They never seem to make it clear what those proposals are ?
Thats because they're willing to throw people wanting houses off a cliff so as to make the situation worse and blame the government
They think people won't realise
A bit like when they come on here,say something, it's debunked and then come back a few days later and repeat it again
My theory is,there's something they want and only government can deliver it
Whatever it is,it ain't housing
Yeah, that makes sense. Stopping houses being built solves the housing crisis.
Come on, that is just Comical Ali stuff. We all know the real story. Sinn Fein don't want the housing crisis solved by this government.
The days of Sinn Fein taking protection money from drug dealers, covering up paedophilia, arranging disappearances of “grasses” etc. are long in the past. The new Sinn Fein will bring free homes, free services, free bins, free education and free healthcare, they are the party of the people and will win the next GE by a landslide!
wow…….notes number of posts time of joining.
"y- you don't have enough posts! you've only just joined!"
thanks for your input
Are you speaking for the entire organization ? A lot of preprogrammed posters here would deny in blind obedience to the army council that sf was ever involved in such activities
As oppose to just making it worse like we have now? Rather than being worried about SF, maybe worry about the people looking for an affordable roof. If we'd no crisis there'd be no worries.
I asked you before but never got an answer to why SF voted against the Oscar Traynor development? What crony bad not fit for purpose reason did they cite? It's almost like SF don't want houses built.
A reminder again on what the scheme consists of:
A deal with developer Glenveagh will see 853 homes built at Oscar Traynor Road in Santry, 40 per cent of which will be used for social housing, 40 per cent for cost rental homes, and 20 per cent sold to low- and middle-income workers qualifying for the upcoming affordable purchase scheme.
I replied. I quoted from the same article. I don't speak for SF. I suggest you go back and read my reply.
If you're only interested is trying to score points against SF I'm not arsed getting involved.
What are you on about scoring points? It's a discussion forum. I think SF are blocking developments to keep housing an issue for the next GE.
As I said before it's no surprise SF are opposing many of these plans as SF have a very different approach for tackling the housing crisis compared to FF/FG government.
The so called affordable homes included in the Oscar Traynor Road proposal were off the wall and not at all affordable to the vast majority of working people. The full cost of these homes would have been €325,000 for a one-bed and up to €400,000 for a three-bed.
This is proof positive that as long as housing policy in this state is directed by wealthy developers, we will never fix the housing crisis.
This is about getting the best deal for people who need affordable housing and people who need social housing. Handing over public land to private developers in the middle of a housing crisis just makes no sense.
More lies and rubbish trying to excuse SF from blocking the much needed development which I will remind you again has no private houses for sale.
Recent increases in Government subvention and loan schemes meant the housing could be provided at a lower cost than previously estimated with affordable homes costing €204,000-€238,000 for a one bed to €250,000- €306,000 for a three bed, with cost-rental prices up to €1,500 a month for a two-bed apartment, the council said.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/construction-of-850-dublin-homes-at-oscar-traynor-site-approved-1.4735849
What is the SF approach? Object against everything until they get into power?
As I am unable to find your reply due to the poor search on the new site what was your justification to SF blocking this much needed and fair development?
Why are you bringing others posters and Jean McConville into it?
Absolute nonsense, this is an illusion to fool people into believing these are affordable homes, it means a €255,000 purchase price, plus up to €100,000 of an affordable housing subsidy which must be repaid to the Council at some future point for a two-bed unit is not affordable.
The true price of a so-called affordable unit would be at the very least €350,000, nowhere near affordable for ordinary working people, these rents and prices are way beyond the reach of those who are just above the income threshold to qualify for social housing.
When and why does the AHF scheme have to be paid back? What are the rules to the scheme? Can you link to that image you posted? I imagine its from some SF tweet?
I quoted the reason why SF, PBP, SD and some Labour were opposed. It's in the article.
Making a comparison in bringing something up that's already been discussed, like it hadn't.
Oh look....
And on it went.
So when you posted this today...
So you are either very forgetful or lying, just looking to keep raising the same aul' shite to what end I don't know.
Rest assured, it was discussed.
Thanks that reminded me. You had no idea why SF voted against it and still don't. No wonder why I forgot with your non answer.
Brazen lying it is so.
You claimed I never answered. Now you are switching tact. When you asked me why they did it I was nice enough to read up and tell you. I had no idea prior to that. Why? Because I don't hold SF's hand. I couldn't tell you half the things parties do.
You are looking foolish now horse.
You have to start paying towards the subsidy costs within a couple of years. Not sure on the rest of the questions to be honest all I know is these homes are not affordable homes and it's really not hard to see why SF and numerous other parties voted it down, they are giving away public land to a private developer in the middle of a housing crisis.
It was from a FF tweet actually, not that it matters though. I've seen articles by the independent and others which have no mention at all of the extra costs, they are trying to give off the illusion these homes are affordable by making some of the costs hidden so that newspapers can print off articles saying the government are building houses for 200,000 a month.
Can you provide a link to where you have to start providing towards subsidy costs? I can't see anything about it.
Foolish horse? I asked what was wrong with the development and your reply was "No Idea"
Do you think the scheme should go ahead considering there are no private houses for sale its all social and affordable? If not why now.
Cut the bull. You asked me about SF objecting. I read up on it and gave my opinion. We covered a few pages on it. Then today you bring it up again accusing me of having never answered. Give over.
No idea. Not been following. No idea if SF are on board now or not either. Maybe read up on it yourself?
Your opinion was "no idea" why SF objected to the development. I gave my opinion why they did. They do not want to see the current government build houses it's fairly simple. I did read up on it and posted links to the scheme which should be a SF voters dream development.
A quick reminder:
853 homes built at Oscar Traynor Road in Santry, 40 per cent of which will be used for social housing, 40 per cent for cost rental homes, and 20 per cent sold to low- and middle-income workers qualifying for the upcoming affordable purchase scheme
Recent increases in Government subvention and loan schemes meant the housing could be provided at a lower cost than previously estimated with affordable homes costing €204,000-€238,000 for a one bed to €250,000- €306,000 for a three bed, with cost-rental prices up to €1,500 a month for a two-bed apartment
During last nights Claire Byrne shambles on RTE1 it was claimed that what SF were proposing for housing would not work as it takes time for houses to be built. FG has been in government for 11 years and have done SFA. So if we are being told SF can't do what they propose as it takes time and FG has had lots of time and done diddly squat? we are left with this oxymoron.
I remember reading it somewhere at the time, just had a quick look for you but can't find it I'm sure you'll find it if you look hard enough.
I already cleared this up, those figures don't include the hidden costs you need to add on an extra hundred thousand to those figures to get the real cost.
They made some of the costs hidden so that government shill newspapers like the independent could post articles stating those figures you posted while at the same time not even mentioning the hidden costs people will have to pay, it's not hard to see how those homes are in no way affordable compared to similar projects just up the road which SF didn't oppose.
Well you made the claims so ill presume it's rubbish till you can back it up.
Is this the same RTE that banned SF from the leaders debate during the last election?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)
