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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

12357…56

Comments

  • #202
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    ok, can he change the law or guidelines again, so that they do have to now start implementing minimum densities, far higher than is currently the case?

    Because it appears, that the local authorities and planning are a massive part of the problem, they wont sort themselves out as they are obviously happy as they are. Someone is going to have to do something about it...

    youd wonder what eoghan murphy privately makes of all of this, is he merely a pawn? I wouldnt want that role and flack IF the role was simply created to make it look like something was being done, but all the vested interest snakes, actually blocked any change...


    It is one of the reasons I have been reluctant to criticise him. He has produced some better guidelines, he is in a public consultation process on some other better ones, his work on new guidelines for student accommodation have worked, albeit they are very expensive, but every student in student accommodation is one less competing in the private residential market. so he has done many of the high-level things that needed to be done.

    My biggest criticism would be the pretense by the government that they can sort it. They can't, they need the input of too many other players.

    We all have a chance in the next local elections to change things, but I suspect that the candidates who promise to limit development in your local immediate area will win most of the votes. After all, those that don't live in your area yet, don't have a vote.


  • #203
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    ok, can he change the law or guidelines again, so that they do have to now start implementing minimum densities, far higher than is currently the case?

    Because it appears, that the local authorities and planning are a massive part of the problem, they wont sort themselves out as they are obviously happy as they are. Someone is going to have to do something about it...

    youd wonder what eoghan murphy privately makes of all of this, is he merely a pawn? I wouldnt want that role and flack IF the role was simply created to make it look like something was being done, but all the vested interest snakes, actually blocked any change...

    It's not an either or situation. The LA's can't bring in broad national policy as easily as Eoghan and Leo can. Both sides carry blame, although I personally don't see it as sides. It's all government both local and national. They are all elected and they all, to some degree, create policy.
    NAMA giving cheap loans to private developers and Eoghan thinking merely more builds will suffice is the root of the mindset/problem. Each LA has their own issues and politics too, but we need a change of tack from the top down more than anything. Eoghan is the minister overseeing all LA's and housing. That's his job not Larry the local councilor from PBP or what ever.


  • #204
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's not an either or situation. The LA's can't bring in broad national policy as easily as Eoghan and Leo can. Both sides carry blame, although I personally don't see it as sides. It's all government both local and national. They are all elected and they all, to some degree, create policy.
    NAMA giving cheap loans to private developers and Eoghan thinking merely more builds will suffice is the root of the mindset/problem. Each LA has their own issues and politics too, but we need a change of tack from the top down more than anything. Eoghan is the minister overseeing all LA's and housing. That's his job not Larry the local councilor from PBP or what ever.


    Have you followed any of the discussion today?

    The issues with planning implementation at local authority were clearly set out and links provided. The actions taken by the Minister were clearly set out and links provided. The failure of the local authorities to respond was clearly set out and links provided. The restrictions on the Minister's ability to interfere as set out in the Planning Acts were stated and links provided.

    How much evidence do you need to change the broken record that "Eoghan" is overseeing all LA's and housing. Once again four mentions of Eoghan and Leo in a post, you have a fixation.

    As for the NAMA properties, I have been through this many times. The country needs 35,000 homes a year, yet you think the biggest problem is that the Housing Agency bought 20, yes 20, houses back from Cerebus that NAMA had previously sold them. Unbelievable.

    If you think that Eoghan Murphy is the problem, rather that tossing out platitudes like a politician, maybe you could explain in concrete detail what you expect the Minister to do, giving links to back up what you are saying.


  • #205
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    We all have a chance in the next local elections to change things, but I suspect that the candidates who promise to limit development in your local immediate area will win most of the votes. After all, those that don't live in your area yet, don't have a vote.
    I dont think we will have the chance to rectify anything, they all run on a "develop as little as possibly can be gotten away with" platform, from what I can tell anyway...

    that is very true, except those living at home with their parents or renting in the area, they would be local voters and it would make sense for them that supply were increased...

    one good change that was made, was anything over 100 units going straight to ABP, the decision time is pretty quick now... I wouldnt commend them on much else. The cost to construct apartments is simply way too high for the average joe to afford. Developers are let build what is most profitable, not what is better use of land and best for society. (this is then supported at all levels of planning, particularly local).

    Say you had a magic wand, I would reckon, simply insisting and mandating far higher densities and addressing the cost of construction for apartments could nearly single handedly sort this crisis...


