nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The real problem with Housing in Ireland

markodaly

Exhibit A:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-city-council-pays-195-000-a-year-for-empty-building-1.4102262

Dublin City Council is paying almost €200,000 a year to lease a historic city centre building it planned three years ago to turn into a homeless hostel, but has never used.

In late 2016, number 21 Aungier Street, one of the city’s oldest buildings, was leased by the Peter McVerry Trust for emergency accommodation for up to 25 homeless adults. The council agreed to pay the rent of €16,250 a month.

However, in early 2017 Dublin Civic Trust, which restored the building in the 1990s when it had been derelict and under threat of demolition, objected to the development which it said could compromise its historic fabric.

Following the intervention of the civic trust, the Department of Heritage ordered work be halted pending an application for consent. No application was made.

Exhibit B:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/residents-group-challenge-planned-chapelizod-social-housing-development-1.4102307

A residents’ group has initiated a High Court challenge over Dublin City Council’s plans for a 71-apartment social housing development in Chapelizod. Mr Justice Michael MacGrath granted leave to the Chapelizod Community for Democracy and Sustainability company to bring a judicial review against the council, the Minister for Housing and the State.

Housing is a hot topic for many people, especially the young and poor. Yet, when local government issue plans to house people, every malcontent, quango, residents group, or gob****e who has something to lose raises an objection and plans fall flat on their faces.

This.Is.Ireland

We are obsessed with consensus and building agreement, with people who have no intention of giving up their little corner of the world, because it may affect them negatively somehow.

The issue is not with a Minister, or a government or a political party per say. It is with the Irish psyche that thinks they are the modern manifestation of Bull McCabe, who has to protect their front corner of a front garden, or their property price above all civic, community and national considerations.

It is also not only related to housing. It stems across much of our society from public transport, health and education.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tacitus Kilgore

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well putting them all on spike island is a non runner, just trying to find the cheapest place to let them run out their days, if i have dealz level of compassion for them, not giving them M&S level houses

:pac:

Feck it that's funny!

I have nothing more to ad beyond my €0.02 that moving slackers to the countryside would not benefit... anything or anyone...

Eric Cartman

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

:pac:

Feck it that's funny!

I have nothing more to ad beyond my €0.02 that moving slackers to the countryside would not benefit... anything or anyone...

aside from :
lowering social housing demand in cities where building is much more expensive
from dispersing inter generational criminal syndicates
freeing up social housing for workers in cities
taking the children most likely to become drug addicts out of environments in which they are surrounded by addicts and available drugs
removing the people most likely to cause antisocial behaviour from our cities where they cause problems for our valuable tourist economy

Less cost, less crime, less chances of people falling into serious addiction...

nah mate...no benefit at all...

Tacitus Kilgore

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Aside from dispersing inter generational criminal syndicates
freeing up social housing for workers in cities
taking the children most likely to become drug addicts out of environments in which they are surrounded by addicts and available drugs
removing the people most likely to cause antisocial behaviour from our cities where they cause problems for our valuable tourist economy

nah mate...no benefit at all...

dispersing inter generational criminal syndicates - to new areas
freeing up social housing for workers in cities - and clogging up housing for workers in rural areas
taking the children most likely to become drug addicts out of environments in which they are surrounded by addicts and available drugs - and moving them to new areas with said addicts and available drugs
removing the people most likely to cause antisocial behaviour from our cities where they cause problems for our valuable tourist economy - so they can be antisocial somewhere else?

The countryside isn't a gulag, mate , it's a place where people live and work too.

blanch152

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

dispersing inter generational criminal syndicates - to new areas
freeing up social housing for workers in cities - and clogging up housing for workers in rural areas
taking the children most likely to become drug addicts out of environments in which they are surrounded by addicts and available drugs - and moving them to new areas with said addicts and available drugs
removing the people most likely to cause antisocial behaviour from our cities where they cause problems for our valuable tourist economy - so they can be antisocial somewhere else?

The countryside isn't a gulag, mate , it's a place where people live and work too.

Clogging up housing for workers in rural areas? Last I heard the rural areas were complaining there were no jobs, and loads of derelict houses. Did I miss something recently?

Tacitus Kilgore

blanch152 wrote: »

Clogging up housing for workers in rural areas? Last I heard the rural areas were complaining there were no jobs, and loads of derelict houses. Did I miss something recently?

