General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

markodaly · 26-08-2018 2:14pm

If you actually look at the underlying data and weighting you will see that rent and energy is included in the CPI.
Rent and energy may have gone up, but other things like food, clothing, alcohol may have gone down.

Now, if you have an issue with the underlying algorithm that spits out the data, by all means, share to us your own improved version.

Sam Russell · 26-08-2018 3:32pm

markodaly wrote: »

If you actually look at the underlying data and weighting you will see that rent and energy is included in the CPI.
Rent and energy may have gone up, but other things like food, clothing, alcohol may have gone down.

Now, if you have an issue with the underlying algorithm that spits out the data, by all means, share to us your own improved version.

Rents may have gone up but interst on mortgages has gone down. Oil has gone down making heating and driving cheaper.

CPI is very difficult to second guess without significant research. I am sure Lidl and Aldi have made a contribution at keeping the CPI in check - imagine if Tesco had no cmpetition.

blanch152 · 26-08-2018 6:47pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yeah that's it.

Pay attention to the bolded parts - this is where I asked him to be more specific.

It's all about context.

Are you saying that you don't believe the CSO statistics or that there is something wrong with them?

The CSO link provided by the other poster says that the cost of living is 0.6% below 2008, if you doubt this, it is up to you to explain why, with something to back it up.

BonnieSituation · 26-08-2018 11:15pm

blanch152 wrote: »

When a tenant doesn't pay his rent, the landlord evicts him, and the property is available to someone who will pay the rent.

As has been pointed out on this thread and others already, the local authorities don't even collect the rent, let alone evict the non-payers. Until that is tackled, your scheme doesn't work.

Have you ever seen the hoops that LAs have to go through to evict a tenant?

It's a nightmare. I've been party to an eviction when I worked for an LA in Dublin and when you see what we had to put up with to get rid of a family after non payment for nearly 6 years you'll see the hypocrisy from political representatives.

Good loser · 27-08-2018 12:25am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yeah that's it.

Pay attention to the bolded parts - this is where I asked him to be more specific.

It's all about context.

So all that mattered first was the stats and the source of the stats.

When these are supplied it all becomes the 'context'.

You then argue with the basis of the CSO stats. Dredged from nowhere.

First the rigour, then the waffle.

James Brown · 27-08-2018 2:16pm

blanch152 wrote: »

When a tenant doesn't pay his rent, the landlord evicts him, and the property is available to someone who will pay the rent.

As has been pointed out on this thread and others already, the local authorities don't even collect the rent, let alone evict the non-payers. Until that is tackled, your scheme doesn't work.

You keep diverting my points. Nobody is okay with rent arrears. The LA's should invoke evictions for rent arrears and anti social behaviour. A spell in a hotel will put manners on them.
Again, the idea is sound, the practice needs enforcing.
You say the LA's don't collect rent, then how can there be any arrears?
Once again you've dodged my question and the key point I am trying to make when allowed;

Even with current arrears, do you think social housing is a better alternative to selling off homes cheaply to have them rented back to us, renting off private landlords, giving cheap loans of tax payer money to developers and buying homes at market rate to use as social housing?

James Brown · 27-08-2018 7:09pm

Is a link behind a paywall still a link?

Any road, the brass neck knows no bounds.
NAMA sells properties to Cerberus, the state buys properties off Cerberus?

The Department of Housing confirmed to The Sunday Business Post that a number of homes which were sold by Nama to Cerberus in recent years are part of a portfolio of properties under offer by the Housing Agency
https://www.businesspost.ie/news/state-pays-market-price-buy-back-properties-sold-discount-vulture-funds-423895

Now would this 'Department for Housing' be run by which PBP led council?
I'd say Noonan is beside himself with faux outrage....

blanch152 · 27-08-2018 9:26pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is a link behind a paywall still a link?

Any road, the brass neck knows no bounds.
NAMA sells properties to Cerberus, the state buys properties off Cerberus?

Now would this 'Department for Housing' be run by which PBP led council?
I'd say Noonan is beside himself with faux outrage....

And what control does the Department have over the day-to-day operation of either NAMA or the Housing Agency?

