Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"average Dublin house prices should fall to ‘the €300,000 mark" according to Many Lou McD.

1575860626377

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Indeed.

    And a Visa type system may well become the norm in the future for Non EU citizens, though there will always be some commitment to hosting asylum seekers and refugees.

    But ultimatlely, the govt will likley need to create a relationship between available accomodation/resources and IPAs.

    How soon that will actually happen though, is anyones guess.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    So what you are saying is that there should be no migrants in ireland, period?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭abozzz


    Right now, yes.

    Similar to an extremely overweight person eating crap for the last 10 years, they'll be advised to cut out the vast majority of their current diet and refocus elsewhere.

    A multi year plan no doubt.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    So any migrant currently living in ireland, if they are not irish, should have to leave the country?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭abozzz


    If you want to fix multiple capacity crises, when years have already passed attempting to keep up with demand, then that leaves tackling demand as the only viable option left.

    Yes, there should be a concerted, thoughtful, practical and effective apparatus in place to reduce population over a set number of years.

    What's the alternative? Continue to build less housing than increasing demand? Depend on yet more migrant labour into a downward health system? Build less schools than there are children? And so forth. Years have been lost believing that nonsense.

    Again, what's the alternative?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Do you also believe in a cashless society and hate vaccines?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭abozzz


    You don't have any alternatives then.

    What you do have in abundance are weak attempts to categorise people so as to obfuscate real issues and real questions.

    It's easy to catch some people out, make no mistake, but this type of defence against reality is old hat. It's weak and worthless.

    If you can come up with an alternative to depopulation that doesn't repeat the same tired, provably ineffective ideas we've all heard for years, then you're just standing in the way of progress.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Depopulation isnt going to happen.

    And even if it did, and all the migrants were booted out of Ireland, well then all the irish living overseas would need to return, as they are migrants also you know.

    Which means you've just expanded your population, not reduced it.

    Nice work.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭abozzz


    So you have no alternatives.

    Years upon years in the making of multiple capacity crises due to mass migration, years and years to think it over, years to contemplate it, to analyse it, to form a single constructive thought.

    And you've essentially come up with "let's do that again"

    No thanks, the future isn't built on failed ideas. And it certainly isn't built on repeating failed ideas ad infinitum.


    Reducing the population in a thoughtful and effective manner over a set period of time is easily achievable. The only questions of merit to ask are who is preventing it, and the less mysterious question of why.


    Nobody is fixing this housing crisis without addressing mass migration.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    You arent talking about managing migration though, you are tallking about abolishing it altogether.

    Which, as I pointed out, means 1.5 million plus returning irish that will result in a greater population than what we have currently.

    I dont say there isnt a case for managing migration. But abolishing it is simply for the birds and rightfully so.

    It is never going to happen.

    Managed migration is required to fill skills gaps in any economy. It benefits all of us.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭abozzz


    Never say never.

    Especially not in a finite world thin on patience.

    Hands up who envisaged, 20 years ago, mass migration into Ireland at such scale they would be filling hotels with them and closing oap homes to fit them and housing crises because of it and vulture funds and protests and burning and not enough of anything etc.

    In other words, things change. And they'll change again if there's an iota of intelligence left in the place.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    We can absolutey say never!

    But to humour your fairy tale, How would you deal with the 1.5 million returning irish that have boosted your population and levels of homelessness, in your economic plan?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 174 ✭✭abozzz


    I don't let hypothetical problems stop me from solving real problems.

    Nobody is solving this housing crisis without addressing mass migration as the driver.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    You said reverse all migration, not stop mass migration.

    Thats two very different things.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    I never said "mass immigration is the anwser"

    No idea if people can't return. That's a pity if they can't. But I made a comment about people who have returned.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,111 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Spend the money and build the houses. Where they can't build it, sell it to those who can. They didn't do that during the last decade because the idiot councillors, most of them from left-wing parties actually objected to their own developments.

    One example of many idiotic decisions taken by Dublin City Council developers.

    Collect the rent owed and spend it on refurbishment.

    Raise the LPT and use the money on refurbishment.

    €292m unspent on housing, a disgrace. Let's face it, their own officials didn't agree with the idiotic left-wing approach during the last decade, neither did the Government or their officials, the people were left without any new social housing thanks to their policies and all you do is make excuses for the Council's incompetence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,111 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The fact of the unspent money shows that the support for the Council was there. Until you give an explanation of why the Council was so incompetent and had to give the money back, your thoughts hold zero relevance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,111 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Some blustering maybe, but the facts are clear.

    The Government gave DCC money to build social housing, DCC didn't spend it, DCC have questions to answer.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    It was a campaign for years by Sinn fein to make the housing crisis worse and worse. We have seen at every opportunity they have either blocked housing or when they had the chance to build they didn't.

    Now we are been told the best people to fix the issue is Sinn Fein.

