I think you need to look up why they were objected to in the first instance (for starters 50% of the development was to be private housing. Social housing was increased by at least 100 houses. Can't do a link now but the journal has an article on the changes made from original proposal that was rejected. There are substantial changes to the make up of the development.
If you're against bad deals for the tax payer then you're surely against their housing policy? Even if it goes to plan (which it won't) those who will gain most from it, pay the least taxes, while making it harder for those who do pay taxes to buy property, SF have been pretty clear on their priorities here.
The 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.
Why did SF object to it? No private housing involved.
The original proposal was 50% private housing - the one objected too by most councillors. SF wanted to remove the private developer and get someone like Cluid or any of the not for profit house builders, but there was such a demand for housing, they could not start again.
Impede housing developments for as long as possible, declare a housing crisis, promise solutions, win elections. Screw the citizens in the process.
Initially yes.
Dublin City Council owned site, which would have seen 50pc of homes sold privately.
I prefer building and owning our own to gifting land for a percentage of housing on previously publicly owned land. I'm not answering any more questions. Two way is more interesting.
We all miss Francie lads, but I'm carrying a lot of weight here :)
So how do you explain over ten years of worsening housing crisis even back when SF were averaging 5% support? You're deluded if you believe what you just posted.
So you must be thinking the same as me then that SF and other parties are just objecting for the sake of it? Do you see why SF etc. objected to the revised scheme?
0% private housing on public land. Is that not what you keep looking for? SF still vote against it. Maybe they are not the party for you based on their objections to such a scheme?
Great so any ordinary person who wants to live there is not allowed to now
No.
The idea that FF/FG need the opposition to make them look bad is amusing.
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.”
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.
Maybe if FF/FG think everyone else, (rebel Lab, SF, SD, PBP) is the problem, after a decade of making housing worse, maybe it's long over due for them to begin looking inward?
Why did SF vote against "853 properties used for State-supported homes – a tenure mix of 40pc social housing, 40pc cost rental and 20pc affordable purchase."?
0% private housing in the proposal so why are SF blocking these developments and depriving people of homes?
I don't know. Is it still an issue of public land becoming private? By social, what does that mean these days? It use to mean council owned and built. Now it could be bought or rented or leased since they start cooking the books and changing terminology.
Not sure what all them questions are about to be honest. Why keeping bringing up private?
What in your own opinion was wrong with that scheme?
What would SF propose for that land?
They read as straight forward to me.
No idea. I would hope the land would remain 100% in public hands. A time will come when we've gifted away much of it and our leases expire. Then we'll have no option but to be in the pockets of private enterprise.
Good luck with that a chara!!!!
Poor Eoin badly holed below the waterline last night………bubble burst.
Why only mention Eoin? Point scoring? Let's be honest the two of them came across as clueless. The presenter Fran seemed to know more about how to fix the issue.
Your point was about value for money for tax payers, this answer doesn't address that at all via a scheme that will be absolutely awful for those that pay tax.
It's basically back to vacuous comments that have no substance.
Because he claimed to have all the answers and was shown up badly.
He wanted this debate.
So he’s telling developers behind everyone’s back don’t mind what SF are saying in public.
Ouch, between that and getting in an awful mess over Gerrys RA song at Xmas.
Belfast will be having a quite word with the blackrock college educated man of the people.
I have pointed out to you repeatedly that central government are not responsible for delivering social housing, they only set the framework to do so. The main responsibility is on local government.
Local government in Dublin has been dominated for most of the last decade by Sinn Fein and the left. It is only since the last local elections where FF, FG, Greens and Labour got a boost that we have seen progress on social housing as the retrograde policies of Sinn Fein at local level have been dismantled.
How come you know they were right to vote against it the first time, but know nothing of why they voted against it the second time?
Last night's poor showing by O'Broin was the 2nd by the party this week
When tackled on lowering the pension age by Sarah Mcinerney during the week,their social welfare spokesperson could only come up with 480 million of the 1.5 billion it would cost
When you hear Eoin o'Broin is privately telling developers to disregard what Sinn Féin say in public,its clear they are just bluffing policies
They just shout down the facts in the Dáil but they can't do that on radio and TV
Don't think either party came out of that debate smelling of roses, but for all Ó'Broin's bluster and big talk he was certainly particularly disappointing.
I suspect his poor showing will be more impactful to some floating voters who were considering SF because SOMEONE has to do something about housing than O'Brien's own pretty poor showing will have on anyone considering voting for the known quantity that is FF.
Yes…two in a row from poor Eoin…….apparently Connolly House stirring out of their slumber.
We would be back to you evading questions if I pursued this. Let's leave it at my preferring public builds on public land were we recoup monies as time passes and retain land. Not gift land for a temporary more expensive fix.
Thats false. LAs have not been dominated by SF. That's a lie you keep shilling. They had more seats in DCC for one term, just under 5 years and at that time FF/FG who were in government in all but name had much more. I know this off the top of my head because this convenient lie appears every so often.
If the left was so joined we'd have a left government. You cant claim they are some kind of block following SF on the one hand, then claim nobody wants to deal with SF on the other. Its dishonest yarnary and cover for FF/FG.
I was going by the article. Have reread it, it seems they were right the second time too. FF complaining about the tender process is amusing. Not enough bribes? FG must by creaming off too much.
Leaving the conspiracy nonsense aside about bribes what is actually wrong with the development? It's all social and affordable and cost rental no private houses.
Do you think it should be 100% social?
That's all we need in the city , another massive ghetto. Mixed development is the way to go!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)
