Is anyone surprised as this?
"Revealed on the BBC’s Nolan Show yesterday, some of the posts feature misogynistic language, while others reference sectarian slurs. "
I would guess that not a single supporter of Sinn Fein will feel the slightest bit embarassed by the antics of these MLAs.
I don't expect my TD to take up a foreman position. We don't generally vote for or appoint ministers based on their trade. I believe the current minister for Higher education is a college drop out. One time we'd a finance minister kept his money in his wardrobe. Current housing minister worked in insurance.
The residents of Priory Hall would likely agree, but given that he is the only party member with actual experience of building (some have priors in demolition) then it is very possible his input will be needed. I mean, do we actually believe that Eoin O'Broin knows anything about construction? Self publishing books on the subject does not an expert make.
I doubt it and hope not. What do you think?
Will party benefactor Tom McFeely be involved in delivering housing under the SF new government?
It shows how much I believe your moral outrage.
Hint: I don't.
Have at it.
You don't know how it works obviously. You are confusing paying someone for their labour to build and buying off the market. Not the same. Hedge funds pay to have properties built. They seem to think its worth while.
If you want an extention do you let the lads build it and then see how much they'll sell it to you for? No.
Where did my post say that?
Are you claiming that the PIRA killed Paul Quinn?
This post is extremely callous, with a complete disregard for the victim of a horrific beating by republican thugs. I cannot believe that someone sees such victims as being nothing but a part of a game.
The plight of the victims of the PIRA needs to be constantly highlighted until they have receive justice.
Developer margins are usually a good bit less than 10%. A LA will hire a developer to do a project for them. So where are these savings to be had, if the LA just buys directly from the developer when a project is finished?
There may be small margins here and there but the big savings you advocate is fantasy stuff, unless you think developers are going to reduce their prices because they are building for a LA?
What proof that building is cheaper? Im puzzled. Building over buying?
What are you basing this 'small margin' on?
We hire people for projects. The LA's didn't build the Luas lines, roads or housing estates. You really need do some basic research.
You don't know how business works obviously. Are the cuckoo funds losing money or are the Goldman sachs lads mixing cement? :) I'm not educating you on what should be very basic stuff. I showed my proof building is cheaper.
Building is cheaper than buying? How so? Maybe a small margin, but not much saving really.
Who gets to do the building? Do the LA's do it themselves or get contractors or developers in to do it for them?
Where is the cost-saving? Maybe land if the LA owns it, but in reality, there is not much saving as a Developer is not going to lower their price because the client is a LA, in fact they may even raise them because of the greater overheads.
I think your South Park economics is coming back to bite you Brucie....
Skip ahead in the discussion. I can't spoon feed you all the time.
Anyone looking to build over buying and leasing can have my support.
Building us cheaper than buying. Less buying more building. Buying bad, building good. Leasing worse.
Local authorities can build homes for considerably less than they are paying private developers for social housing, figures published by the Department of Housing show.
Skip ahead back to 2020?
The Department of Housing figures, based on competitively tendered local authority housing projects in 2019, show the cost per unit in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and in south Dublin was €277,500, while in Waterford city it was €243,100.
SF policy Affordable purchase homes would be available at, and below €250,000
Populist nonsense as usual.
Paywalled.... can you give me a jist or copy and paste the relevant details?
What is your point here, that LA should build their own?
Interesting that the era of development under Fianna Fail in the 1960s is now being held up as the model for the future.
I'll skip ahead...
I always had a suspicion that SF modelled themselves on the 1930s.
Debunking what now? As far as I can see you have never debunked anything dear ol Brucie. Just spouted off the same old tired soundbites about 'da guberment' and 'FFG etc..'
You wont fool Marko with that one! :)
I get it. Many of the people who were your comrades are now gone and you are fighting this fight alone, but still, that doesn't mean you are right on pretty much anything I have seen you post.
For example, we want to go back to the 1930's in terms of building social housing. Great, let's also have the same rates and building standards. 2 up and 2 down houses for everyone. (we cant recreate the land though!)
SF is against property taxes are they not?
Guess what paid for all those social houses back in the day, not one form of property tax but two!
Facts eh?
Sounds like you are making excuses already before they get into power. I'm sure if they go in with FF they will be used as another excuse for failures like the DUP up north.
You avoided my questions completely though. Do you think 60% social is the right way to go? Does that reflect the current demographic?
Who will build these 100K homes?
The poster literally asked me for a time period. I've no interest in you spouting the same clap trap, me debunking it and you disappearing only to raise it again down the road.
Never suggested that. All you bud.
So no opinion on Maria Cahill and the disgraceful treatment she has received from MLD and SF..... thought so... park that one aside, but lets talk about a NGAP contract for a few years.... makes sense!
Ah that old fallacy, of going back in time and talking about the 30's and the 50's in terms of housing...
Are you going to also say that LA's should become builders? Because it's 'cheaper'?
No idea of your angle there.
I don't pay much heed to it tbh. If the authorities have the info I'm sure they'll pursue it.
No. MLMD can have an opinion just like you or I.
From the 1930s up to about the 1980s. Back when housing was about building social and not being customers for cuckoo funds.
No party can fix decades of crisis in one term. I'll be happy if any party turns it around. I think SF have the right direction in mind.
Same people built the apartments we lease. Wasn't civil servants rolled up their sleeves and built prior social housing estates or laid tarmac.
Odd considering your posts in the Leo thread.... but funny as well.
Any comment on the accusations from Maria Cahill?
You don't find MLD to be a hypocrite?
How do you think SF will fix this "homeless crisis"? Do you agree with mixed developments where a portion is given to social housing or do you think we should build 100% social housing developments?
I see on the website the policy seems to be:
https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/55773
Over the lifetime of a government we would:
Deliver 100,000 public homes on public land; including 60,000 social homes, 30,000 affordable purchase homes and 10,000 affordable rental homes
Affordable purchase homes would be available at, and below €250,000
Affordable rental homes would be available at, and below €900 per month
Eligibility for affordable housing would be set at €50,000 for a single person and €75,000 for a couple.
So 60% go towards social and only 30% for affordable. Why such an imbalance towards social when they are in the minority?
How do these measures actually help any mid income earners? Also who will build these developments? Private or public sector?
When was the time when the welfare of society was paramount? Be specific with years now.
