John Collison on why Ireland can't do infrastructure

xckjoo

Ironically people here are doing what they're accusing the original poster of and dismissing all their points off-hand without any real rebuttal. It is a bit "anti-techbro" in sentiment but it gives a very detailed explanation (with sources and figures) on the problems with John Collisons opinion piece.

The devil is very much in the detail with this kind of thing and Collison is oblivious to the details.

I'll leave ye to it because I don't think there's going to be a very good discussion here.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946225#Comment_123946225

it gives a very detailed explanation (with sources and figures) on the problems with John Collisons opinion piece.

But it doesn't?

Collison never mentioned "unelected hidden bureaucrats", the respondent made that up. He bemoans several named agencies who power has been delegated to who have too narrow a remit.

The respondent made up that he would say the same about financial regulation - it is a completely unnecessary jibe. Nor had the piece anything to do with paying less tax. So the whole thing starts off on strawmen arguments and prejudice. Then he just outright disagrees with him even being given a platform - it is petty, petty stuff.

He disagrees with the exact metric he uses for our lack of railway capacity, but fundamentally agrees it is insufficient. The reasons for low utilisation of the railways are the exact same as the problems highlighted - there are chokepoints we have so far been unable to ameliorate that need infrastructure investment. They then claim we are "far from the worst given our how car-centric" we are. We are car-centric partly because of the poor public transport so that is a nonsense argument.

Then they claim everyone has problems with sewers (unsupported) but ignores that we have very specific problems with a specific project that has been held up time and time again by nuisance legal action.

They claim he offers no solution to the housing shortage, except the whole article is premised on the overall problem with our current development framework. Quicker and easier transport infrastructure would lead to more housing development.

When talking about the Grid West project, they don't seem remotely interested in why the 5,000 hectare windfarm was cancelled and whether that maybe is also part of the issue?

I don't have expertise on the water supply project, but I think the statement that it is not needed for 50 years sounds wildly incorrect.

Also the govt has now set up a special court for judicial reviews so the respondent is ill-informed on top of everything else.

The post basically agrees with Collison's piece in multiple places without realising it, and then goes on to call him a conspiracy brained techbro because it is clear the poster is a deeply prejudiced person.

spillit67

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123945902#Comment_123945902

Whe are you going to post the devastating rebuttal?

spillit67

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946225#Comment_123946225

This is a bit weak. The rebuttal you posted was mediocre.

KaneToad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123945838#Comment_123945838

A very good point.

Some of the bluster & waffle that comes out of the elected members on Committees is cringeworthy.

The questioning of Noel Kelly & Ryan Tubdridy - neither of whom I hold in high regard - was like a Gaeity pantomime.

LambshankRedemption

I don't know how often that subredditor gets the train from Dublin to Galway but at various points in the journey, the train will stay in the station it stopped at last, waiting for the next train to come and pass. The reason for this is that for the majority of the route it is a single track, and only has 2 tracks at stations. In the past Ive been sat in Woodlawn for 10 minutes waiting for the next train to pass. Doubling the track would ultimately mean a faster travel time between Dublin and Galway. I'm sure it is the same on the other major routes.

magicbastarder

i suspect some of the negative reaction to the IT printing that article stems from them having previously given plenty of airtime for rich people who want to decry the way things are done. e.g. dermot desmond claiming AI will render the metrolink obsolete.

the article is gaining traction because he's a billionaire, as much as it is the points he's making. anyone else could have written that article and made the same points but it would have barely been remarked on even if the authors were actually experts in these domains.

Geuze

AFAIK, metrolink was in ABP for 1,000 days and they still had not said yes or no.

1,000 days.

Geuze

The 820m passing loop in Oranmore station will take seven years.

Just think about that.

The USA probably put a man on the moon in less time.

Sam Russell

If I own a large parcel of zoned land, who decides how it is to be developed? I do.

Who should decide? The council who zoned it.

The zoning definition should be decided in detail as what is to go there - density, type of homes if housing (apartments or houses and mix of those) and whether they are social, affordable, or whatever. As well, the zoning should be the lead for ESB, and Irish Water to provide those services.

In effect, we have developer led planning. That is wrong.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946381#Comment_123946381

I mean, the council should decide the parameters in which you are able to develop it and there should be a presumption of approval if whatever you decide meets those parameters. And that clearly isn't really the system we have. What we seem to have is a "put an idea in and sure we'll see" approach which is unhelpful in the extreme.

xckjoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946292#Comment_123946292

Fair points so happy to engage a bit.

Totally agree there's an air of "techbros bad" to the content that doesn't add anything. Where I disagree with you is the last line about him agreeing with Collison and not realising it. They aren't disagreeing on the issues, they're disagreeing on the reasons for the issues and that's the key here. IMO that was the whole point of the original post. It's very easy to see these issues but understanding the cause of them is fundamental to fixing them and Collisons article shows he hasn't put any work into gaining that understanding. If nothing else, it's lazy engineering and he should be all about that kind of thing.

Apologies for not replying point-by-point but don't want to devolve into arguments about semantics/minor factual disagreements. Plus I just don't have the time 😄. Thanks for the more nuanced response

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946381#Comment_123946381

In fairness, there's nothing stopping councils from doing that already. I've seen some local area plans designed down to the level of street layout and density (albeit as suggested frameworks rather than hard rules)

LambshankRedemption

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946418#Comment_123946418

It's very easy to see these issues but understanding the cause of them is fundamental to fixing them and Collisons article shows he hasn't put any work into gaining that understanding.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on this point because the version of the Collison article i read had examples and facts and figures. So I don't understand how you can say he has put zero work into gaining an understanding into the cause of the issues.

KrisW1001

Collinson has missed the big elephant in the room in terms of housing. Those in control of the solution are incentivised to withhold supply in order to achieve a higher price in future.

