Right to Housing Referendum

Planning laws are long overdue updating and be brought into the 21st century. There is something inherently wrong when someone from, say, Wexford can object to a family house/home being built in Donegal or someone from Dublin doing likewise to a house in the west of Ireland or visa versa. Members and associates of organisations like An Taise and other environmentalists have abused this privilege for decades and it must STOP Spurious reasons like rare species of flora, insects, frogs etc are being used by these objectors to the determent of small villages which are gradually dying, being deserted by young couples who just cannot get planning even on their own family farm. Schools, pubs, shops etc. are closing due to this gradual exodus of a generation and once gone these basic services will never return - the countryside is gradually being turned into reservations for these very objectors

A right to housing could lead to an increase in bungalow blight and permanently affect our ability to get climate emissions under control.

The wording is absolutely crucial and unintended consequences need to be avoided. Putting something in the Constitution is a cop-out from dealing with real issues. That probably explains why nutters like Murphy and RBB are all for it.

If the bungalows are passive houses with air to water heating, the owners driving EV's - that's close to zero emissions. 😊....besides whether we reach zero emissions in this country or double it - it won't make a blind bit of difference as in global terms our total emissions is minuscule. China, India, Japan, Bangladesh and many more countries are currently building and have long terms plans to build scores of huge coal burning power stations which will spew out billions of tons of pollutants every hour of every day. Sadly certain delusional people currently in power in this country believe that if we reduce emissions by not driving or driving EV's, by reducing the no. of cattle grazing (almost organically !!) in the fields etc. etc. the planet will be saved. ....God help us !

If it's put into the Constitution that citizens have a right to housing, surely that puts an onus on the State to provide accommodation for every single person who needs it?

Am I wrong in thinking that?

What are these fooking services that you keep blathering on about in every one of these threads where you continually show your hatred rural living especially those one off houses.

Some villages once had Garda stations with local living gardai which was a very successful model.

Nowadays you give it the fancy term of community policing.

Now there is station 10 to 20 miles away with response times of whenever.

Having telephone lines, power lines strung across the country is not a service.

Likewise keeping the roads in some decent fashion would probably have to be done anyways to give access to farmers etc.

Or maybe you want the entire country devoid of anything except I suppose greenways for the lycra clad eejits to use.

A right to housing implies that someone has to provide housing no matter how little the intended recipient does to pay for it either up front or on a continual basis.

So what’s defined as ‘housing’?

Is it a house with a back garden big enough for a 14 foot trampoline and a pony that you don’t have to pay any rent for?

Would the right extend to me being allowed to stay in my home if I stopped paying my mortgage?

The state already provides a roof over the heads of almost all citizens who can’t provide for themselves (and tens of thousands of non citizens). The numbers sleeping rough are small relative to our population and we are often told that rough sleeping is a more complex issue than just access to shelter.

I think the state has done well to keep the headline homeless figure relatively stable over the last year despite having to source and pay for housing for tens of thousands of new arrivals. Will this right to housing extend to our Ukrainian friends and the record number of asylum arrivals we’ve had in 2022?

If the rate of building increases and FF/FG finally accept that large scale purely social housing developments (which solved housing crisis in the early days of the state) are needed then we can go some way to solving this crisis but I wouldn’t hold my breath (I also think we need to prioritise access to affordable housing for key workers in cities, but that’s more complex I think).

My view is it's a populist move to be able to claim 'Look at us, aren't we great, we gave everyone a right to housing'

That's my view too but maybe a miracle will happen when the wording is finalised (odds of that are worse than winning the lotto)

I'm against this on principle, the Constitution should not be a dumping ground for unpopular political matters of the day (see previous proposals to have an Irish Water referendum 🙄), we have no shortage of politicians, let them do the job they are paid to do and solve the problem.

Also, adding something like the into the constitution could have an absolute raft of unintended consequences down the line, solicitors and barristers will dine out well on it.

The ones that have been making the most noise about such a referendum are SF/PBP, so seems needless a FF mininster proposing it.

You'd wonder if the thinking was that it will be rejected purely because the current government introduced it, and theres plenty of the electorate lining up to give them a good kicking.

Would also diminish any appetite for such a rerun of same referendum if SF were to get into govt down the line, if it had already been defeated.

*I realise I'm probably creditiong FF with far more nous than they possess.

"In the 21st Century, modern rural dwellers legitimately require a whole range of costly and complex services including healthcare, social services, education, paved roads for transport, electricity, telecommunications and sanitary services, all of which are much more costly to deliver at lower population densities."

"In most cases, whether borne by government or utility companies, the costs are ultimately passed onto the wider population to become a hidden external cost."

There was no option of reform in the Seanad referendum, it was keep as is, or get rid.