  • #206
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    NAMA giving cheap loans to private developers [...] thinking merely more builds will suffice is the root of the mindset/problem.

    Sound-bite posting tbh, no logic to the theory that more building is part of the problem of housing shortage.

    More houses = fewer houses :confused:


  • #207
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    I dont think we will have the chance to rectify anything, they all run on a "develop as little as possibly can be gotten away with" platform, from what I can tell anyway...

    that is very true, except those living at home with their parents or renting in the area, they would be local voters and it would make sense for them that supply were increased...

    one good change that was made, was anything over 100 units going straight to ABP, the decision time is pretty quick now... I wouldnt commend them on much else. The cost to construct apartments is simply way too high for the average joe to afford. Developers are let build what is most profitable, not what is better use of land and best for society. (this is then supported at all levels of planning, particularly local).

    Say you had a magic wand, I would reckon, simply insisting and mandating far higher densities and addressing the cost of construction for apartments could nearly single handedly sort this crisis...


    What else do you expect developers - or anyone else in the private sector - to do? Each developer (I presume) seeks to maximise his profits and to survive in business as long as possible. It's the competition amongst developers that limits and gradually reduces their profits until there is stability. Most developers build average houses by definition - to stay in business.
    When expensive houses/apartments are built, and occupied, there is a cascade effect further down the ladder.
    As house prices in Dublin increase occupiers can cash out if they wish and move abroad or to rural areas and increase their living standards appreciably on the surplus value.
    The housing market is highly complex. Above all it is a market.


  • #208
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's not an either or situation. The LA's can't bring in broad national policy as easily as Eoghan and Leo can. Both sides carry blame, although I personally don't see it as sides. It's all government both local and national. They are all elected and they all, to some degree, create policy.
    NAMA giving cheap loans to private developers and Eoghan thinking merely more builds will suffice is the root of the mindset/problem. Each LA has their own issues and politics too, but we need a change of tack from the top down more than anything. Eoghan is the minister overseeing all LA's and housing. That's his job not Larry the local councilor from PBP or what ever.


    Would you regard Leo and Eoghan as 'class enemies'?



    Just to help shorten your posts.


  • #209
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    Ah well now, could explain a lot!
    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-suggested-creating-anonymous-accounts-online-to-make-positive-comments-on-news-37275799.html


  • #210
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Edward M wrote: »
    Ah well now, could explain a lot!
    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-suggested-creating-anonymous-accounts-online-to-make-positive-comments-on-news-37275799.html

    Was reading that this morning alright, might explain Leo's reluctance to give up his propaganda unit (and the millions of euro of taxpayers cash associated with it ) and why he held on to it for dear life until he coulddo so no longer.

    I wonder if he has an account on here:)?


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Good loser wrote: »
    What else do you expect developers - or anyone else in the private sector - to do? Each developer (I presume) seeks to maximise his profits and to survive in business as long as possible. It's the competition amongst developers that limits and gradually reduces their profits until there is stability. Most developers build average houses by definition - to stay in business.
    When expensive houses/apartments are built, and occupied, there is a cascade effect further down the ladder.
    As house prices in Dublin increase occupiers can cash out if they wish and move abroad or to rural areas and increase their living standards appreciably on the surplus value.
    The housing market is highly complex. Above all it is a market.
    The government could do what has worked elsewhere - push higher density and provide tax breaks for developments with a certain percentage of social/affordable housing units. This isn't rocket science here... there is no one magic bullet, so ignore the far left claiming the only way to solve this problem is by LAs building social units and that NAMA and capitalism are the problem. This is a policy/taxation issue more than anything else.


  • #212
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I see the nonsensical non-stories are taking over the thread again today.

    More interestingly, there seems to be some differences about where house prices have been and where they are heading in the future.

    First up, we have RTE regurgitating a press release to say the house prices are going up:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0903/991283-s-p-on-house-prices/

    "A new report has predicted that house prices are set to grow at a "rapid" 9.5% this year and 8% in 2019 as the housing supply catches up with demand."

    At the same time, we have a building boom in Fingal:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0901/990930-fingal-construction/

    I did point this out a few weeks ago, that Fingal were so much better than the likes of DCC or South Dublin, and this is backed up here:

    "He said other Dublin local authority areas are not building as much as Fingal, often due to local opposition to new developments."