    It was telling that Sinn Fein deleted the article off their website announcing their win and taking control over DCC, on the article saying how they would build houses and that is why they got voted in.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭Blut2


    But again, not all immigrants to Ireland are the same. Its a very Twitter-y method of debate to say you have to be either for or against all migration.

    How many doctors and nurses in Irish hospitals arrived here as asylum seekers? Almost none, they all arrive here legally with visas - because they have the qualifications to entitle them to this.

    Its perfectly logically consistent to want to both severely limit the number of very expensive to the state asylum seekers we take in as a country, while expanding the number of essential worker immigrants (doctors, nurses etc) we take in that actually benefit the country and its people.

    We're in the midst of the worst housing crisis in the history of the Irish state. There quite literally aren't enough houses for people. Theres nothing wrong with prioritising the people who're best for the country to take in and house.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,111 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Do you ever pause to think about why if things are so bad in Ireland as you and the other cheerleaders imagine, that so many people want to come to Ireland?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭Blut2


    County councils of all parties have been serial objectors to local developments:

    https://extra.ie/2019/12/09/property/objection-housing-development-taoiseach

    etc

    We had €1.52bn unspent last year in the national Department of Housing's last budget. Is that also a disgrace? Do you hold FG and FF responsible for that?

    DCC's underspend is also a problem obviously. But that amount still wouldn't have come anywhere near letting them build the thousands of social homes per year that it was suggested is in their capability. Which in reality would require far more national policy assisstance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭Blut2


    We're one of the richest countries on the planet, with no nearby military threats, and a temperate climate that will be relatively stable for the next hundred years. Hundreds of millions of people will obviously want to move here from places like Nigeria, Afghanistan and Somalia, that doesn't mean we're a well run country.

    Compare us to our actual peer group - places like Denmark or Austria - and we do much worse on many metrics. Metrics that could and should be easily fixed with better, smarter, government policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,111 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    You really don't have a clue, do you?

    The government don't build houses, local authorities do. The government provide money to local authorities to build housing, decent well-run councils build houses, ones run by Sinn Fein and a mish-mash of lefties sit on their arses and do nothing for five years. There is money unspent in the Department of Housing because councils were unable to spend it.

    As for the blocking of housing, some parties (SF) are far worse than others in blocking houses, but only one party (again SF) used their time in control of a local authority to block everything.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,111 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Denmark and Austria are not our peer group. Our peer group is Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal. Those are the countries we were behind in the 1970s, but we are now far ahead of.

    In relation to Denmark and Austria, we were very far behind them in the 1970s, now we are nearly level.

    Your comparison wipes out 50 years of progress in this country, a convenient excuse for your negative attitude.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭Blut2


    The national government releases funds to local authorities to build houses. Local authorities quite literally aren't able to directly raise the billions of euros required to build the "thousands of houses per year" from local taxes. The policy has to be set, and funded, at national level. As discussed in this very thread on the past few pages, with the exact maths given to explain why this is so.

    Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal have very little economic resemblance to Ireland in the year 2024. Spain and Italy are over ten times our size. Greece and Portugal are much poorer than us, with completely different economic structures to us.

    Denmark and Austria are similar sized EU countries to Ireland, with similar levels of wealth, and a similar economic structure. We should be in or around their peformance on key metrics like housing, healthcare and general quality of life. But we aren't, we're doing much worse. And the only reason for that is down to Irish govermental failures.

    What level we were at over 50 years ago is completely irrelevant to holding our current government to account. Leo Varadkar was born in 1979, how much impact did have as a political leader in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s?

    Ireland is currently suffering from literally the worst housing crisis in the history of the state. Our healthcare, education, and police services are crumbling because they aren't well funded enough. Homelessness is at an all time high. Quality of life is getting worse year to year for most people in the state. And this is all happening at a time when we're running a multi-billion euro surplus per year. The current dire state of affairs is entirely down to current bad government policy since they were elected in 2020.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I totally agree with all your points on immigration.

    But it is wrong to say: There quite literally aren't enough houses for people. 

    This is demonstrably untrue. Yes, it is correct to say that there are not enough houses currently available to rent or buy for people - but that's very different to saying "There quite literally aren't enough houses for people."

    Sorry to keep hammering home this point, but the sooner the distinction is more widely understood and discussed, the sooner the current housing issues can be solved.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,265 ✭✭✭Emblematic


    @hometruths wrote: This is demonstrably untrue. Yes, it is correct to say that there are not enough houses currently available to rent or buy for people - but that's very different to saying "There quite literally aren't enough houses for people."

    You think we have enough houses and flats for people?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Yes, based on population size, habitable housing stock and avg household size, the numbers indicate we currently have sufficient existing stock.

    Or at the very least the data does not suggest a shortage of crisis proportions.

    If you disagree, and you think we don't currently enough, are you able to say by how many you think we are currently short?



Advertisement