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

FF/FG/Green Government - Part 3

Necro

Following on from

this thread

Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ineedeuro

Floppybits wrote: »

That's the nub of the issue, they are giving developers land or sweet heart deals and getting very little in return which seems to be typical of the Public Services. Why can't they demand a higher percentage of Public and affordable houses compared to the private housing?

Probably because the developers have zero interest in making no money from building houses.
The government is not setup to build houses. If they try it will go over budget and not on time. Developers will be able to build houses quickly but will want to make a profit.

No easy answers.

Floppybits

Shebean wrote: »

Somebody has to look out for the tax payer. Throwing away public land and losing money to build 60% private houses is a high price to pay for 20% social and 20% affordable.
We deserve better deals.

That's the nub of the issue, they are giving developers land or sweet heart deals and getting very little in return which seems to be typical of the Public Services. Why can't they demand a higher percentage of Public and affordable houses compared to the private housing?

Shebean

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

I didn't bring SF up first.

So what, once houses get built and people have somewhere to live does it matter?

It's almost like they are against people who actually want to privately buy their own homes.

SF objecting to all these developments means houses won't get built where people could have lived.

Can't believe people fall for their mantra.

Somebody has to look out for the tax payer. Throwing away public land and losing money to build 60% private houses is a high price to pay for 20% social and 20% affordable.
We deserve better deals.

Shebean

Amirani wrote: »

That's a terrible definition, not all assets are revenue generating.

If someone has a collection of €20million worth of fine paintings, then they're not wealthy under your definition as they don't generate revenue.

Wealth relates to the value of assets you own, not the income that you earn from them.

Point is if you wake up tomorrow and your house is worth millions, you've still only got the income you had yesterday.
You can sell items and not be sleeping under the stars as a result. When you sell a painting you don't need to by a replacement one immediately.

Jinglejangle69

timmyntc wrote: »

This thread is about the current govt not SF.

Also in regards to housing objections - most of the plans in Dublin involved gifting state owned land to developers for them to build houses that they then sell themselves. State should not be giving away its assets. Voting against was the right choice.

I didn't bring SF up first.

So what, once houses get built and people have somewhere to live does it matter?

It's almost like they are against people who actually want to privately buy their own homes.

SF objecting to all these developments means houses won't get built where people could have lived.

Can't believe people fall for their mantra.

Amirani

conorhal wrote: »

On the basis of what revenue it generates for the owner, which is frequently none unless they sell it. In the case of people simply living in a family home it's a constant drain on your cash.

That's a terrible definition, not all assets are revenue generating.

If someone has a collection of €20million worth of fine paintings, then they're not wealthy under your definition as they don't generate revenue.

Wealth relates to the value of assets you own, not the income that you earn from them.

AlmightyCushion

Deleted User wrote: »

Who did you expect was going to pay for it?

Management fees are for the routine upkeep of the property complex, not for major structural works.

Not sure what your point is tbh.

Part of the management fees should be going towards a sinking fund to pay for larger jobs such as repairing/replacing the eleveators. Skimpydoo is paying €2,000 a year so I would expect a proportion of that to be going towards a sinking fund.

jimmycrackcorm

timmyntc wrote: »

This thread is about the current govt not SF.

Also in regards to housing objections - most of the plans in Dublin involved gifting state owned land to developers for them to build houses that they then sell themselves. State should not be giving away its assets. Voting against was the right choice.

The state-owned land is getting houses that won't be built otherwise, it's getting mixed developments with private, affordable, and social housing.

What should the state be doing with that land? Only build social housing, modern Ballymun towers? Should it build mixed developments and sell some housing as private which is your argument against giving away public assets?

Who is the state going to get to actually do the building - how should that actually work in practice?

skimpydoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Who did you expect was going to pay for it?

Management fees are for the routine upkeep of the property complex, not for major structural works.

Not sure what your point is tbh.

My point is those who only pay LPT and complain it about, shouldn't.

[Deleted User]

skimpydoo wrote: »

Not always, I had to pay nearly €3K 15 years to pay for the lift to be replaced.

Who did you expect was going to pay for it?

Management fees are for the routine upkeep of the property complex, not for major structural works.

Not sure what your point is tbh.

skimpydoo

Floppybits wrote: »

Ah put also the management fees cover things like lighting and road maintenance in the estate which is supposedly covered by the LPT. So there should be a reduction in the management fees for any services that are supposedly covered by the LPT. Unfortunately management fees are a necessary evil when living in apartment buildings or duplexs but there should be legislation governing these management companies, as someone said earlier some of them are run by cowboys.

i was only pointing out that if you are only paying LPT don't knock it.

skimpydoo

Calhoun wrote: »

If something goes wrong in the complex doesnt the management fees ensure that it will be fixed?

Not always, I had to pay nearly €3K 15 years to pay for the lift to be replaced.

Necro

Thread cleaned up, troll vanquished - don't engage folks, report. Thanks

Bass Reeves

timmyntc wrote: »

This thread is about the current govt not SF.

Also in regards to housing objections - most of the plans in Dublin involved gifting state owned land to developers for them to build houses that they then sell themselves. State should not be giving away its assets. Voting against was the right choice.

The state would not be giving away land. These were pragmatic ways of developing mixed use sites. The sites were going to be a mix of social, affordable and private housing. The LA were going to technically give the developer control of the land,otherwise he could not get finance to complete the development.

sF are advocating gettoization

Cluedo Monopoly

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Our finances are robust????

We're in the middle of a pandemic.

Borrowing billions.

As I said easy for all these groups to come out with this stuff.

Sounds nice and lovely.

Drill down and show us the costing and how it's going to be paid back.