    The government is also moving finally on State land. Hopefully, Donnybrook, Ringsend and Broadstone bus depots can be evicted for a start.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/state-to-target-religious-land-in-homes-plan-37273973.html

    And now the most interesting part of the story

    https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/prices-fall-for-first-time-in-five-years-37273956.html

    Despite the predictions above of 9.5% rises, house prices are actually falling in some areas. North County Dublin and Dublin 15 have seen price falls, which ties in with the Fingal building boom story. It seems that some things may be changing.

    Finally, a little anecdote. Walking to Croke Park yesterday, I passed the newly built Summerhill Health Centre. I wasn't surprised to notice that most of it was only a two-storey building just a couple of hundred yards from O'Connell Street. After all, DCC have planning responsibility for this area. If they were serious about solving the living and housing issues in central Dublin, they would have sent the plans for that building back to the developers/HSE and told them to build at least eight storeys high. But no, our incompetent local authority just let them build it.


  • #213
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    http://www.thejournal.ie/modular-homes-dublin-city-council-housing-4220629-Sep2018/


    More low-density construction by Dublin City Council.

    A quick fix that will make things worse in the medium term.


  • #214
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,294 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The government is also moving finally on State land. Hopefully, Donnybrook, Ringsend and Broadstone bus depots can be evicted for a start.


    And all these new residents will get to work how if this happens?


  • #215
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    VinLieger wrote: »
    And all these new residents will get to work how if this happens?

    As they would be living in walking distance from the city centre and docklands, along public transport lines, I thought that would be obvious.

    As for the rest, most morning bus journeys start in the suburbs.

    The buses have to travel out from city centre locations to start their journey, cutting staff productivity. There is already a bud depot in Harristown.

    Tyrellstown, Citywest, Kilruddery, places like that would be good locations.


  • #216
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/modular-homes-dublin-city-council-housing-4220629-Sep2018/


    More low-density construction by Dublin City Council.

    A quick fix that will make things worse in the medium term.

    Lol....

    Funnily enough there was a certain cohort of posters who were all on for the likes of this whenever it was mooted by the govt a few years ago.......

    Let me guess though.... this is (now) a bad idea because it's a DCC proposal, and the DCC doesn't have a FG majority. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Lol....

    Funnily enough there was a certain cohort of posters who were all on for the likes of this whenever it was mooted by the govt a few years ago.......

    Let me guess though.... this is (now) a bad idea because it's a DCC proposal, and the DCC doesn't have a FG majority. :D

    Don't see anyone who favoured the proposal then being against it now.

    Interesting that it took DCC over three years to put the thing in place.


  • #218
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Don't see anyone who favoured the proposal then being against it now.

    Interesting that it took DCC over three years to put the thing in place.

    So... it was a good idea then = still a good idea now?

    Or were the lads who were complaining about it then = right all along?

    Which is it?


  • #219
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    So... it was a good idea then = still a good idea now? Which is it?


    It was never a good idea, only a short-term fix.


  • #220
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It was never a good idea, only a short-term fix.

    Wasn't that the very sentiments of 'de left' back then, and the government cheerleaders told them to cop themselves on, something about never being happy/serial whingers/can't do right for wrong etc etc etc?

    No doubt some of them usual suspects will be along soon to tell us that this is now still a bleedin deadly idea, and posters that give out about it are (see labels above)

    Glad you've seen the light B.


  • #221
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Wasn't that the very sentiments of 'de left' back then, and the government cheerleaders told them to cop themselves on, something about never being happy/serial whingers/can't do right for wrong etc etc etc?

    No doubt some of them usual suspects will be along soon to tell us that this is now still a bleedin deadly idea, and posters that give out about it are (see labels above)

    Glad you've seen the light B.


    Didn't see me supporting it back then.

    That thread was about the tender, very little discussion about whether it was a good or bad idea.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    VinLieger wrote: »
    And all these new residents will get to work how if this happens?
    Bus depot ≠ bus stop


  • #223
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    blanch152 wrote: »
    http://www.thejournal.ie/modular-homes-dublin-city-council-housing-4220629-Sep2018/


    More low-density construction by Dublin City Council.

    A quick fix that will make things worse in the medium term.
    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Lol....

    Funnily enough there was a certain cohort of posters who were all on for the likes of this whenever it was mooted by the govt a few years ago.......