Aside from that, have you checked the facts rather than the newspaper?

https://www.housingagency.ie/NAMA

Red_Wake · 28-08-2018 11:05am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

When a tenant doesn't pay his rent, the landlord evicts him, and the property is available to someone who will pay the rent.

As has been pointed out on this thread and others already, the local authorities don't even collect the rent, let alone evict the non-payers. Until that is tackled, your scheme doesn't work.

You keep diverting my points. Nobody is okay with rent arrears. The LA's should invoke evictions for rent arrears and anti social behaviour. A spell in a hotel will put manners on them.
Again, the idea is sound, the practice needs enforcing.
You say the LA's don't collect rent, then how can there be any arrears?
Once again you've dodged my question and the key point I am trying to make when allowed;

Even with current arrears, do you think social housing is a better alternative to selling off homes cheaply to have them rented back to us, renting off private landlords, giving cheap loans of tax payer money to developers and buying homes at market rate to use as social housing?

I'm guessing these hotels will only have the one pool will they?

Some punishment.

blanch152 · 28-08-2018 11:16am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You keep diverting my points. Nobody is okay with rent arrears. The LA's should invoke evictions for rent arrears and anti social behaviour. A spell in a hotel will put manners on them.
Again, the idea is sound, the practice needs enforcing.
You say the LA's don't collect rent, then how can there be any arrears?
Once again you've dodged my question and the key point I am trying to make when allowed;

It is not diverting your points to demonstrate that your plan of the LAs building social housing and renting it out is fatally flawed because the LAs can't collect rent and arrears build up.

The ability of the private landlord to evict tenants who don't pay gives a competitive and cost advantage to the State funding private landlords. To regain the competitive and cost advantage and to persuade central Government to invest in local authority social housing, local authorities first need to get their act together and evict tenants who don't pay and collect the arrears.

James Brown · 28-08-2018 1:55pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not diverting your points to demonstrate that your plan of the LAs building social housing and renting it out is fatally flawed because the LAs can't collect rent and arrears build up.

The ability of the private landlord to evict tenants who don't pay gives a competitive and cost advantage to the State funding private landlords. To regain the competitive and cost advantage and to persuade central Government to invest in local authority social housing, local authorities first need to get their act together and evict tenants who don't pay and collect the arrears.

You've still not answered a direct question put to you three times. I'll take that as you've no intention of an honest open discussion and seem to be engaging only to shut down talk that doesn't suit.

blanch152 wrote: »

And what control does the Department have over the day-to-day operation of either NAMA or the Housing Agency?

Aside from that, have you checked the facts rather than the newspaper?

https://www.housingagency.ie/NAMA

Sorry your 'nothing to see here' efforts are in vain. Why you persist I don't know.
Are you saying the Department of Housing is wrong? Are you saying each entity is beholden only to itself and the government are merely suggesting things while these entities, NAMA and the Department of Housing do what they like with tax payer money, answerable to no government? Like Leo would like us to believe the DoJ acts?
That's poor diversionary tactics Blanch. It seems, likely unbeknownst to yourself, that you can't discuss something without leaping to the defence of a government and departments, you seem to be claiming are responsible for little and beholden to nobody. It makes for aggressive two sided arguing and kills debate IMO.

The Dept. of Housing has purchased housing from Cerberus, that Cerberus, putting inappropriate behavior by Noonan aside, bought on the cheap off NAMA. This is a disgusting con on the tax payer or an incompetent waste of tax payer money. There certainly is something to see here.
Then we've Murphy today saying he expects homeless figures to rise, but they are doing the right thing in trying to tackle it? He also says the cause of the housing crisis is not enough housing available and we need more builds. He's half right. We need more builds tax payers can afford. He says 1 in 5 will be social housing, will the other 4 be bought off cerberus, properties the tax payer use to own?
Now don't try dismiss this as being on the doorstep of Mick Wallace or whom ever, surely it can be discussed without the embarrassment of trying to claim the Dept. of Housing have clean hands on this and NAMA are a rogue loose cannon Dirty Harry type organisation but with tax payers monies and government play no role.
At best this is idiocy.

blanch152 · 28-08-2018 2:35pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've still not answered a direct question put to you three times. I'll take that as you've no intention of an honest open discussion and seem to be engaging only to shut down talk that doesn't suit.

