you are confused by your own posts now , yeah ?
We are on the Sinn Fein thread, why would he be mentioning others?
sf arent in govt ( yet ) so why do you keep mentioning the govt , and also keep trying to tell anyone else mentioning anyone else that this is a " sinn fein " thread and to stop mentioning anyone else ??
one rule for you and one for everyone else , youre not a ffg govt member are you blanch lol ?
What? How does that relate to this discussion?
Go on, we've been over this a few times, you have never been able to explain how and why it would be cheaper. Perhaps you were expecting to contract the lads that made the mica blocks.
i doubt that they are expecting dcc to literally build them , with their own workers like , unless of course you have a source for that ?
As many as they have tar all the roads and lay water pipes I imagine. You'd think they'd pay contractors......
how many times have you mentioned the government in this thread , and compared sinn fein to what the govt have achieved or implemented ?
I guess this means there won't be any building of homes any time soon if SF is expecting DCC to build them.
How many brickies does DCC employ?
We are on the Sinn Fein thread, why would he be mentioning others? There is a general RBB thread on his objections to housing, and if he had posted on that one and mentioned Sinn Fein, you would be calling him out for being off-topic.
The bit were he only mentioned SF voting against it suggests it to me mo chara. All I did was say amongst others basically. Don't let it keep you awake.
It's quite clear the issue was the numbers. Get over it.
It is bizarre, and doubling down repeatedly on it.
Nowhere did the poster suggest that it was just Sinn Fein, that is all in your mind.
It also might read to you that they had issue with the numbers of social and affordable, but with all due respect, I don't think anyone else posting on the subject would agree with you.
Boys, I said the poster suggested it was just SF, gave the idea, inferred, it was just SF. I never claimed he said it was just SF. SF was the only party he mentioned so I clarified:
Now for the other desperate bee in your blue bonnets, they had issue over not enough social and affordable.
The vote comes one year after councillors overwhelmingly rejected Glenveagh’s plans to develop the Dublin City Council owned site, which would have seen 50pc of homes sold privately.
So then we had:
An alternative plan proposed that the entire scheme be developed by the local authority, with 80pc used for social/cost rental and 20pc designated for affordable housing. However, following an assessment by the Department of Housing, it was feared this approach would result in delays of at least five years before work could even begin on such a large-scale project.
So they went with this:
A revised scheme put forward by Glenveagh will now see all 853 properties used for State-supported homes – a tenure mix of 40pc social housing, 40pc cost rental and 20pc affordable purchase.
Sinn Féin’s Housing spokesperson Eoin Ó Broin described the outcome of the vote as “disappointing, but not surprising”.
“Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Greens and Labour have gifted public land to a developer in exchange for unaffordable homes,” he said on social media.
To clarify:
“Sinn Féin supports the plan for the development of the Oscar Traynor Road site, led by Dublin City Council, with the site retained in public ownership and delivering 40% social housing, 40% cost/affordable rental and 20% affordable purchase.
“This is what was agreed by the City Council in March.
“The tenure mix is now established as the appropriate mix for the site and represents real progress.
“However, the revamped proposal from the developer Glenveagh, while retaining this tenure mix, does not deliver affordability for the 60% of the units in the development that would be cost rental and affordable purchase
So reads to me, they, amongst others, had issue with the numbers of social and affordable, (before pedantry gets the better of you, this link was provided earlier).
You boys are desperate. All this because I wanted to point out it wasn't just SF and they had reasons. That's all. Merciful hour lads. Get some orange slices and meet us back on the pitch next Sunday.
i wouldnt say anyone is " lying " the labour cllrs and eob have disputed that the houses are actually " affordable enough " , youd want to be extremely pedantic and pathetic to be latching on to " not enough " by that statement to be honest !
So nothing about not enough social and affordable as part of the scheme?
Not sure why Brucie is lying but thanks for backing it up.
I have read back, and you are not telling the truth.
why dont you do what the rest of us can do , and read the article ?
the labour cllrs that " broke rank " and eob from sf gave there " reasons " in that article .
Darragh Moriarty, one of three Labour councillors to vote against the Glenveagh proposal, said: “This evening, myself, Kevin Donoghue and Jane Horgan-Jones opposed the disposal of the Oscar Traynor Road site.
“We don’t believe handing it over to a private developer for them to take their slice will deliver the affordability we need.”
I cannot see anywhere in the article where SF say the reason they voted against the development due to there not being enough social and affordable housing in the proposal which is what you claimed.
If you could show me where they said that to backup your claim that would clear the whole thing up and prove you were not lying.
I know. Never said he did. Read back.
You seem upset. Yes let's leave it.
You'd really need to read the article.
The "shenanigans of FG" are apt on this occasion, as they're actually in government, and the above mentioned insurance claims were lodged whilst they were in government.
I regretfully will have to turn down your offer of a comparison in corruption Blanch, I have seen you throwing that accusation around like confetti in this thread to describe O'Neil using a state car, while you were simultaneously defending Leo Varadkar, and him being under criminal investigation in another.
I get it, you don't like Sinn Fein, but stop trying to talk from both sides of your mouth.
What have the shenanigans in Fine Gael to do with Sinn Fein other than as a method of distraction and deflection?
However, now that you point them out, can you confirm that you accept that Sinn Fein do not do things differently and are at least as corrupt as other political parties?
Oh dear lord, if you wish to travel that path of defence, Leo Varadkar (as leader of FG) was quite content to do NOTHING about Maria Bailey, until the local DL branch forced his hand.
Alan Farrell is still there.
Do you EVER stop and run your own argument over in your head before posting them Blanch?
SF only stopped him after the Indo came calling, that is the point.
I have to laugh at this, a "fallacious" comparison.....
Did you mean to type out "uncomfortable truth"?
So you just made a blind assumption and generalisation, with absolutely zero to back it up. The poster cdarby comes along, and points out the flaws in using sweeping generalisations (I mean seriously, how can you claim both, your man is both playing to an audience, and Sinn Fein have disowned him lol)?
When pointed out, that it's not exactly wise to start the sweeping generalisations, with hard evidence (about MB and AF) you claim it's "fallacious".
Did you ever stop and think that you do an awful lot of blind defending for FG ("as a green") Blanch?
Nonsense and a fallacious comparison.
Ok, let's focus on this.
For as long as he avoided national attention, that councillor would have been allowed play to anti-masker audience
Where is your evidence that this is a factual comment?
It's nonsense and an irrational comment that you know quite rightly you will not, because you cannot back up.
People on here would quite rightly be annoyed if someone was claiming equally nonsensical statements about other party's I'm sure.
Lets imagine we propose that FG would have been quite happy with Maria Bailey and her claim? We know fine well that they (FG) are ok with insurance claims within their ranks (this can be backed up) by looking at Alan Farrell.
As per - your letting rationality cloud your vision blanch152.
Not at all, it shows the duplicitous nature of Sinn Fein. For as long as he avoided national attention, that councillor would have been allowed play to anti-masker audience. That makes it worthy of comment.
He never said it was "just SF", that is a lie. You completely made up what he said, then you made up a false statement about SF reasons.
You are correct that it is time to move on, as your posts were a poor attempt at deflection and distraction based on misinformation.
What was the SF reasons to object to the proposal?
It's still not clear what the issue is apart from homes being built for people who need them.