    Let me guess though.... this is (now) a bad idea because it's a DCC proposal, and the DCC doesn't have a FG majority. :D

    There's absolutely nothing wrong with high-quality prefabricated house construction; the issue for me is the question as to where these houses will be built. In the major urban centres, we should not be building low-density housing of any kind (regardless of prefabrication or not).

    I'm also concerned at the quality of the prefabricated units they will be purchasing.

    (EDIT: I can't see that thread - presuming it's an AH thread?)


  • #224
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Didn't see me supporting it back then.

    No one said you did, but no doubt your fellow travellers who did will be along soon telling you to give over soon.....
    That thread was about the tender, very little discussion about whether it was a good or bad idea.

    On the contrary - the title was about the tender but apart from 2 or 3 posts the discussion was back and forth about how this was a crap idea v "at least the govt are doing something about it/ serial whingers/ beats a damp bedsit" arguments.

    You seem to be now agreeing with everyone who said it was a bad idea back then too, this is progress.


  • #225
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    No one said you did, but no doubt your fellow travellers who did will be along soon telling you to give over soon.....


    On the contrary - the title was about the tender but apart from 2 or 3 posts the discussion was back and forth about how this was a crap idea v "at least the govt are doing something about it/ serial whingers/ beats a damp bedsit" arguments.

    You seem to be now agreeing with everyone who said it was a bad idea back then too, this is progress.


    To be clear, I am saying that it is a bad idea to build low-density prefabricated housing within the DCC council area. The outskirts of the city as a short-term quick fix would be a different question with possible a different answer, but I haven't looked into pre-fabricated housing in any detail. Nice of you to twist my response anyway.

    Speaking of DCC, I can't find it online, but there was a paragraph in the Indo today in the middle of an article about housing about how they are once again missing targets for the building of housing.


  • #226
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    To be clear, I am saying that it is a bad idea to build low-density prefabricated housing within the DCC council area. The outskirts of the city as a short-term quick fix would be a different question with possible a different answer, but I haven't looked into pre-fabricated housing in any detail. Nice of you to twist my response anyway.

    Speaking of DCC, I can't find it online, but there was a paragraph in the Indo today in the middle of an article about housing about how they are once again missing targets for the building of housing.

    The modular homes where for the DCC area back then too.


    But aside from this, you now seem to be giving out that DCC have implement a FG/Labour plan/commitment.

    As I said previously, this is progress.


  • #227
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    The modular homes where for the DCC area back then too.


    But aside from this, you now seem to be giving out that DCC have implement a FG/Labour plan/commitment.

    As I said previously, this is progress.


    I am giving out that DCC keep making the wrong choices from the options available to them.

    There have been a lot of initiatives put in place by the government for the LAs to avail of, and there are other ones that have always been available (e.g. just build high density social housing).

    DCC have a habit of consistently picking the wrong ones.

    As I said, pre-fabricated low-density housing may have a place in solving the homelessness problem, but the middle of the city of Dublin is not the place. Do you agree with that, or are you just interested in point-scoring?


  • #228
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I am giving out that DCC keep making the wrong choices from the options available to them.

    There have been a lot of initiatives put in place by the government for the LAs to avail of, and there are other ones that have always been available (e.g. just build high density social housing).

    DCC have a habit of consistently picking the wrong ones.

    As I said, pre-fabricated low-density housing may have a place in solving the homelessness problem, but the middle of the city of Dublin is not the place. Do you agree with that, or are you just interested in point-scoring?
    Ignoring the "pre-fabricated" issue, as it's a bit of an outdated argument* nobody should be building low density inside the M50 at the moment.


    *there are obviously still **** pre-fab buildings, I'm not arguing for using those.


  • #229
    Nitrogan
    Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭Nitrogan


    Who has been running DCC for the last 10 years?


  • #230
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Nitrogan wrote: »
    Who has been running DCC for the last 10 years?

    10 years ago was 2008.

    2004 - 2009 Labour and FF were the 2 biggest party's.
    2009 - 2014 Labour and FG.
    2014 - now. SF and FF.


  • #231
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Point taken about who is running the councils. But it will make zero difference. They are all narrow minded nimby snakes !


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/were-taking-back-the-city-protesters-occupy-third-dublin-property-37296225.html


    What do these idiots think they are going to achieve?

    Private property rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and this type of thing will only encourage property owners not to rent out housing.