Sorry your 'nothing to see here' efforts are in vain. Why you persist I don't know.
Are you saying the Department of Housing is wrong? Are you saying each entity is beholden only to itself and the government are merely suggesting things while these entities, NAMA and the Department of Housing do what they like with tax payer money, answerable to no government? Like Leo would like us to believe the DoJ acts?
That's poor diversionary tactics Blanch. It seems, likely unbeknownst to yourself, that you can't discuss something without leaping to the defence of a government and departments, you seem to be claiming are responsible for little and beholden to nobody. It makes for aggressive two sided arguing and kills debate IMO.

The Dept. of Housing has purchased housing from Cerberus, that Cerberus, putting inappropriate behavior by Noonan aside, bought on the cheap off NAMA. This is a disgusting con on the tax payer or an incompetent waste of tax payer money. There certainly is something to see here.
Then we've Murphy today saying he expects homeless figures to rise, but they are doing the right thing in trying to tackle it? He also says the cause of the housing crisis is not enough housing available and we need more builds. He's half right. We need more builds tax payers can afford. He says 1 in 5 will be social housing, will the other 4 be bought off cerberus, properties the tax payer use to own?
Now don't try dismiss this as being on the doorstep of Mick Wallace or whom ever, surely it can be discussed without the embarrassment of trying to claim the Dept. of Housing have clean hands on this and NAMA are a rogue loose cannon Dirty Harry type organisation but with tax payers monies and government play no role.
At best this is idiocy.

Not surprised to hear homelessness may get worse before it gets better when you read the statistics:

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0828/988057-cso-migration/

Population is unexpectedly rising. The whingers of the left have been telling us that FG policies to rescue the economy would not work and that we would be faced with net emigration for years. Well, it seems they were wrong about that.

"The CSO said there was a net inward migration of Irish nationals for the first time since 2009"

I assume you welcome that?

And it is not just people coming into the country, jobs are coming too:

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/rise-of-employment-far-from-over-as-latest-cso-figures-reveal-increase-of-34pc-37259802.html

The number of people at work is rising, the number of people in the Labour Force is rising, the number of people unemployed is dropping. All of this is good news - excepts that it increases the demand for housing faster than expected.

On your latest NAMA conspiracy, I heard Eoin O'Broin on the radio and he admitted that there were 20 houses involved in a bundle of around 200 being bought by the Housing Agency. As he said, if they are being offered as part of a job lot that the HA got a discount on, then it could well be good business. He also pointed out that 4,000 NAMA houses were rejected by the local authorities some two years ago, and that the 20 were part of these, and we need to know why the local authorities rejected them.

Not my words, this time, just a SF politicians. Now I've got to go and do penance because I agree with a SF politician. So rather than jumping to conclusions that the local authorities are sweetly innocent and that the evil NAMA and Cerebus were in cronyist corrrupt cahoots, maybe you should wait for the facts.

P.S. At least we can celebrate the great news on Irish people coming home and more jobs being created, can't we?

James Brown · 28-08-2018 2:40pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Not surprised to hear homelessness may get worse before it gets better when you read the statistics:

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0828/988057-cso-migration/

Population is unexpectedly rising. The whingers of the left have been telling us that FG policies to rescue the economy would not work and that we would be faced with net emigration for years. Well, it seems they were wrong about that.

"The CSO said there was a net inward migration of Irish nationals for the first time since 2009"

I assume you welcome that?

And it is not just people coming into the country, jobs are coming too:

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/rise-of-employment-far-from-over-as-latest-cso-figures-reveal-increase-of-34pc-37259802.html

The number of people at work is rising, the number of people in the Labour Force is rising, the number of people unemployed is dropping. All of this is good news - excepts that it increases the demand for housing faster than expected.

