Kellyconor1982 wrote: » I can't see Metrolink being cancelled. The green party tds and fianna fail tds like lahart will be trying to push for more pt also in their areas. Sinn Fein are promising the world and Fine Gael have been punished for not spending enough. Whoever is in government in the coming months will not put prudence as a priority. I don't support any party but gave my vote to the green party. My gut feeling is that the next government will want big projects to show it's making a difference. Not good for the national debt, but good for transport etc.
veryangryman wrote: » Transport (in the right places) is good for the national debt. Its an investment that pays you back many times over financially, socially and mentally as people spend more time working/enjoying selves than sitting in queues.
Kellyconor1982 wrote: » Yeah I completely agree. However, I can see Sinn Fein spending gigantic amounts on projects to really make a statement and that was my point.
strassenwo!f wrote: » Pete, sorry for the delay but I'm just back in the door after a week away and I didn't have the time to find the source. The link I generally use for the latest density figures in Dublin is shown below, but there are other sources:https://www.citypopulation.de/php/ireland-dublin.php I don't want to further clutter up this thread with a discussion of those numbers here, having got derailed earlier on. I am genuinely curious about the Greens' proposal for a line between Ranelagh (in the Southeast) and the Southwest, rather than directly between the city centre and the Southwest. It is obvious that the largest group of people on any tram/train/metro/bus from the Southwest want to get directly to the city, not to Ranelagh. Does anybody on the board know what the Greens' logic might possibly be?
Kellyconor1982 wrote: » The Green Party will be a massive piece of any next government and with Labour and the Social Democrats coming in as a block, I believe (hope) that this will result in a significant expenditure on transport.
Cookiemunster wrote: » The Greens may be nowhere near government. There will be another election unless SF go into coalition with either FF or FG. SF+Greens+Labour+SD+PBP = 66. That's 14 short of a majority and very unstable. The Greens are not needed if SF go into coalition with FF. SF+FF + any of Labour/SD/PBP gives a majority. A very interesting few weeks ahead.
Dats me wrote: » FF+SF gives only 75. With Greens they've a majority of 6 and relative stability (although Ryan, Martin and McDonald negotiating a budget would be a sight to see) with SD or Labour they've only a majority of 1. Which is a bit less stable - you're right though Greens don't have much power. SDs are probably nearly as good in transport though just don't oppose road building as much
Zebra3 wrote: » Deals can be made and kept with all the mercs and perks on the line. The buzz of power, the access, the meetings, the money, can all help keep things in place.
CrabRevolution wrote: » But when their parties' aims are so divergent I can't see it even forming. For example SF's policy on things like Farming and burning peat is to just keep at what we're currently doing, except spend more government money on it with a vague notion of becoming more environmentally friendly at some stage in the future. There's no way the greens will accept that.
The latest Construction Status Report shows that: There were 6,499 social homes are onsite nationwide at end September. There were just under 23,000 (22,721) homes in the pipeline, up more than 19% on the pipeline in place coming into 2019.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Probably the most ridiculous promises have come in relation to housing. The housing shortage is obviously a huge issue and everyone is claiming that they can fix it. SF say they will build 100,000 social houses over five years while FF claimed they would build 200,000 homes (but this includes private development). CSO has today published figures on housing completions for Q4 2019;https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/ndc/newdwellingcompletionsq42019/ Apartment completions up 72.2% quarter-on-quarter from Q4 2018 - 726 to 1,250. Total completions for the year are 21,241 which is up 18.3% on last year overall. Construction of units is increasing at least which should help close the gap between supply and demand. IMO a combination of the Strategic Housing Development planning system (fast-tracked going straight to ABP), allowing for increased heights and densities and revised apartment regulations (e.g. number of lift cores, dual aspect ratio, etc.) introduced by Eoghan Murphy are facilitating this increase in construction. I can't see the new government (whatever the make up) doing anything to actually improve things further, they will most likely claim the credit for any improvement coming from what is already happening. Any further market interference will have to be carefully done as it has the potential to damage new construction, in which case supply will never catch up with demand. The Rebuilding Ireland website contains quarterly updates on Social Housing Construction;https://rebuildingireland.ie/news/minister-murphy-publishes-social-housing-construction-status-report-for-q3-2019/ The full report lists every housing development and what stage it is at (from Stage 1 Capital Appraisal to Completion). Again, the new government won't actually have a hand in delivering those units but will no doubt be all over any ribbon cutting. Building 100,000 in five years would require doubling the delivery of units each year but any additional units will take a couple of years before they reach construction so realistically you need to be hitting far higher completion rates in years 3, 4 and 5 to hit that target.
