Following on from
this thread
Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed
What % are on public land,that ffg wish to gift to developers,it wouldnt be 80% by any chance🤭
Looks to me,its time to stop pretending the market will solve itself and launch a proper house building initative,
we need expand the hap bands and assist those on lower-middle inome.....these havnt changed in 10 years,and realistically need updating....amount of people barely getting by,being roasted by landlords and rack rents,unable to afford to start families/have any kind of life...and who arent entitled to state assistance is an utter scandel
All this econmic recovery is utterly pointless otherwise
The 1,600 homes in Drumcondra has nothing to do with public land. I'm not aware of any other applications atm that do either.
The only way out is supply. That means all types of housing.
This guff about affordable housing...you'd almost think no one else needed housing.
We need housing for all income brackets. Supply, supply, supply.
Every objection has to have grounds. Can you link to them?
Ah yes....no amswer on what % of objections were on public land.....despite 2 posts ago being full sure🤣🤣
The supply deosnt matter,when you will have imvestment funds/landlords come in and price locals out of market?facilitated by ffg
You guys are like communists,saying it'll be different this time,its an utterly failed econmic theory....which deosnt work in practice....its time for the state to intervene properly and build affordable housing for all low to middle income earners (with higher bands in urban areas)
This sh1te of thinking private sector will sort it,is what has landed us here to begin with....we have had 30 odd years of this policy,can you not just for once admit,even to yourself,it deosnt bloody work and never will
How many people are in HAP rented accomandation and how much property would this free up,if proper social housing build,no mind the people living years on end in hotels??
You can look at objections to applications on the Dublin City Council planning website. I'm not doing the homework for you.
Maybe she's keeping up with the Jones's Vardkars?
Some big hitters objecting to this scheme.
MLMD's objection is what I thought it would be and I can't disagree.
Enriching cronies should not be tolerated, housing crisis or not, nor should bad planning.
How is it bad planning? How is it cronyism?
It's a free market and companies can build housing on their land.
That's capitalism. The market would be a lot faster correcting without objections from the usual suspects and bad planning policy by Dublin City Council.
The objections primarily to this particular scheme are of a left wing socialist ideology.
You are telling party political porkies.
Mary Lou McDonald has said that if planning for over 1,000 "build-to-rent" apartments on the grounds of Clonliffe College in Drumcondra is approved that it could further 'exacerbate' the housing crisis.
The Sinn Féin leader and Dublin Central TD is one of 120 parties to make submissions on the contentious €610 million scheme proposed by the Irish arm of US property giant Hines.
If the state wasn't renting them would they be building them? It's a back scratching exercise between private business and the crony state. That's a rigged system.
It's easy money. You build and we'll rent off you. Guaranteed profits/leases/rents. The losers are the tax payer and anyone trying to get into a house.
How so? Very accurate. She is patently objecting on ideological grounds and to be in with local 'I'm alright Jack' NIMBYs which pollute this society and are part of the reason there are not enough units.
Like most SF tds she has the basic misunderstanding of supply and demand but that's to be expected.
Runaway capitalism got us into the mess.
Call it left or right or centre, making the same mistakes again cannot be allowed happen IMO. Look at the cross section of objections here, no hard to work it out.
However, in a strident objection against the apartments, Ms McDonald stated that ‘build to rent’ schemes are driven by investors seeking to exploit the high demand for housing and apartments in urban centres. She states: “As a consequence, these developments drive up the cost of that land, making standard residential development for Dublin even more unaffordable.”
Maynooth academic and housing expert Rory Hearne states that “this mega build-to-rent scheme would essentially be a private enclave set apart from the local area, owned by overseas institutional investors”.
A private enclave? It's a build to rent development. If the state wishes to build houses it's more than welcome to do so just as developers are on their own land.
Again these objections are ideological.
At the end of the day more supply means lower rent and house prices.
Gravity can't be defied.
Greed is ideological as well.
You call it greed but these are current market rents. The only way to have rents fall is to increase supply rapidly.
I see Hines are spending nearly 3/4 of a billion euro on that scheme. Labour and construction costs are obviously a big factor but that's how much not even 2,000 units cost to develop in Ireland.