Also, the measures he proposes about reducing interference and delays in planning have already been passed.

His complaints aren’t exactly news to people living in this country, and his reasons for the situation being as it is are no better than you’d get from a random patron of a golf-club bar.

And Intel’s choice of Germany was not because Ireland “lost” anything except a government handouts war. The German government offered Intel €10 bn in tax-breaks and financial supports if they built a fab at Magdeburg. The comparable package of supports from the Irish government for Fab 34 at Leixlip (a $17 billion project) is about €900 million.

xckjoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946443#Comment_123946443

Facts and figures on measurements of the issues, which sheds no insight into the causes.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946411#Comment_123946411

The current system is a kind of attempt at planning-discovery. The zoners set vague parameters for land, developers come back with a proposal, gets refused with some feedback. Another proposal, refused with more feedback. Finally you might see an accepted planning proposal on the 3rd or 4th try on a site.

The turnaround time for multiple applications to develop a site is enormous

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946463#Comment_123946463

Housing developers are absolutely not trying to withhold supply anymore than grocery stores are deliberately keeping empty shelves. There is ample evidence worldwide that with sufficiently liberal and predictable planning you get a commensurate increase in housing and commensurate decrease in housing costs. This is the kind of analysis you would get from a random patron at a golf-club bar.

Developers are not a monopoly or a cartel, if you allow them to build they will build and undercut each other as happens in every other market.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946482#Comment_123946482

I don't know anywhere that this happens. Developers usually request a pre-planning meeting where this kind of feedback is solicited and provided. Maybe the quality of the feedback varies leaving the developer unsure what they can do exactly.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946500#Comment_123946500

True. That's another element of the whole "corrupt kip" agenda. The idea that if developers had the land, the construction workers, the planning permissions and the finance ready, they wouldn't expand their business to fill the obvious need, and make themselves more money, is plainly ridiculous.

Jinglejangle69

The problem is it’s virtually impossible to get sacked from the civil service.

Make it like the private sector and things would change rapidly.

Claw Hammer

I think Dermot Bannon has it right, at least on housing. There is no strategy, just whack a mole.

It's very simple, decide what needs to be built an where. Draw up plans and get planning permission. Source capital, source labour and build.

What we a re getting is Soviet/ Russian style propaganda about how goods things are and bits and pieces of unrelated measures but with no strategic movement.

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946325#Comment_123946325

Other than Dublin to Belfast and Dublin to Cork, all of the railway network is single-track.

There are no funded plans to change that.

There are proposals, loads of proposals, loads of committees, boards, aspirations, even an All-Ireland Rail Review.

But no actual funded plan to actually lay any second track.

xckjoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946531#Comment_123946531

And like the old belief that all FFG councillors are landlords so want to keep house prices high and people renting, while in reality not many of them are.

I do think there's an incentive for them not to let the prices drop since most of them and their voters are probably home owners, but no idea if that actually plays into any policy decisions. I'm more a believer in the old saying of not assuming malice in what can be explained by incompetence

LambshankRedemption

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946618#Comment_123946618

That we can definitely agree on. It's called Hanlon's Razor and is definitely part of the problem.

As Geuze said, there are proposals, and committees, and exploratory panels, all achieving very little.

Viscount Aggro

NM156

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946618#Comment_123946618

A previous poster referred to the deficit in assertive leadership. For all his faults, Leo Varadkar was probably the last Taoiseach who was somewhat clear and assertive. I remember him plainly stating that he didn't want a drop in property prices, rather an improvement in affordability through increase in incomes. I presume this was a fear of what happened in the crash relating to negative equity and people walking away from their mortgages. You can agree or disagree with that of course, and doubtless it was spun a different way by the usual suspects - as protecting the landlord classes.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123946500#Comment_123946500

There is no collusion, no cartels, just a system that rewards holding land rather than using it, especially as we've also got an electorate that will not tolerate a drop in house prices, so we've got politicians of every hue trying to resolve a supply shortage while maintaining high prices..

The rules of the game pretty much guarantee this kind of outcome. Until we stop treating housing as an investment asset and start treating it as infrastructure, we will not get out of the mess; all we will do is keep kicking the can another few years down the road.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123947407#Comment_123947407

There is no incentive for developers to hold land rather than use it. I'm not denying that some speculators do so, but it is not as common as claimed and the desire and will to build far outstrips the permission given to do so. Developers do not have bottomless pits of money either - holding land is incredibly expensive.

It is fundamentally not the problem. Also we are pretty poor at infrastructure, so treating housing as infra doesn't strike me as any kind of panacea.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123947455#Comment_123947455

Holding land has been cheap/free up until recently. RZLT is very new, and in some LAs it is still not applied widely.

Indeed the RZLT zoning maps make for interesting reading given how many land banks are made exempt from the tax.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123947455#Comment_123947455

Yes, I was talking about land speculators, not developers. As noted, it has been effectively free to hold land until a couple of years ago. And I’m not talking about huge land banks: there are, as you say, few of those. The problem is the sum of the thousands of small, twenty-house sites around the country.

Treating housing as infrastructure just means building it to meet current and predicted demand, not the current system of only building it when the market is hot as a way of making windfall profits: the entire private dwellings industry in this country is based on asset speculation to a greater or lesser degree, and that means that whenever there’s an asset crash we end up with a massive shortfall in provision - that’s what we’re experiencing now: the effect of the 2010s coming back to bite us.

As for being “poor at infrastructure” - we actually aren’t, but that’s not even the issue: The same companies would be building the housing stock, but the policies under which they operate would incentivise delivery, and penalise speculation. The big political downside of that is that creating this much supply would reduce the notional price of existing properties, and that’s why I fear it couldn’t ever happen.