem to me any worse an idea to try.

What’s your beef with it?

Finty Lemon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184148#Comment_122184148

The taxpayer pays for the current incentives.

The central plank of SF's claim to solve housing 'doesnt seem any worse an idea to try'. But is it any better? Putting a system in place that splits a residential property between leasehold and freehold is a big step. A very big step. Why does O'Broin want to do it? Not just to be different surely? What is the logic behind it? Does he want to eventually intoduce ground rent on people's houses? The system would open the door for future governments to do just that.

The UK is one of the only (if not the only) country that has the leasehold system in place. It grew out of cash strapped landlords wanting to hold on to their ancestral property claims but still be able to extract value from their asset. At first glance it seems strange that SF would want to model their policy on an artefact of the British landlord system.

If its only to be applied to public land, and there is no lease value to be paid, why bother with the system at all? If the local authorities have to acquire land then the cost of the site will still need to be financed in the transaction. A leasehold structure will not make the land free.

Galwayguy35

It's strange they don't put Rose Conway Walsh who seems to be one if their more capable TDs out to debate their case instead of hopeless good for nothings like O Reilly.

astrofool

I can kind of see the intent behind the council keeping the land for the purposes of reducing costs (the buyer doesn't pay for the land). However, it's just setting up future issues (money into the hands of the legal profession) and very few would want to buy that way while doing nothing to increase the supply (just stop objecting to houses getting built Sinn Fein…). The houses themselves become un-sellable.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184242#Comment_122184242

Seems to me to be totally different to the English system.
I don’t know if it is any better an idea to some of the current ideas which aren’t working nor do I think it a sinister plot.
The current government have had the latitude to try things why not a new government?

Bobson Dugnutt

The era of Mary Lou peering over her glasses; P Doherty shouting and roaring, and Matt Carthy being thick and belligerent is over for SF. A good era for them in terms of growth and acceptability, but they are screwed if they think that’s the strategy going forward.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184323#Comment_122184323

If you keep saying it you might eventually be right. How long are you saying it now? 😁

Finty Lemon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184315#Comment_122184315

How does it 'seem' different to the UK feudal landlord system? How is it better? In your opinion?

Eoin O Broin has positioned himself as 'the man with the plan'. There has been little to no examination of said plan.

My personal opinion is that the plan needs a thorough examination. Seeming different or hopefully better or change for the sake of it are very weak endorsements.

Bobson Dugnutt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184336#Comment_122184336

About 18 months now. The tide is going out for Mary Lou, Pearse, et al. Lynn is going to get a MEP seat in Dublin, but her voting record will the the source of much more scrutiny.

Can’t imagine Ó Murchú, Farrell, Daly etc are sitting comfortably these days.

Big big decisions for SF.

pureza

Theres actually nothing wrong with O'Broins plan as long as the home owner is given the option to buy out the ground later with the state covering all legal expenses

The state would not of course want to be seen to be making a profit,so the buy out figure should be fixed at the time of house build and written into the contract

Nothing wrong at all with it

@FrancieBrady If you could feed that back to O'Broin,I'd be most greatful 😆

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184550#Comment_122184550

All the plans need examination and weighting as to effectiveness including the ones already implemented.

To me I don't see it in any way similar to the English system other than in name nor do I see a reason to not try it.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184612#Comment_122184612

Here you go Pureza  eoin.obroin@oireachtas.ie

Finty Lemon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184612#Comment_122184612

That however defeats the purpose of O'Broins proposed plan. His leasehold idea is designed to remove the site cost from the calculations. Which is false economics anyway because somebody has to bear the cost of the site.

Your suggestion here is that the government would now sell the site and the house to the house occupier. What us so radical about that?

pureza

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184891#Comment_122184891

I did't suggest selling the ground on which the house was built and paid for by the occupant(s) would be compulsory

There would be no 'cost to bear' in terms of the site value,it would remain owned by the state

Unless you are talking opportunity cost ie some other more lucrative use for the land being forever gone

Noone should care about that when the priority is affordable housing

Finty Lemon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184931#Comment_122184931

With respect, it doesn't matter what you are saying, it matter what Eoin O'Broin is proposing. As it stands, he has proposed a leasehold model of purchasing which involves paying for a house on ground that is not owned. That has implications which he needs to explain.

Taking a site value out of calculations does not make the site cost disappear, it has to be borne in the system.The current cost rental option at least is clear on site ownership, but the house occupier is paying a long term rental not purchasing leasehold rights. That is a cleaner option if they wish to move on over time, as they are not burdened with having to offload a leasehold property into a skeptical market.

In any case, it is proposed by O'Broin that the leasehold property cannot be sold but can be passed on to subsequent generations of the same family. It is difficult to understand the logic in that in terms of inheritance rights and tax implications. SF protecting intergenerational assets? Very strange!

Moreover, given SF's view on the definition of family, problems of property and occupancy rights could get very messy over time.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185022#Comment_122185022

In any case, it is proposed by O'Broin that the leasehold property cannot be sold but can be passed on to subsequent generations of the same family.

you may need to review your understanding of what they are proposing.

At the point of future sale, the covenant also obliges the homeowner to sell to another
affordable purchaser at the future affordable purchase price, which would be the initial price paid
index linked for inflation and home improvements.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184612#Comment_122184612

But the plan doesn't extend to allowing the homeowners buy out the site, the site will be held in perpetuity by the state. This according to E O'B means that the house will always be 'affordable', ie when the first homeowner comes to sell they will only be selling the house. And they won't be able to sell it to just anyone, it will have to be to another 'affordable housing' qualifier.

Basically it's a socialist thinking fantasy, that ordinary people will be happy to borrow 300k to finance the building of their affordable house, and sell it for the same 300k to another ordinary person when the time comes.

I have yet to hear him explain any allowance for mortgage interest, inflation, or indeed the criteria for qualifying for one of these houses, apart from the fact you'll need to qualify for a 300k mortgage from a bank on a site you'll never own.

Finty Lemon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185046#Comment_122185046

I see that now. So you can only sell to another affordable housing applicant??

It's even worse than I thought! Thanks for clarifying.

pureza

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185022#Comment_122185022

With all due respect,a site owned by the State,on which someone takes out a long term lease or purchases a house like one leases a car has no implications for the state coffers from a cash perspective except more or less as it does now with current housing incentives

Less actually because the state is not handing over money,its diluting the ownership of its land which was never cash anyway and presumably never going to be sold

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122177160#Comment_122177160

LOL.

The Greens will have a legacy long after this government is gone. They have done far more good for the nation than SF has done in their (fake) 50 odd years of being a party.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185123#Comment_122185123

Every political party leaves a legacy mark.

Whether that is good or bad depends on your view.

Personally I don't know of a political party here where it isn't a mixture of good and bad. Greens and SF included.