Really? Where are these areas? - was the last time you checked 2011?

Eric Cartman

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

dispersing inter generational criminal syndicates - to new areas
freeing up social housing for workers in cities - and clogging up housing for workers in rural areas
taking the children most likely to become drug addicts out of environments in which they are surrounded by addicts and available drugs - and moving them to new areas with said addicts and available drugs
removing the people most likely to cause antisocial behaviour from our cities where they cause problems for our valuable tourist economy - so they can be antisocial somewhere else?

The countryside isn't a gulag, mate , it's a place where people live and work too.

its not supposed to be a gulag , but do you not understand that city land is finite, we need to lower demand in cities and prioritise those who need to be there, we also need to tackle crime in cities, if you have to put these people somewhere, why put them where everyone wants to live when you could put them somewhere that struggles to attract people.... and housing is cheap.

James Brown

Naos wrote: »

One of the real problems is the sense of entitlement for a house.

There should be no houses provided, it should be apartments just like in every other European city, to the standard of every other European city.

Part of me would love to see zero social housing and zero rent aid/subsidy. Just to see the country completely melt down and the economy get hit worse than ever before, if only to prove a point and dispense with this line of propaganda.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Leople do have more of a chance to find work near cities but then were into a multitude of questions

1) do they even want to find work
2) should we take a chance on somebody maybe finding work or give the house to somebody who has work. Id be more in favour of the sure bet.

It should be pretty easy to chance the eligibility criteria, if you get to 35 and you havent had 5 years of working under your belt, the chances of you working full time for the rest of your life are pretty much none. If youve 5+ years continuous unemployment and theres no giant recession to explain it then its fair to say your chances of working again are low. We could and should use this to decide who can have a house in our cities and suburbs. People with substance abuse issues or who have criminal backgrounds for theft or violence should absolutely be removed as far away from a city as possible to minimuse contact with other criminal elements and improve safety for the public

You're caught in a loop.
I'll leave you there Eric. Looking at Margret Cash and the like to fix the issue is pointless. Even if they all disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't make the slightest difference.

Naos

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Part of me would love to see zero social housing and zero rent aid/subsidy. Just to see the country completely melt down and the economy get hit worse than ever before, if only to prove a point and dispense with this line of propaganda.

I'm not sure if you understood what I said or not - I wasn't calling for zero social housing.

I stated it's crazy that someone capable of working can choose not to and still get a house with a front & bark garden.

Tacitus Kilgore

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its not supposed to be a gulag , but do you not understand that city land is finite, we need to lower demand in cities and prioritise those who need to be there, we also need to tackle crime in cities, if you have to put these people somewhere, why put them where everyone wants to live when you could put them somewhere that struggles to attract people.... and housing is cheap.

I agree, and am aware of the problems/issues that we face as a country, I'm far more aware of problems than any particularly workable solutions though. I do agree, the valuable stock shouldn't be held up by layabouts with the can carried by the tax intake - but I also don't think that sending them to Newtown Forbes or somewhere is the answer.

I'm not sure that setting up ghettos is the way forward, but suppose there's no such thing as a bad idea in a brainstorm.

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Part of me would love to see zero social housing and zero rent aid/subsidy. Just to see the country completely melt down and the economy get hit worse than ever before, if only to prove a point and dispense with this line of propaganda.

You're caught in a loop.
I'll leave you there Eric. Looking at Margret Cash and the like to fix the issue is pointless. Even if they all disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't make the slightest difference.

Can you elaborate on that, lets just say for completely hypothetical sake that everyone who never worked and just lived off the state all just vanished on a booze cruise to south america , how do you not think that we would be better off in order of magnitudes in the areas of social housing demand, health service provision, crime levels and just overall saving on government spending. My only theory is that you believe the never work crowd make up a tiny tiny percentage of those in the welfare state, which as more data emerges is a theory thats falling apart very quickly

Huntergonzo

Having had first hand experience working in a social housing authority which owned 4000 social units, in my experience 78% of tenants were living solely off social welfare.

Now you have to take into account a certain percentage of OAPs and disabled who were not in a position to gain employment and of course take into consideration that not everybody was being honest about their employment status.

But even so the figure is still very high, sadly there seemed to be little or no will among a large portion of the tenants to seek employment and worse still this attitude was very much passed down to their children.

