jimmycrackcorm wrote: » Unlike SF: Mr O’Broin has characterised the upcoming by-election in Dublin Bay South as ‘a referendum on the Government’s failure to tackle the housing crisis’. Be interesting then if FG does win the seat. SF's constant objections to housing developments are simply going to be ammunition on the canvas rounds at the doorsteps for any points about housing.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Leo is trying to set up Dublin Bay Sourh as a fight between FG and SF. Knowing full well FG should be a shoe in there.
blanch152 wrote: » There is a clear pattern emerging of Sinn Fein on the ground frustrating every single initiative to provide housing. It is a deeply cynical political move, however, people are beginning to see through it.
SmokyMo wrote: » That is absolute nonsense that FG likes you to believe. Take a took a look at each of those objections and will be evident why. The most common denominator is giving away public land with money attached to a private developer who then stands to make 10x on that dev while tax payer left to foot the bill? No thank you. Engage some critical thinking please.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Honesty the best thing FF and FG could do now for the country and themselves is let the government collapse and let SF take the reigns. They don't have the balls. Opportunity missed.
blanch152 wrote: » Well yes, posters are pointing to the very Shinnister way that people like O'Broin are talking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue. He has got away with it to date but people are beginning to see through it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » All this look over there Shinister chat about housing...was there a poll showing the electorate trust the Shinners on housing more than anyone else or something?
SmokyMo wrote: » Didn't Leo say recently that even his own voters trust SF more on housing than his own party and he needs to address that?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sounds to me from reading the objectors opinions that the developers are unbelievably proposing to repeat the mistakes of places like Ballymun - brilliant in conception but disastrous in reality because of the issues pointed out by the objectors. The housing crisis s not a charter to repeat the mistakes of bad planning.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Didn't we hear similar excuses after the financial collapse...the whole world was in financial meltdown, stop looking at what was done here. :rolleyes:
starkid wrote: » there's a global housing crisis.The world is facing a housing affordability crisis.
blanch152 wrote: » SF's hypocrisy on the housing issue would be nauseating in normal times. With the current issues, it is beyond despicable.
IAmTheReign wrote: » This argument again? SF were all for giving over land to private developers as an incentive to build when they ran Dublin city council. It's bad enough that they go on about the housing crisis while blocking developments, it's a whole other level that they're now getting away with torpedoing developments they pushed for! This was how they felt in 2017; But in 2020 the plan they pushed for isn't good enough anymore; They also tried, but failed, to stop the development at O'Devaney Gardens;
IAmTheReign wrote: » No the objection was that public land was going to be sold to a private developer and some of it would be used to build private housing. At no point was there any discussion about the plan itself. Sinn Fein appear to have collective amnesia that the plan to sell the land to a private developer came from them.https://twitter.com/EOBroin/status/1328431885563944962?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1328431885563944962%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2FEOBroin2Fstatus2F1328431885563944962widget%3DTweet
Fann Linn wrote: » Population of 10,000 and no school let alone other facilities. Seems a reasonable case for objecting.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Key sentence there is 'building communities'. It's clear from the objections to this develpment (not just from SF) that this is just throwing up apartments with no provision for a 'community' infrastructure. i.e. Bad planning.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's clearly to do with bad planning.
Plans to build almost 1,700 homes on three Dublin City Council sites, the city’s most ambitious housing programme since the property crash, have been approved by councillors. The “mixed tenure” developments at O’Devaney Gardens, St Michael’s Estate and Oscar Traynor Road will have 30 per cent social housing, 20 per cent affordable rental, and 50 per cent private homes. More than 1,000 of the 1,700 homes will be apartments. ... The chairman of the council’s housing committee, Sinn Féin’s Daithí Doolan, said the initiative was not just about bricks and mortar but about building communities. “We are in the midst of a housing crisis caused by years of starvation of funding for housing. What we have in front of us is a plan to deliver up to 1,700 homes for the city.” The plans were approved by 53 to eight councillors. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour and the Green Party, and several independents voted in favour. Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit, the Workers Party and some independents voted against the plans, saying they represented the privatisation of public land.
Dublin City Council's head of housing says plans for a major development at a site on Oscar Traynor Road are 'back to square one'. Brendan Kenny says revised plan could take up to eight years to implement. Dublin City Council has expressed “serious reservations” over the revised plans for the housing development in Santry. On Monday, councillors approved a plan which would see 80% of the land used for social housing, with 20% for affordable housing. A previous deal would have meant 50% of homes sold by Glenveagh developers, 30% for social housing and 20% for affordable housing. However, councillors last November rejected the bid to sell the land to the private developers. Following Monday's vote, Sinn Féin TD Denise Mitchell was among those who welcomed the latest development. She said it would be a huge boost to people "who’ve been locked out of the housing market because of the ridiculous cost of buying in the area", as well as those on the social housing list..
COUNCILLORS ON DUBLIN City Council have rejected a motion calling for the support of the O’Devaney redevelopment project to be rescinded. The motion was tabled by Independent councillor John Lyons this evening with the support of a dozen Sinn Féin and Independent councillors. However, it was defeated by a majority of councillors – 61.5% to 38.5% – at a vote during tonight’s council meeting.
Bubbaclaus wrote: » I don't get the schools argument there, given most of the apartments were one beds which would have had no children, and I would have assumed a majority of the remainder would not have children of school age anyway given the make up of the blocks. Sounds like a convenient excuse to cover up another reason for being against it to be honest. The extended Luas proposal would mean a quick and easy commute into town also.