Despite all the optimism around the economy roaring back post Covid, I see a major recession in 2022. One of the biggest issues with building houses will be the price of raw materials (timber, steel etc). Costs are spiraling at the moment. Biden's printing will make it worse too. Inflation and interest rates will become a major problem.

McMurphy

Floppybits wrote: »

Are you still coming out with this rubbish? What was the reason for the objections?

timmyntc wrote: »

This thread is about the current govt not SF.

Also in regards to housing objections - most of the plans in Dublin involved gifting state owned land to developers for them to build houses that they then sell themselves. State should not be giving away its assets. Voting against was the right choice.

Posts read like David McManus' Twitter feed.

Floppybits

blanch152 wrote: »

The State wasn't gifting land, if you believe that, you have been fooled by propaganda from SF and the loony left.

The same way you have been taken in by the propaganda from FF/FG. We can all go down that rabbit hole.

blanch152

timmyntc wrote: »

This thread is about the current govt not SF.

Also in regards to housing objections - most of the plans in Dublin involved gifting state owned land to developers for them to build houses that they then sell themselves. State should not be giving away its assets. Voting against was the right choice.

The State wasn't gifting land, if you believe that, you have been fooled by propaganda from SF and the loony left.

Floppybits

blanch152 wrote: »

You are explaining. That won't work in the face of a full-page ad listing all of the developments that Sinn Fein representative put in objections to, delaying the building of houses.

So you are happy to give away state land so that developers can sell onto Vulture funds. Says everything about anyone who supports FFG.

blanch152

Floppybits wrote: »

It is suiting FFG to throw out this line but SF objected to the planning without giving the reason. A nice little headline to throw out there but people are seeing through that now. The state should not be giving away state land to private developers so that they can enhance their profits. The government should be building those houses at a reasonable price and selling them at reasonable prices instead as they do with most things is outsource it to the private companies whose sole focus is to make as much profit as possible.

You are explaining. That won't work in the face of a full-page ad listing all of the developments that Sinn Fein representative put in objections to, delaying the building of houses.

Floppybits

Marine Layer wrote: »

The problem is,the numbers objected to are running into the several 1000's and rising
Its an ill thought out strategy because at the rate of knotts its being used,come next election time middle Ireland will be shown 10's of 1000's of houses not built because of SF
And remember once you're explaining,you are losing

It is suiting FFG to throw out this line but SF objected to the planning without giving the reason. A nice little headline to throw out there but people are seeing through that now. The state should not be giving away state land to private developers so that they can enhance their profits. The government should be building those houses at a reasonable price and selling them at reasonable prices instead as they do with most things is outsource it to the private companies whose sole focus is to make as much profit as possible.

[Deleted User]

Floppybits wrote: »

Are you still coming out with this rubbish? What was the reason for the objections?

The problem is,the numbers objected to are running into the several 1000's and rising
Its an ill thought out strategy because at the rate of knotts its being used,come next election time middle Ireland will be shown 10's of 1000's of houses not built because of SF
And remember once you're explaining,you are losing

timmyntc

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

SFs housing in the last year is to object to 17/24 housing developments.

That's what they are actively pursuing at the moment.

This thread is about the current govt not SF.

Also in regards to housing objections - most of the plans in Dublin involved gifting state owned land to developers for them to build houses that they then sell themselves. State should not be giving away its assets. Voting against was the right choice.

Floppybits

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

SFs housing in the last year is to object to 17/24 housing developments.

That's what they are actively pursuing at the moment.

Are you still coming out with this rubbish? What was the reason for the objections?

Jinglejangle69

RandomViewer wrote: »

Foreign aid approaching a billion a year, corrupt charities and new Mercedes for African dictators?

OK.

RandomViewer

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

What??

You think the majority of people support paying massive taxes to pay back a 5 billion a year loan for social housing?

I don't think so.

Once people realise they have to pay for their house and others they will change their tone.

Foreign aid approaching a billion a year, corrupt charities and new Mercedes for African dictators?

Bass Reeves

Floppybits wrote: »

Ah put also the management fees cover things like lighting and road maintenance in the estate which is supposedly covered by the LPT. So there should be a reduction in the management fees for any services that are supposedly covered by the LPT. Unfortunately management fees are a necessary evil when living in apartment buildings or duplexs but there should be legislation governing these management companies, as someone said earlier some of them are run by cowboys.

There is legislation covering them and it fairly comprehensive it referred to as the MUD act. Biggest issue is people not wanting to be involved in these management committee's, not attending AGM's and not voting at them.

Floppybits

Bass Reeves wrote: »

In an apartment it also covers common area maintenance, it also covers lighting in these area's. Structural insurance is so included you only insure your contents.

Ah put also the management fees cover things like lighting and road maintenance in the estate which is supposedly covered by the LPT. So there should be a reduction in the management fees for any services that are supposedly covered by the LPT. Unfortunately management fees are a necessary evil when living in apartment buildings or duplexs but there should be legislation governing these management companies, as someone said earlier some of them are run by cowboys.

Bishop of hope

skimpydoo wrote: »

I am paying nearly €2,000 a year in management fees for my apartment and on top of that i have to pay LPT. Those of you only paying LPT are so lucky.

But LPT doesn't cover services, like refuse or sewage if you're on a private site for instance.
Management companies are a necessary evil perhaps in apartment blocks.
All you get for LPT is the fact you are paying it, and it's very inequitable as it stands imo.

Bass Reeves

ineedeuro wrote: »

Doesn't that cover bins/gardening/cutting of grass/lift maintenance etc etc etc?
I know its not cheap and a lot of gangsters running those companies but it does cover a lot of things.

In an apartment it also covers common area maintenance, it also covers lighting in these area's. Structural insurance is so included you only insure your contents.