SF are telling people there is a magic money tree where the state would directly build hundreds of thousands of homes. The state does not have that type of money.
So we need to rely on the private sector to up supply. And that is made extra difficult because so many Irish developers went bust in 2010.
So now we are reliant on international funds. The populist delight of some that Irish developers went bust didn't age well.
It meant we had little home capacity to develop houses the last 10 years.
The lesson is populism doesn't work.
Investors exploiting a crisis is greed Kermit.
Private investment is fine, greed and exploitation isn't.
No hard to see where the objections are coming from and why if you take that on board.
You obviously don't wish to.
How are they exploiting it? In this case Hines is just an ordinary developer building apartments to rent.
They are fully entitled to do so.
The state is more than welcome to build houses if they so wish on their own land.
You'll have to contact those objecting on those grounds. I don't know the detail.
It's simple. They are objecting to a developer building rental apartments on their own land because they are rental apartments.
That is no basis for a planning objection. A developer is perfectly entitled to develop property on their own land.
We need everyone with a shovel and money to be building as many units as possible for all areas of the market.
You are claiming she is lying. There's nothing she say's that can be construed as NIMBYism.
I would suggest both MLMD and anyone with a passing interest in housing is aware that build to rent makes the housing problem worse. It's been shown that such developments help to drive people out of the market and it's a poor deal for the state who will be engaging in 25 year leases with no option to buy.
That's just not true. There is a market for build to rent outside of social housing.
Again the more units the less pressure on rents. It doesn't matter whether they are build to sell or build to rent.
We need more units as quickly as possible.
This is the point. Yes they can build what they like within regulations, but the state is encouraging these private companies by promising them custom on completion. It's guaranteed profit that drives such developments. Guaranteed by the state, paid by the tax payer. The state should not be using such avenues as it makes problems worse and costs us more in the long run. Hines are merely taking advantage.
It's completely true and has been shown.
Of course there is a market for build to rent, because the state engages in renting/leasing and buying instead of building.
Why would a build to rent company lower it's lease/rent fees when they've guaranteed customers through the state? They charge what they like and the state pays.
We do not need more units like these. The tax payer supports rent to build, private renters and buyers find it difficult to compete. It's been shown.
Most of the apartments being built in Dublin have no buyers, or at least very few. The price points are too prohibitive. According to the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, the cost of delivering two-bed apartments in the capital range from €493,000-€581,000 in medium-rise developments to €514,000-€619,000 in high-rise developments. Hence most are built to rent.
Somebody objected to a wall I was building and it was thrown out as it had no validity. They were obecting for the lols/spurious reasons.
So if objections have no grounds they won't be taken on board.
€20 is an expensive lol.
Planning objections have to have validity whatever the cost of making them.
You cannot make one just because you want to annoy Francie or because you want to make political capital or attract votes. Which is the cheap potshot made by Kermit.
Hard to make a counter argument to that fact, I know.
More houses deosnt lower prices....surely the property boom of 03 to 07,would attest to this
With best meaning in the world,your flogging a failed idology
In all fairness during the celtic tiger,banks gave out money like water fueling bidding wars on housing
That anomaly has been more than cured
You can't rewrite the basic economics of supply and demand
Supply and demand deos not apply to a market with outside manipulation,as large investment funds/landlords will price those whom need houses out of the market
The average house price in large parts od dublin is now out of reach to those on average income,all things being correct,prices should collaspe to reflect this reality,but they dont and wont......would this not say to you,that the idology of market sort itself is utterly flawed and a fundamentally a failure?
Its never gonna change and those saying it'll be different this time are everybit as delusional as communists
Thats just ideology again,it's not economics
You're a farmer,you get subsidies,your cattle price is totally unrelated (albeit unique in that some years subsidies are the profit)
The cattle market is manipulated by those subsidies,yet a flooded market means the farmers still make a loss due to lower prices
Scarcity and they make a few bob
More supply means less demand,same with cattle and with houses or any commodity
The trick is finding the sweet spot where supply meets demand and price still has an incentive for builders to build
Argue with that and you may aswell tell me if I go out in the rain without a coat I won't get wet
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)