  • #233
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    This is a step in the right direction. https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/housing-minister-plans-clampdown-on-short-term-lets-amid-housing-and-rental-crisis-862698.html


  • #234
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Sound-bite posting tbh, no logic to the theory that more building is part of the problem of housing shortage.

    More houses = fewer houses :confused:

    Using our money to finance private builds many can't afford in a housing crisis, for private profit making, is not working and a waste of tax payer money. Pretty clear.

    Dismissive fare as per. I cite fact then I give an opinion on it you don't like so you try dismiss the whole shebang by making up a view never posed. Tiresome. Kills discussion. That's the point no? Theres others better than yourself at that.


  • #235
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Good loser wrote: »
    Would you regard Leo and Eoghan as 'class enemies'?

    Just to help shorten your posts.

    I'd class them as a very bad deal for the taxpayer.
    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    10 years ago was 2008.

    2004 - 2009 Labour and FF were the 2 biggest party's.
    2009 - 2014 Labour and FG.
    2014 - now. SF and FF.

    Leo says 'No quick fix'. Mind a few more non FG politicians on local councils in recent years are supposed to be the problem.
    Not sure what magic money tree Eoghan and Leo were shaking for the money announced the other day. Seems they can find it when they want to alright.

    Seems another news item about tax breaks for landlords and a professor in the know telling them they are wrong not to build social housing are things we should be dismissing I suppose. Keep the tax waste going. Sure let's invite ten popes over begorrah ;)
    Be embarrassing when Leo Kowtows to Trump with the world watching. Sure he'll recant after he gets his pat on the head.

    What FG/FF are doing is making the housing crisis worse. The councils made up of numerous parties including FG play a role.


  • #236
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I'd class them as a very bad deal for the taxpayer.



    Leo says 'No quick fix'. Mind a few more non FG politicians on local councils in recent years are supposed to be the problem.
    Not sure what magic money tree Eoghan and Leo were shaking for the money announced the other day. Seems they can find it when they want to alright.

    Seems another news item about tax breaks for landlords and a professor in the know telling them they are wrong not to build social housing are things we should be dismissing I suppose. Keep the tax waste going. Sure let's invite ten popes over begorrah ;)
    Be embarrassing when Leo Kowtows to Trump with the world watching. Sure he'll recant after he gets his pat on the head.

    What FG/FF are doing is making the housing crisis worse. The councils made up of numerous parties including FG play a role.


    Totally predictable that the only politicians you mention in your post are Leo and Eoghan, and totally predictable that you absolve all others from blame for the crisis, despite the quite interesting discussion that has taken place on these threads since your last identical contribution.


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This is a step in the right direction. https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/housing-minister-plans-clampdown-on-short-term-lets-amid-housing-and-rental-crisis-862698.html


    Interesting, my question is whether it will work.

    Rather than give it to the Councils to operate, and we know how useless DCC is, why don't they give it to Revenue. There is an incentive in terms of higher taxes if Revenue get involved.


  • #237
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/were-taking-back-the-city-protesters-occupy-third-dublin-property-37296225.html


    What do these idiots think they are going to achieve?

    Private property rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and this type of thing will only encourage property owners not to rent out housing.

    I remember people citing this when FG were introducing the HHC and LPT.

    They were accused of being freemen or some other nonsense whenever anyone mentioned their private property and the constitution.

    Moving on.

    I see the health crisis is back in the headlines again.


  • #238
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I remember people citing this when FG were introducing the HHC and LPT.

    They were accused of being freemen or some other nonsense whenever anyone mentioned their private property and the constitution.

    Moving on.

    I see the health crisis is back in the headlines again.

    And your point is?


  • #239
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I remember people citing this when FG were introducing the HHC and LPT.

    They were accused of being freemen or some other nonsense whenever anyone mentioned their private property and the constitution.

    Moving on.

    I see the health crisis is back in the headlines again.
    The arguments were freeman nonsense; are you claiming that they weren't?


  • #240
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    The arguments were freeman nonsense; are you claiming that they weren't?

    Too broad to specifically say, Just as branch's line about the constitution and private property is too vague to make any comparison.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Too broad to specifically say, Just as branch's line about the constitution and private property is too vague to make any comparison.

    But you were the poster who made a comparison

    :confused:

    Why did you raise the issue of comments from years ago if no comparison between the comments was possible?


  • #242
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    But you were the poster who made a comparison

    :confused:

    Why did you raise the issue of comments from years ago if no comparison between the comments was possible?