Now among the 22% who were employed there was a lot of genuine hard working people who I admired, but they were certainly in the minority overall.

Balf

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

I have nothing more to ad beyond my €0.02 that moving slackers to the countryside would not benefit... anything or anyone...

I'd agree, to the extent that this is not a useful way of framing the issue.

I think there is a discussion to be had over why regional areas are so bad at generating jobs, so that more of the growth in population can naturally locate there.

If the average price of a house in Dublin is €375,000 and the average price of a house in Leitrim or Longford is €140,000, it needs explaining. To frame it in a way, Longford is maybe a 90 minute drive from Dublin Airport. Its hard to conceive of the place as isolated or bereft of anything.

What explains a €200,000 gap in values? What explains the lack of any advantage from cheap housing, within reasonable reach of any necessary service?

James Brown

Naos wrote: »

I'm not sure if you understood what I said or not - I wasn't calling for zero social housing.

I stated it's crazy that someone capable of working can choose not to and still get a house with a front & bark garden.

I did and took it further. I don't believe 'entitlement' is an issue. You can be as entitled as you like, but it won't change housing policy nor increase your salary to buy privately.

Eric Cartman

Balf wrote: »

I'd agree, to the extent that this is not a useful way of framing the issue.

I think there is a discussion to be had over why regional areas are so bad at generating jobs, so that more of the growth in population can naturally locate there.

If the average price of a house in Dublin is €375,000 and the average price of a house in Leitrim or Longford is €140,000, it needs explaining. To frame it in a way, Longford is maybe a 90 minute drive from Dublin Airport. Its hard to conceive of the place as isolated or bereft of anything.

What explains a €200,000 gap in values? What explains the lack of any advantage from cheap housing, within reasonable reach of any necessary service?

broadband, drink driving laws, how expensive cars are to run - these three really truly make the odds for rural Ireland.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Can you elaborate on that, lets just say for completely hypothetical sake that everyone who never worked and just lived off the state all just vanished on a booze cruise to south america , how do you not think that we would be better off in order of magnitudes in the areas of social housing demand, health service provision, crime levels and just overall saving on government spending. My only theory is that you believe the never work crowd make up a tiny tiny percentage of those in the welfare state, which as more data emerges is a theory thats falling apart very quickly

We're talking housing. If all the chancers and gamers disappeared tomorrow, housing prices wouldn't budge and you might see an almost immeasurable drop in rents for a short time.
You believe fraudsters are a big issue, I don't think it's the big problem, maybe on a lower level, but not the problem you make it out to be.
Both Leo Varadkar and myself reckon it's a small number fraudulently on the housing list. It's a complete waste of my time to continue talking about them as regards the housing crisis when we ignore or divert away from any other larger issue. Even if you think the have it too easy, that's a policy issue.

various artistes

Balf wrote: »

If the average price of a house in Dublin is €375,000 and the average price of a house in Leitrim or Longford is €140,000, it needs explaining. To frame it in a way, Longford is maybe a 90 minute drive from Dublin Airport. Its hard to conceive of the place as isolated or bereft of anything.

What explains a €200,000 gap in values? What explains the lack of any advantage from cheap housing, within reasonable reach of any necessary service?

These headline figures are a bit misleading.

The typical asking price for a house in a local authority built estate in North and West Dublin is typically somewhere from 160,000 (Ballymun, Darndale) to 200,000 (Tallaght and Clondalkin seemingly start around 170- 180k, Blanch a bit higher). Areas closer to town, such as Cabra, or relatively close to rail lines, such as Edenmore and Kilbarrack, are artifically inflated to up to 290k. Even living within a short drive of the train seems to inflate Coolock somehwhat

Nearby private estates in Dub 24/ 22/ 15 typically range from 220K to upwards of 260K, and Ballyfermot is still quite affordable given it's not far from town.

When you see a teacher or an accountant moaning on the Independent that they had to buy in Naas because they couldn't afford Dublin, what they actually mean is that they could easily afford Dublin, but they couldn't afford the parts of Dublin that teachers were able to settle in 20 years ago, or in the days of 100 percent mortgages (Castleknock, Raheny, Navan Road). I'm not advocating teachers should live in Darndale, but there's little wrong socially with the bulk of Clonsilla, Hartstown, Huntstown etc. Some folks just have notions.

