Following on from
this thread
Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed
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.
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.
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.
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?
ineedeuro wrote: » 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.
ineedeuro wrote: » So you want to charge the developers more money and then push that cost onto the buyers of the houses? Would that not make the houses unaffordable for people trying to buy them?
Shebean wrote: » If developers want public land they can pay through the nose like the rest of us. They'll still make a profit on sales. The government is set up to pay people to carry out construction on their behalf. If the NCH was social housing it would be 60% private and still costing the tax payer an obscene amount, yet we don't hear the same concerns from the same quarters on that one. This project is set to take ten years. Another reason people objected. There simply is no good reason to enter these kind of deals.
ineedeuro wrote: » I guess this is the one in South County Dublin, 900 houses are been built. How long do you think it is going to take? I havent seen plans but I would expect that includes shops/child care etc. I have seen estates in my area still been built 15 years afetr they started. In terms of pushing up the price of the land, the developers will just push the cost onto the end buyer and then make the houses unaffordable so who wins in that situation? Developers are business at the end of the day, they want to make profit. As I said, no easy answers but rejecting every planning permission isn't the answer either
Shebean wrote: » No, it's the one in Fingal kicked it off this time. It's public land sold for a song for 60% private, 20% social and 20% unaffordable affordable. It is expected to take ten years. The objections are based on the deal. The price sold for, the amount of private builds and the ten years wait. The developers aren't selling based on their costs they are selling based on the market. If they got the land for free do you think they'd pass on those savings to the private individual? Likely the private 60% will go to investors, the only ones can afford them. Rejecting plans bad for the public is justified every time.
Floppybits wrote: » Neither is giving away land and not getting a good deal out of it. If developers want to build on public land then they need to accept that the majority of house's should be a mix between social and affordable housing and then whats left can be private. If they only want private housing then off they go buy the land themselves.
ineedeuro wrote: » But what is the developers says no, what the plan? just build no houses? Is land available in these areas to build houses that developers can buy? I don't have the answer but I don't see anyone providing any actual answers either.
Floppybits wrote: » If you look at the Coolock/Santry site there is no land in this area to build except that site. There is no private land nearby.
ineedeuro wrote: » So 1200 houses, how long do you think they should be built in? It won't be a 10 year wait either, it will take 10 year to finish all the houses. Has the pricing been released for the houses yet to confirm cost to build and profit margins? But if they rejected with an alternative you might be interested, but its just rejecting with no actual plan on what to do. It's all noise and no substance
Shebean wrote: » People objected because amongst other things, they felt ten years was too long. I doubt private developers need publish such things. Likely we might get an idea. Do you think they'll sell them for as much as they can get or do you think they'll weigh up the cost at set a reasonable price? The objections gave the alternative; more social, less private. It's not all noise as has been pointed out a number of times. You need to look at the objections. They list alternatives. A bad deal based on not wanting to ding a developers profits might make government policy but not good government policy.
Shebean wrote: » People objected because amongst other things, they felt ten years was too long.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Love the simple solution here. Get the council to build houses even though they don't have the capability. Every time the council gets involved it ends up costing a lot more. Not one solution has been laid out here by the people objecting to everything.
blanch152 wrote: » And, by objecting, they will manage to turn it into twelve or fifteen years, well done them.
ineedeuro wrote: » Ok you keep saying 10 years but it's not 10 years. The site will take 10 years to finish. I tried to find the objections but haven't found, everything I have found just is sound bites and loads of comments about 10 years whcih to be honest sounds a lot like "noise" to me The pricing has been released already, I found it.According to the plan, there will be 238 social houses provided and 238 affordable homes built and sold for €250,000 and €270,000. The majority, 718, will be sold off to the private sector at full market value, which the council says currently range from between €390,000 to €440,000 for three bed homes and €330,000 to €450,000 for two beds. Certainly not cheap, maybe they should include a cap on the private house sales?