Last Stop wrote: » FG were in power for 9 years and have somehow managed turned a housing surplus into large scale homelessness by their inaction and unwillingness to invest. Any fool could have seen this happening and yet they didn’t react quick enough.
Zebra3 wrote: » They didn't do anything because they didn't want to. Their buddies filled their boots. Land that was previous deemed unsuitable for housing suddenly was. Ching ching ching.
dublinman1990 wrote: » Did SF have any ministers for transport in the NI Executive?
Last Stop wrote: » Personally I think the biggest driver of inaction was the desire to inflate house prices. This meant that everyone in negative equity was no longer so and dint forget that property tax is based on the value of the house (on this, the “green” party could have made a proposal to based the property tax on BER ratings...)
Pete_Cavan wrote: » LPT was originally based on value but houses haven't been revalued to reflect the increase in property values so the income from the tax hasn't increased in line with house prices.
Sam Russell wrote: » It is based on declared value by the person liable to the tax. Some checks have been carried out, but no determined effort was made to get good valuations. One way to get realistic values would be to allow local authorities to purchase the properties at the declared values, re-balanced for general shifts in house prices. Or to relate declared values with those declared for house insurance. Or even relate values to floor area, and other features of the property - such as age, features, BER value, etc. The lowest band is values up to €100k and liable to a tax of €90, and new properties do not pay anything. I think that says it all. It needs review.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I was just pointing out that the insinuation that the government wants to inflate house prices because LPT is based on house value is incorrect. If that was the case, values would be reassessed and most people would be paying more LPT.
Sam Russell wrote: » I think the interest that political parties have in property prices is to safeguard the votes of their supporters that own their own house. They have little regard for the yield of the LPT.
Idbatterim wrote: » Its such a farce, which is part of the reason, SF proposed scrapping of it, isnt that insane to me... If they introduced it, but it collects and absolute pittance, an irrelevance. What is the point? the below is very interesting on this topic, a recent article by ronan lyons. They should bring in a council tax like the uk and ditch LPT...https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/article38785997.ece Implement a council tax, E1.50 a day for all adults, no exceptions or reductions etc! that would work out at around two billion, based on 3.5 million aged 18 and over...
Zebra3 wrote: » Interesting despite all the talk of quality of life as an issue amongst voters especially in the Dublin commuter belt, infrastructure didn’t get a look in as an issue.
Sam Russell wrote: » You are proposing a Poll tax. Ronan Lyons makes a good point - the LPT should be set at about 1% of current value, as is done in other wealthy countries. This would fund local gov so it might actually be able to provide services at a local level. The poll tax is regressive - hitting the poor most. It was why Thatcher proposed it for the UK, and if the voter did not pay, they were off the voting register thus suppressing the Labour vote. LPT taxes some who pay no other direct tax. It can be deferred for those elderly who cannot pay. LPT needs to work - if it raises too much, the Gov could reduce other taxes. (Some chance).
Idbatterim wrote: » these "poor" you talk of, would get far less in other countries and pay more. They are one of the prime reasons, that so many hard workers are screwed themselves here. That is exactly what I suggest a poll tax. My gf LPT is E90, they give away E260 most years to everyone on welfare, with the welfare hike. I dont see the point of having an LPT, with the current pittance it generates and the abuse of the system, as lyons points out. obviously those in social housing dont pay it etc. Scrap it, it benefits and rightfully so, those already paying in, far more than they should... scrapping a property tax, anywhere else would be seen as insanity! but in ireland, the system is insane, introduce it and it becomes a ticking time bomb, being passed around a circle, nobody wants to increase it etc... get rid of it, it bring in 500,000,000 a year, the waste far more than that on budget increases every year