Put it this way, when was the last time you read an electrician or a plumber moaning he was priced out of Dublin.

You don't.

Because these lads aren't afraid to live somewhere where people talk with a working class accent.

Eric Cartman

various artistes wrote: »

These headline figures are a bit misleading.

The typical asking price for a house in a local authority built estate in North and West Dublin is typically somewhere from 160,000 (Ballymun, Darndale) to 200,000 (Tallaght and Clondalkin seemingly start around 170- 180k, Blanch a bit higher). Areas closer to town, such as Cabra, or relatively close to rail lines, such as Edenmore and Kilbarrack, are artifically inflated to up to 290k. Even living within a short drive of the train seems to inflate Coolock somehwhat

Nearby private estates in Dub 24/ 22/ 15 typically range from 220K to upwards of 260K, and Ballyfermot is still quite affordable given it's not far from town.

When you see a teacher or an accountant moaning on the Independent that they had to buy in Naas because they couldn't afford Dublin, what they actually mean is that they could easily afford Dublin, but they couldn't afford the parts of Dublin that teachers were able to settle in 20 years ago, or in the days of 100 percent mortgages (Castleknock, Raheny, Navan Road). I'm not advocating teachers should live in Darndale, but there's little wrong socially with the bulk of Clonsilla, Hartstown, Huntstown etc. Some folks just have notions.

Put it this way, when was the last time you read an electrician or a plumber moaning he was priced out of Dublin.

You don't.

Because these lads aren't afraid to live somewhere where people talk with a working class accent.

Thats complete crap, how do ypu explain portobello, inchicore, stoneybatter, lots of working class , houses still mad money and complaints ablut ‘gentrification’ . Somebody who grew up in ballyfermot can very well buy a house for 270k , but somebody not local to the area would get a hard time. Almost anywhere in dublin you can get cheaper housing either stil has massive social issues or is hostile to non locals / bares massively increased secondary costs like insurance rates

James Brown

New figures show HAP will cost Government more than building new council homes
Figures given to him by from Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy shows the State will spend over €844million on rent support this year, including €423million on the HAP scheme.

The average cost of building a new two-bedroom home nationally is €213,000.

Mr O’Brien said Fine Gael’s policies are favouring short-term profits for landlords over long-term benefits for tenants.

He added: “They have led an overreliance on the private sector, funnelling billions into landlords rather than building.

“Paying for rent is not cheaper and in just over two decades it will cost more to rent than it would have to build a new unit that adds to the housing stock and is in State ownership.

“The short-term approach of Fine Gael will catch up on the State. We will be locked into expensive rental payments for decades rather than building up our national housing stock.
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/new-figures-show-hap-cost-17385400

...but you can't make as much private profit and that's what the housing crisis is all about. Riding the tax payer, filling the pockets of developers and vulture funds and blaming the people put up in HAP and its like.

I'm sure someone will be in to dribble a wax candle into a tub of water to predict how bad it would be if 'others' got in.
Renting or leasing works out more expensive than renting out our own builds? Who would have thought it? A child learning maths maybe.

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

Rent controls work perfectly well: They cap rents. Case closed - their job is to cap rents.

If you read any of my links you will find that this is a disengenious arguement.
Rent controls as in the case of San Francisco to take one example, benefited one generation while leaving the other generation to pick up the tab, with lower housing availability and higher rents.

Rent controls are used by politicans as a means to gather votes and give an emotional reponse to an issue that requires more supply. Rent controls as in the cases I listed, damages and lowers supply, something we desperately need.

Rent control is akin to fixing a sore ankle by amputaging the foot. Sure the foot isnt sore anymore, but then you cant walk.

The solution, is supply, supply, supply.

Rent controls are not used to fix supply, and they are not intended to fix supply.

Not only that, they hamper supply.

That requires additional policies - such as government directly hiring people to build houses, multiple tens of thousands of units a year, in a mix of for-profit and social housing, with the entire project being self-financing through the profit generated.

I am sure the EU would look at this as state aid and would be against EU competeition law. The state hiring people directly would certainly be met with some EU level litegation.

markodaly

I am often amused by people romanticly looking back to the 1930's or 1950's when Ireland built social housing.