I cannot support a sweetheart deal for developers that does nothing to help a generation of young people locked out of homeownership. I want to see a mixed income, sustainable estate with social, affordable cost rental and affordable purchase homes on this public land. Sinn Fein could not support the disposal of land in Ballymastone voted for by the FF/FG/Green and Labour parties which will result in 60 per cent of private homes being built on public land. The transfer of valuable public land for a price way below market value and without a formal valuation is not good practice. Furthermore, the timeline for this project is 10 years, which doesn’t reflect the urgency of the housing crisis caused by this and successive governments. The price of the 20 per cent affordable homes proposed, when the shared equity portion is taken into account, is between €300,000 and €320,000. That is not affordable for many modest income working people. I represent those who are unable to buy an affordable home where they grew up in the Fingal area. I represent those who have been stuck on the social housing waiting list for up to 14 years and those who are trapped paying high rents while trying to save for deposit. These are ordinary working people who deserve an affordable roof over their heads. Unfortunately thanks to the deal supported by FF/FG/Greens and Labour, the big losers will be local people who won’t be able to buy the majority of homes on this site.https://www.thesun.ie/news/7051254/donabate-housing-development-fine-gael-for-sinn-fein-against/
Shebean wrote: » The project will take ten years. I can't be any clearer. You seem to both agree and disagree. I find it unbelievable that you can find detail on the deal but only mention that their is objections but no detail. I've actually posted the objections. Every party has a housing policy of sorts. For you reading pleasure: . You can agree or disagree of course but let's not play 'object to everything' 'just noise'. You can take or leave any opposition party. The issues remain. Public land going for 20% social and 20% almost affordable and 60% not very affordable. We deserve better.
Bass Reeves wrote: » So you want to build more Ballymun's, Moyross's and Knocknaheenie's. Of cours this locks people in poverty and keeps making them SF or PBP voters
major interest wrote: » Have to agree here. The “public housing on public land“ argument is trotted out by those opposed to mixed developments where it is perceived that the private provision is too high. However there is a point beyond which a higher percentage of social housing causes social issues down the line. Whatever about the economics of the sale of land, the mix achieved in the proposal seems like a reasonable one.
Shebean wrote: » No idea how you came to that conclusion. It's about a bad deal selling public land for housing most people won't be able to afford. We have many people locked into being renters with no hope of home ownership.
ineedeuro wrote: » To finish it will take 10 years, how long do you think it should take to build 1200 houses? Not sure why that is for me? you said the opposition had provided alternative to the project and it wasn't just "noise". Then you post an article which best description is "noise". You have posted a lot of times, majority of the posts mentioned 10 years, majority mention bad deal. Lots of buzz words. Yet I don't see any mention of how to resolve the problem? you seem to think property developers will build house with zero profit. I can tell you they won't. So in this situation who do you think will build "public houses on public land"? If the government or any government doesn't sell the land to them who is going to build on that land? how will houses be supplied in those areas when no private land exists?
Shebean wrote: » Public housing on public land relates to affordable and social housing. When the private element is introduced is where we lose out. Nothing wrong with mixed developments or smaller 100% social and affordable either for that matter. 'whatever about the economics' is not a sound basis for housing policy.
Shebean wrote: » I don't think you are recalling your own comments. The deal is not good. The deal could be better. More than 20% would be good. That's how we resolve the problem. You think the objections as laid out are just 'noise'. I can't help that. Earlier you said you couldn't find any detail. Now you have it. It will take ten years. No I don't think property developers will build for nothing. No advantage to building housing people can't afford. No advantage in selling public land for housing most cannot afford. Investors and developers are coming out on top at the expense of public land. We are enabling builds so developers can make profits and we can rent them. It's a FF led council. No surprises there. You don't go into a deal on the understanding you ensure the other party gets as much of your money or land as you can afford to give them.
AlmightyCushion wrote: » 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.