    Why the confusion?

    You are proclaiming that private property rights are enshrined in the constitution.

    I am saying that the same argument was made by some opponents of FGs LPT/HHC and that they were labelled as Freeman loonys etc etc etc.

    Like the modular homes thing, it appears that certain arguments hold more sway when/If it suits.

    I hope this clears up your confusion.


  • #243
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Why the confusion?

    You are proclaiming that private property rights are enshrined in the constitution.

    I am saying that the same argument was made by some opponents of FGs LPT/HHC and that they were labelled as Freeman loonys etc etc etc.

    Like the modular homes thing, it appears that certain arguments hold more sway when/If it suits.

    I hope this clears up your confusion.

    But they weren't the same argument.

    The argument made by opponents of FG's LPT/HHC that the government could not impose a tax because of property rights in the Constitution is clearly and unequivocally loony and Freeman nonsense. It also ignores the right of the Government to raise taxes as set out in the Constitution.

    The argument made by me that the property rights in the Constitution may be an issue for the loony protestors who seem to think that Dublin City Council can compulsory purchase a house just because they want to and hand it over to the community, is a completely different argument. It has nothing to do with the general imposition of a tax and because it is about a single property rather than property in general, has a clash with the individual property rights in te Constitution. Furthermore, there is considerable case law around the difficulties of compulsory purchase and adequate compensation, which are linked to the property rights in the Constitution.

    I would have thought that the differences between the two situations and the two arguments would have been clear to anyone posting here, so I apologise for my failure to explain them in a simpler fashion.


  • #244
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    But they weren't the same argument.

    The argument made by opponents of FG's LPT/HHC that the government could not impose a tax because of property rights in the Constitution is clearly and unequivocally loony and Freeman nonsense. It also ignores the right of the Government to raise taxes as set out in the Constitution.

    I don't recall that exact argument being made tbh, I recall an argument being made that imposing a recurring annual recurring tax on a private residence which the owner may already own outright, and/or already paid stamp duty on, and failure to comply with the tax could result on a lien against the property might clash with property ownership rights that were enshrined in the constitution.

    The argument made by me that the property rights in the Constitution may be an issue for the loony protestors who seem to think that Dublin City Council can compulsory purchase a house just because they want to and hand it over to the community, is a completely different argument. It has nothing to do with the general imposition of a tax and because it is about a single property rather than property in general, has a clash with the individual property rights in te Constitution. Furthermore, there is considerable case law around the difficulties of compulsory purchase and adequate compensation, which are linked to the property rights in the Constitution.
    I would agree with you on the above, I do not condone the actions of said protesters either.
    I would have thought that the differences between the two situations and the two arguments would have been clear to anyone posting here, so I apologise for my failure to explain them in a simpler fashion.

    I think you might have (rather spectaculary) missed my entire point that I made for you regarding how arguments can be dismissed or endorsed depending on what party or individual makes them.

    To simplify it even further.

    You hold the view that someone who holds the idea that placing an annual recurring tax on a family home would be unfair due to private property rights being enshrined in our constitution is spouting Freeman loony nonsense.

    I had Enda labelled many things, but never a loony Freeman.
    Excerpts from Dail Debate, Wednesday 2nd February 1994
    Mr Enda Kenny TD
    “It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person's home, and by so doing grind him into the ground. Indeed in cases it could probably be unconstitutional” “It reminds me of a vampire tax in that it drives a stake through the heart of home ownership, through enthusiasm and initiative, and sucks the life blood of people who want to own their own home and better their position” “If the Government fail to appreciate the passion with which people will defend their rights to own their home and have it looking as well as it should, it is making a serious

    Which takes us back to how it depends on who's making the argument. :)


  • #245
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I don't recall that exact argument being made tbh, I recall an argument being made that imposing a recurring annual recurring tax on a private residence which the owner may already own outright, and/or already paid stamp duty on, and failure to comply with the tax could result on a lien against the property might clash with property ownership rights that were enshrined in the constitution.



    I would agree with you on the above, I do not condone the actions of said protesters either.


    I think you might have (rather spectaculary) missed my entire point that I made for you regarding how arguments can be dismissed or endorsed depending on what party or individual makes them.

    To simplify it even further.

    You hold the view that someone who holds the idea that placing an annual recurring tax on a family home would be unfair due to private property rights being enshrined in our constitution is spouting Freeman loony nonsense.