These houses were often small two up, two down houses with no central heating and terrible insulation with one bathroom to be shared by all. But they were sturdy and housed people.
The law now however states that all houses need to be A2 rating minimum, which is a very high standard of energy efficeny. This makes houses much more expensive and complicated to build.

Put simply, there is a much much higher level of regulation, standards, red tape and compliance to build anything in Ireland, therefore we cannot look back. We need to look forward and up and build up.
Do you think the government in the 1930's had to put up with well funded residents groups bringing cases to the courts over some enviromnental impact study that was or was not done or trying to use EU law to stop a block of much needed apartments or such with TD's trying to win support by objecting to housing developments?

We are drowning in layers and layers of procedure and rules, along with all the other fore mentioned issues.

markodaly

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Business Post is reporting the SF Social Protection spokesman Aengus O Snodaigh leads objections against 1,000 apartment complex next to Bluebell Luas stop because "it just seems very bulky".

"We're not architects, we're not planners, it just seems like a substantial amount of housing on one site."

What rental crisis?

Ha, perfect example of what I mentioned in the OP.

This is a great example of TD's saying one thing but doing anyother. Cowards.

This was originally meant to be a much smaller development but changes to the planning laws means that these apartments can go higher, thus increasing supply.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/d12-site-with-permission-for-358-apartments-guiding-12m-1.3631885

To be honest, Eoghan Murphy should have acted sooner, but the fruits of this decisions will be felt in the following years when we have thousands of extra apartments coming on stream that otherwise would not have been built.
One can critise FG for many things BUT they deserve some credit for this.

Jinglejangle69

Matt Barrett wrote: »

...but you can't make as much private profit and that's what the housing crisis is all about. Riding the tax payer, filling the pockets of developers and vulture funds and blaming the people put up in HAP and its like.

I'm sure someone will be in to dribble a wax candle into a tub of water to predict how bad it would be if 'others' got in.
Renting or leasing works out more expensive than renting out our own builds? Who would have thought it? A child learning maths maybe.

Another misleading nonsense figure.

It will cost the government more in what statistic?

Over 30 years? 20? 5?

What do we do with the family on HAP in the meantime as we put the money from HAP into building social housing?

Can’t do both with the same money, but I know you socialists have no grasp of where money comes from.

beauf

markodaly wrote: »

I am often amused by people romanticly looking back to the 1930's or 1950's when Ireland built social housing.

These houses were often small two up, two down houses with no central heating and terrible insulation with one bathroom to be shared by all. But they were sturdy and housed people.
The law now however states that all houses need to be A2 rating minimum, which is a very high standard of energy efficeny. This makes houses much more expensive and complicated to build.

Put simply, there is a much much higher level of regulation, standards, red tape and compliance to build anything in Ireland, therefore we cannot look back. We need to look forward and up and build up.
Do you think the government in the 1930's had to put up with well funded residents groups bringing cases to the courts over some enviromnental impact study that was or was not done or trying to use EU law to stop a block of much needed apartments or such with TD's trying to win support by objecting to housing developments?

We are drowning in layers and layers of procedure and rules, along with all the other fore mentioned issues.

We only stopped building social housing in the 80s and 90s. They were built to the standard of the time. I wonder how much of older housing might be bought to live in, it would probably fail a HAP inspection and renters might refuse much of it.

ChikiChiki

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Business Post is reporting the SF Social Protection spokesman Aengus O Snodaigh leads objections against 1,000 apartment complex next to Bluebell Luas stop because "it just seems very bulky".

"We're not architects, we're not planners, it just seems like a substantial amount of housing on one site."

What rental crisis?

Aodhan O'Riordan and Aengus O'Snodaigh. That's 2 I have heard leading the cavalry on objections lately. Absolutely nimbiyist self centred ****.

markodaly

beauf wrote: »

We only stopped building social housing in the 80s and 90s. They were built to the standard of the time. I wonder how much of older housing might be bought to live in, it would probably fail a HAP inspection and renters might refuse much of it.

Well rates were abolished in 1977 by FF.

Also, I read somewhere that all property owners also paid a type of social housing rate, money collected which went directly to build social houses. It was abolished as well, decades back by FF too.

By all means, advocate for an increase of the Property tax and putting a rate on property owners to pay for a social housing.

It seems we want our cake and eat it too.

markodaly

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Aodhan O'Riordan and Aengus O'Snodaigh. That's 2 I have heard leading the cavalry on objections lately. Absolutely nimbiyist self centred ****.

To be honest, FG are poor in relation to this housing issue, but the other crowd have no idea either and would make things worse imo.

If they came out with something credable, radical and evidenced based, I would listen, but its all soundbites.
However, in government you cannot rule via soundbites. We saw that we DCC.

KyussB

markodaly wrote: »

If you read any of my links you will find that this is a disengenious arguement.
Rent controls as in the case of San Francisco to take one example, benefited one generation while leaving the other generation to pick up the tab, with lower housing availability and higher rents.

Rent controls are used by politicans as a means to gather votes and give an emotional reponse to an issue that requires more supply. Rent controls as in the cases I listed, damages and lowers supply, something we desperately need.

Rent control is akin to fixing a sore ankle by amputaging the foot. Sure the foot isnt sore anymore, but then you cant walk.

The solution, is supply, supply, supply.

Not only that, they hamper supply.

I am sure the EU would look at this as state aid and would be against EU competeition law. The state hiring people directly would certainly be met with some EU level litegation.

You're talking about a persistent supply problem. I explicitly said rent controls are not intended to fix supply problems - that other policies are needed to address that.

Nobody advocates rent controls combined with doing nothing about supply - that would be completely stupid.

State Aid is a bullshit argument that everyone opposed to government just regurgitates on a whim. There are zero issues with the state hiring people and building enormous amounts of housing.

beauf

markodaly wrote: »

Well rates were abolished in 1977 by FF.

Also, I read somewhere that all property owners also paid a type of social housing rate, money collected which went directly to build social houses. It was abolished as well, decades back by FF too.

By all means, advocate for an increase of the Property tax and putting a rate on property owners to pay for a social housing.

It seems we want our cake and eat it too.

They funded it long after rates disappeared.

That you need a new tax or raise taxes to build is miselading.

They can find 23 million for a white water rafting facility and 50k football birthday parties.

beauf

KyussB wrote: »

You're talking about a persistent supply problem. I explicitly said rent controls are not intended to fix supply problems - that other policies are needed to address that.

Nobody advocates rent controls combined with doing nothing about supply - that would be completely stupid.

State Aid is a bullshit argument that everyone opposed to government just regurgitates on a whim. There are zero issues with the state hiring people and building enormous amounts of housing.

Rent controls and doing something else about supply is like pressing the gas pedal and the brake at the same time.

Some countries allow limited profit, and require a % of social housing. But you have to do both at the same time. We haven't.

Thelonious Monk

various artistes wrote: »

These headline figures are a bit misleading.

The typical asking price for a house in a local authority built estate in North and West Dublin is typically somewhere from 160,000 (Ballymun, Darndale) to 200,000 (Tallaght and Clondalkin seemingly start around 170- 180k, Blanch a bit higher). Areas closer to town, such as Cabra, or relatively close to rail lines, such as Edenmore and Kilbarrack, are artifically inflated to up to 290k. Even living within a short drive of the train seems to inflate Coolock somehwhat

Nearby private estates in Dub 24/ 22/ 15 typically range from 220K to upwards of 260K, and Ballyfermot is still quite affordable given it's not far from town.

When you see a teacher or an accountant moaning on the Independent that they had to buy in Naas because they couldn't afford Dublin, what they actually mean is that they could easily afford Dublin, but they couldn't afford the parts of Dublin that teachers were able to settle in 20 years ago, or in the days of 100 percent mortgages (Castleknock, Raheny, Navan Road). I'm not advocating teachers should live in Darndale, but there's little wrong socially with the bulk of Clonsilla, Hartstown, Huntstown etc. Some folks just have notions.

Put it this way, when was the last time you read an electrician or a plumber moaning he was priced out of Dublin.

You don't.

Because these lads aren't afraid to live somewhere where people talk with a working class accent.

Totally agree with this. I paid 165k for a house in one of these areas in 2016, had to put a few quid into it too but not that much, and it's only 20 mins walk from where I grew up. Absolutely fine never had any problems with anyone and neighbours are lovely. 12 min walk to the dart. Lots of people wouldn't live there though because as you say working class accents and not the most prestigous address. I could give a f*ck though, 600 a month mortgage repayments to live in a house on my own and a 25 min cycle to grafton st. I'd take that any day over a gaf in a supposedly nicer area beyond the M50.