It was you who said:
They were saying there wasn't enough affordable or social.
That is incorrect. Do you want houses built or not? A 3 Bed house build to A rated standards between 250k and 306K to me seems fair.
Should the development be 100% social in your opinion?
You might disagree with all the non crony parties and that's cool but it wasn't just SF and it wasn't 'just 'cause'.
Again the point is ALL of the SF councillors voted against it. It was the government plus most Labour that voted for it.
SF says NO!!! Until they are the ones with reins?
Are they stealing a trick from the Rev. Ian?
Perish the thought.
Quite clear now that Sinn Fein prefer that no housing be built. Every time a scheme is changed it isn't enough so they vote against it again. This will continue ad infinitum.
Sad that people are being played like this by Sinn Fein and don't realise it.
Ah ok, its crony vs non-crony in your world view..... whats the slogan for SF at the next election? 'Drain the swamp!'
Sinn Fein can't afford to have the swamp drained. The bodies of the Disappeared might be found.
I see that Sinn Fein have voted in favour of fox-hunting in the North while opposing it in the South, in the latest of their partitionist policies. Surprised that the lads haven't been in here calling them out on it.
As for the poor foxes, does anyone know what happens when a fox crosses the border? Is it a Southern fox or a Northern fox?
Or did they only vote to shoot orange foxes?
Thwir position is absolute nonsense, as if you increase supply, the prices will fall and property becomes more affordable for all. SF and the left don't seem to understand this basic point of economics or - worse - they DO understand it and are trying to stop property being built to make the housing situation worse, and people angrier with the government.
It's also worth pointing out that social and affordable housing is by definition exclusive housing, available only to a limited number of people. Whereas 'normal' building drives down costs and increases availability for everyone.
I think it has to be the latter. Prior to about 2019 SF councillors used to have no problem in voting for a lot of the same type housing developments that they are currently voting against.
It has to be the strategy -
1) Gives SF more attention - and the PBP etc don't steal their thunder
2) SF can also claim the government the government are 'not doing enough'
--
I think SF no exactly what they are doing - O'Broin is not stupid. But he obviously thinks many of the electorate are.
It seems to be a concerted effort on the part of SF. Until they get the word from 'on high' to change tact.
SF change tactics when it suits them - they are extremely adept that From the EU, to the SCC to housing etc - among many other issues. They are impressive outfit in that sense, a good judge of the political climate (if they sell it to the grassroots of SF) and when to change. As once a decision is made it is very rare you see any dissent in the party line. it is kept 'in house'.
But yet they skillfully like to fall back on the past, because it plays well in NI and the diehard grassroots both in NI and the ROI. But for the general Irish electorate they can say it is history, now it is a new SF.
For an all island party it always amuses me SF never like their record examined in NI by those in the ROI. Suddenly it is a different jurisdiction - and THEY become 'partionist' almost.
That affordable housing scheme is terribly named. A lot of people hear 'affordable housing' and think it just means reasonably priced and not rip off priced housing and that all housing should be 'affordable housing'. As you say it is exclusive and in Dublin given the income limits, very exclusive. I've talked to friends about it and they all thought it was great that all LDA properties built would be social and affordable housing until they learned what the affordable housing scheme actually was.
Two things:
It could lead to lower pricing, but when the tax payer is the customer it never has to, so it doesn't.
And the whole point is to cater to working people who cannot afford housing to rent or buy.
The poster suggested only SF was against it and only because they wanted to control or own housing. Had to point out that wasn't the case.
Another article on the strange partitionist practice of Sinn Fein only wanting to shoot foxes with a Northern accent.
If the SD's were the most popular you'd be having a go at them and I'd be calling out your nonsense then two.
We know the government allow cronyism. Be stupid to support that with your vote.
Again, the poster suggested only SF blocked it and for no good reason. That was nonsense.
Apologies, I don't understand your point here. Increasingly the supply of something drives down the price of that thing. Increasing the supply of housing not only houses more people, but drives down the price of all housing, benefitting everyone.
Can you please explain what you mean about 'not leading to lower pricing' because the tax payer is the customer?
To your point, politicians of all stripes seem happy to block developments in their own constituencies, and then bemoan the lack of housing. SF are not the only culprits by any stretch of the imagination.
They don't need to lower pricing because the tax payer is covering all or in part for people who can't afford the costs themselves. Developers can charge what they like. They know people need housing and they know the state is waiting to lease or buy.
SF and the others gave good reason. It's not a matter of simply blocking housing, it's blocking housing they don't believe is fit for purpose. The poster who raised this tried to suggest it was just SF and they were blocking because they wanted to be in charge of housing or some other nonsense. That's not the case.
They gave 'reasons'. I would disagree that they are good reasons. As I've said above, more property being built will exert downward price pressure on property, benefiting everyone. You don't need to target property by privileging one demographic over another (as with affordable housing) if you build at a level that satisfies demand. You can't get there if SF, PBP, FF, FG et al are blocking developments to curry favour with NIMBY constituents or because they are 'not the right kind of property' (as if they are in a position to decide that).
Thats cool.
Some of us don't like the tax payer getting rode to fill private pockets and vote accordingly.
You keep talking about tax payers getting ripped off - I am not clear on how you think this is the case?
Affordable housing certainly does harm the tax payer as the people who benefit from these properties are those who pay the least (if any) tax.
Prices are too high. People can't afford it. The tax payer meets any slack. Prices don't need to go down.
We, the state, guarantee customers to developers for what ever price they set.
Affordable and social housing done the right way, (pay to have homes built) doesn't cost the tax payer half as much as leasing and buying from the market to use as affordable and social.
The huge flaws in your assumptions have been explained to you many times, yet you still come back with the same crazy ideas. Unbelievable.
But what has it to do with Sinn Fein?
Says the man runs away when faced with facts.
No flaws in looking at over a decade of bad policy and arriving at the conclusion it doesn't work.
I'll tell you. One lad posted a false narrative about SF alone, blocking a build for no reason. I called it out as the nonsense it was. Then another lad tried to deflect it on to why SF and others objections were wrong.
I achieved what I set out to do, called out nonsense. I suggest you follow the thread more closely.
Interesting Unionist perspective on Sinn Fein.
I am sure that the rabid response will be that nobody should listen to the Unionist or that he would say that. If I am right, that would only mean that he is correct in his analysis.
Just as I achieved what I wanted to do, which was call out the nonsense in your post.
By the way, I asked a few weeks ago for examples of housing developments that Sinn Fein supported. I am still waiting.
You didn't really though did you? You lied saying the objection was because there was not enough affordable and social housing in the development.
You then missed my follow up question.
Do you want houses built or not? A 3 Bed house build to A rated standards between 250k and 306K to me seems fair.
Thats a lie or a gross misunderstanding on your part.
I quoted their reasons directly.
I was to have houses built not buy or lease them.
Again, the poster made a nonsense comment regarding SF and I showed it as such.
Ok, I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying.
It seems to me thought that the same end goal - cheaper rents/capital costs for the state - can be achieved by allowing supply to increase. And blocking developments whether for ideological or NIMBY reasons is an obstacle to that happening.
Are you aware of SF's record in the North?
They allow all sorts of shenanigans. So if you want to vote against Cronyism, dont vote for SF either!
You didn't though that's why I asked the question.
Can you quote from that Indo article where they said that? The whole development is social and affordable.