    I had Enda labelled many things, but never a loony Freeman.



    Which takes us back to how it depends on who's making the argument. :)


    That is loony Freeman nonsense, without the Freeman connotations.


    Edit: But why you think a 24-year old statement by a back-bencher in the Dail is relevant to any debate now is curious to say the least.


  • #246
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Just bringing up something that has gotten more and more laughable the more I think about it! Eoghan Murphy is now devil incarnate as if he single handedly is trying to block bringing about change with the housing crisis! as if its Murphy digging his heels in and fighting varadkars, coucils, councillors etc. valliant efforts!

    It really is a joke and shows you the level of thinking of your typical voter :rolleyes: Head on over to the journal for some amusement!


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    I don't recall that exact argument being made tbh, I recall an argument being made that imposing a recurring annual recurring tax on a private residence which the owner may already own outright, and/or already paid stamp duty on, and failure to comply with the tax could result on a lien against the property might clash with property ownership rights that were enshrined in the constitution.



    I would agree with you on the above, I do not condone the actions of said protesters either.


    I think you might have (rather spectaculary) missed my entire point that I made for you regarding how arguments can be dismissed or endorsed depending on what party or individual makes them.

    To simplify it even further.

    You hold the view that someone who holds the idea that placing an annual recurring tax on a family home would be unfair due to private property rights being enshrined in our constitution is spouting Freeman loony nonsense.

    I had Enda labelled many things, but never a loony Freeman.



    Which takes us back to how it depends on who's making the argument. :)
    Biggest. Strawman. Ever.


  • #248
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Too broad to specifically say, Just as branch's line about the constitution and private property is too vague to make any comparison.
    That's a cop out isn't it? They either had legitimate Constitutional questions on the legality of such a tax or they had freeman arguments. It's not some nuanced issue and you've made the claim - I take it you can't back it up...


  • #249
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Just bringing up something that has gotten more and more laughable the more I think about it! Eoghan Murphy is now devil incarnate as if he single handedly is trying to block bringing about change with the housing crisis! as if its Murphy digging his heels in and fighting varadkars, coucils, councillors etc. valliant efforts!

    It really is a joke and shows you the level of thinking of your typical voter :rolleyes: Head on over to the journal for some amusement!

    You'd be forgiven for thinking poor aul' young Eoghan has his hands tied yet himself and Leo are not calling for any radical changes. In fact they are pushing the failed policies and wasting tax payer money with gusto compared to the LA's.
    No queries as to were the boyos got the recent cash fall for their latest waste of tax payer money. It certainly is magic.

    The balaclava wearing thugs of mystery taking out the housing protesters are a throw back to the FG policing of the good old days of the law and order party. The protesters were engaged in an illegal act, but there's something blue shirty about state men carrying out tasks in disguise to hide their shame.
    I can only imagine the hi-jinks and shenanigans on here if SF were in power under the exact same circumstances.


  • #250
    Red_Wake
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Red_Wake


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Just bringing up something that has gotten more and more laughable the more I think about it! Eoghan Murphy is now devil incarnate as if he single handedly is trying to block bringing about change with the housing crisis! as if its Murphy digging his heels in and fighting varadkars, coucils, councillors etc.  valliant efforts!

    It really is a joke and shows you the level of thinking of your typical voter  :rolleyes: Head on over to the journal for some amusement!

    You'd be forgiven for thinking poor aul' young Eoghan has his hands tied yet himself and Leo are not calling for any radical changes. In fact they are pushing the failed policies and wasting tax payer money with gusto compared to the LA's.
    No queries as to were the boyos got the recent cash fall for their latest waste of tax payer money. It certainly is magic.

    The balaclava wearing thugs of mystery taking out the housing protesters are a throw back to the FG policing of the good old days of the law and order party. The protesters were engaged in an illegal act, but there's something blue shirty about state men carrying out tasks in disguise to hide their shame.
    I can only imagine the hi-jinks and shenanigans on here if SF were in power under the exact same circumstances.
    I think you'll find people had problems with SF using the lads in balaclavas without being in power.:angel:


  • #251
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    ...there's something blue shirty about state men carrying out tasks in disguise to hide their shame.

    There might be, if the "disguise" didn't include their registration numbers on their shoulders and chests.

    I get that you have some sort of irrational hatred of Fine Gael, but it really shouldn't stop you from trotting out this sort of tired propaganda.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement