Sweet.Science wrote: » Why are you comparing it to Leo and FG ? Can both not make bad decisions ? Or if one is worse the other doesnt count ?
Sweet.Science wrote: » Haha you are making it worseLeo was the devil forcing people onto the streets EOB was the saviour who was going to give houses to all. Now he is objecting to social houses being built. What a spoofer.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Identifying a better site and proposing 15 -20 more houses to be built on the original site designed for those wanting to downsize and so free up more houses.
atticu wrote: » What ‘better site’ was identified? And can you please provide a link to the proposal for 15 to 20 more houses. Thank you.
Mr McManus said Sinn Féin’s proposal to move the development to a nearby site would delay the project for at least another six months.
doublejobbing 2 wrote: » Why should residents have a say on what is built on public land?
piplip87 wrote: » Sinn Fein do not want the housing crisis solved. They have objected, delayed and blocked quite a few developments at this stage. Blocking social housing is a new low though. I'd wonder is it a case of FF/FG hit building targets = loss of votes for SF. Then again they basically privatised social housing in the North, while raising council rents during the pandemic. So just like innocent victims of violence they are using the homeless crisis for votes.
jm08 wrote: » According to Newton Emerson, what Sinn Fein did in the north with housing was excellent. The Housing Executive in NI hasn't built a house since the mid-90s (possibly because it had no access to any finance and what they have done has made access for finance for the Housing Executive easier).https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/success-on-housing-in-north-could-be-sinn-f%C3%A9in-s-route-to-government-in-south-1.4400175
Sweet.Science wrote: » There are 20,000 homeless people in Northern Ireland .https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/20000-northern-ireland-households-are-now-homeless-37719853.html
RandomViewer wrote: » Definition of homeless is different, if the republic used the same metrics figures would be 4-5 times higherhttps://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/system/files/publications/communities/ni-homelessness-bulletin-apr-sep-2018.PDF
McMurphy wrote: » Didn't Leo object to a building going up in his constituency, because - reasons.https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkar-defends-objections-to-constituency-development-claiming-area-has-been-blighted-36155759.html It's what they do bish, they all pander to their constituents.
blanch152 wrote: » Didn't take long, did it? Leo lives in people's heads.
piplip87 wrote: » Sinn Fein do not want the housing crisis solved. They have objected, delayed and blocked quite a few developments at this stage. Blocking social housing is a new low though.I'd wonder is it a case of FF/FG hit building targets = loss of votes for SF. Then again they basically privatised social housing in the North, while raising council rents during the pandemic. So just like innocent victims of violence they are using the homeless crisis for votes.
Sweet.Science wrote: » Really . Looks like ROI would be a lot less if they went with what you've linked ? Can you explain the differences Politicians in the north have said their housing system is broken and not fit for purpose . Like in ROI . They must be all wrong
thomas 123 wrote: » I doubt it, considering my generation just live to work. As for sf voters deflecting? Do you really think anyone who voted sf before would condemn them for this ? - Let’s see Stephen Donnelly - ran as Independent, switched to FF, still got in again. - Leo Varadkar - shared state information for private sector gain, still there. - Martin - how many u-turns and lies? Still there. - Foley - missing for months when she’s most needed, no plans, department in crisis, still there. - Mother and baby homes, report leaked before the actual subjects of the report could see it, government still There. - Affordable housing for those of us that have to pay our way shelved under the guise of covid. Yeah yeah, shared equity great, let’s get that average house price up to 5-600k! In summary I think O’Broin carrying out the wishes of those who put him where he is today is not really that big of an issue on the scale of things now is it?
blanch152 wrote: » Of course it is. If you look around Dublin at local level at which party leads the charge against development, it is nearly always Sinn Fein. They don't have an interest in housing people, they have an interest in protest politics.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » And people are falling for the lie they actually care about housing people when it's to get votes for the only thing they care about. A United Ireland is all they see.
Sweet.Science wrote: » If SF (who everyone pins their hopes on to solve the housing crisis) object to a paltry 28 unit development what does that say ? The housing issue will just get worse and worse every year. Thousands are needed every year . Cant even get 28 up without them being delayed for years
Fann Linn wrote: » FG in no position to talk about housing. Even they agree they lost the last election over their housing policy.
Deleted User wrote: » There isnt a party with a plan to solve housing in a way that would work even on the terms they claim. Ive moved away from kneejerk criticising sf policy because **** it, theyre right to say "your way is a proven balls up, lets try ours" and i reckon of em all, across all issues, o broin has an actual germ of an idea to attack what's needed Now their habit of blocking development at local level is shameless too, that has to be said
Bowie wrote: » six months. The move to an alternate site because the request to build less on the site was refused. As regards putting hopes on SF to solve housing, it's very simple; FG and it seems FF are happy to spend tax money on leases, private rentals and purchases. SF and others seem to be more interested in serving the public than FF/FG cronies in building state owned properties. That's it really.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Here is the line that seems to suggest there was 'another site' a site I presume the objectors thought was 'better'
FrancieBrady wrote: » Identifying a better site and proposing 15 -20 more houses to be built on the original site designed for those wanting to downsize and so free up more houses. Not getting the crime or the outrage here folks.
FrancieBrady wrote: » They didn't 'just' object though, did they? They are proposing an alternative that is a net gain for numbers housed. Seem to me that they are doing their jobs, unless I'm missing something. When they do it and have alternatives that seem to be better solutions, I ain't seeing an issue to be honest...shouldn't everyone be happy? Constituents, and those who want the maximum amount housed?
FrancieBrady wrote: » . but an alternative that will see more houses built and more people homed has been offered here. Outline what the problem is here.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Can you link to how you know there is 'no' alternative? So tell us what you actually know about this local issue...please don't make statements like: 'There is no alternative', without rpoviding back up for that etc.
atticu wrote: » Now, let’s look at what you said before you admitted that you ‘presume’. You were trying to present your opinion as fact. You can’t back that up, but you also did not say it was your opinion. Well, it seems that by your own admission that they did ‘just’ object. So, again the above is just your opinion, and not fact. Well, the simple problem with the above is that it is just your opinion that you are trying to present as factual. And in the above you are telling a poster not to do what you did.
McMurphy wrote: » It's what they do bish, they all pander to their constituents.
markodaly wrote: » So why do you give SF a pass when they do it yet, constantly remind us all when Leo does it? Hypocrite much?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