On your latest NAMA conspiracy, I heard Eoin O'Broin on the radio and he admitted that there were 20 houses involved in a bundle of around 200 being bought by the Housing Agency. As he said, if they are being offered as part of a job lot that the HA got a discount on, then it could well be good business. He also pointed out that 4,000 NAMA houses were rejected by the local authorities some two years ago, and that the 20 were part of these, and we need to know why the local authorities rejected them.

Not my words, this time, just a SF politicians. Now I've got to go and do penance because I agree with a SF politician. So rather than jumping to conclusions that the local authorities are sweetly innocent and that the evil NAMA and Cerebus were in cronyist corrrupt cahoots, maybe you should wait for the facts.

P.S. At least we can celebrate the great news on Irish people coming home and more jobs being created, can't we?

Gas.
Things in crisis generally do get worse before they get better. That's a law of nature really. Darkest before the dawn and so on. A bird in the hand and all that

The economy is doing great, the housing industry and vulture funds, with the assistance of government, are going gang busters alright. Pity it's not seeming to translate to the Irish so much.
So what do you think about the Housing Department buying units off Cerberus that NAMA previously sold to Cerberus?
I think it's a poor use of tax payer monies myself.

blanch152 · 28-08-2018 3:31pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Gas.
Things in crisis generally do get worse before they get better. That's a law of nature really. Darkest before the dawn and so on. A bird in the hand and all that
The economy is doing great, the housing industry and vulture funds, with the assistance of government, are going gang busters alright. Pity it's not seeming to translate to the Irish so much.

Apart from people being able to return to Ireland for the first time since 2009 and more people in jobs than ever before? What did the Romans ever do for us:rolleyes:?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So what do you think about the Housing Department buying units off Cerberus that NAMA previously sold to Cerberus?
I think it's a poor use of tax payer monies myself.

The Housing Agency (not the Housing Department, let's keep to the facts) have apparently bought a job lot of 200 units off Cerebus. 20 of those units were originally in NAMA and rejected by the local authorities as unsuitable two years ago.

A number of possibilities:

(1) Cerebus have renovated them, making them suitable
(2) The local authorities were incompetent to reject them at the time
(3) They were too expensive at the time for the local authorities
(4) The terms of the job lot sale by Cerebus meant the Housing Agency had to accept the 20 units for the greater benefit
(5) The deal makes sense financially and for housing the homeless

I am sure that you can think of more. For me, the rejection by the local authorities is key. Either the local authorities made a mistake two years ago, or the Housing Agency is making a mistake now or Cerebus have done something to make them suitable.

Without further information, it is impossible to know whether the State has got a good deal. And to be fair to the local authorities, we are talking about 20 properties out of a total of 4,000 that the local authorities rejected. Even if they were wrong, the error level was only 0.5%.

I suppose that for you any contact with Cerebus by a government agency is a bad thing.

James Brown · 28-08-2018 4:16pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Apart from people being able to return to Ireland for the first time since 2009 and more people in jobs than ever before? What did the Romans ever do for us:rolleyes:?

The Housing Agency (not the Housing Department, let's keep to the facts) have apparently bought a job lot of 200 units off Cerebus. 20 of those units were originally in NAMA and rejected by the local authorities as unsuitable two years ago.

A number of possibilities:

(1) Cerebus have renovated them, making them suitable
(2) The local authorities were incompetent to reject them at the time
(3) They were too expensive at the time for the local authorities
(4) The terms of the job lot sale by Cerebus meant the Housing Agency had to accept the 20 units for the greater benefit
(5) The deal makes sense financially and for housing the homeless

I am sure that you can think of more. For me, the rejection by the local authorities is key. Either the local authorities made a mistake two years ago, or the Housing Agency is making a mistake now or Cerebus have done something to make them suitable.

Without further information, it is impossible to know whether the State has got a good deal. And to be fair to the local authorities, we are talking about 20 properties out of a total of 4,000 that the local authorities rejected. Even if they were wrong, the error level was only 0.5%.

I suppose that for you any contact with Cerebus by a government agency is a bad thing.

Yes it is because it usually means the tax payer lost money or the tax payer will need pay more for rents/buys.
The state is encouraging profiteering off a crisis. This might be good for some economic numbers but not so much for the tax payer. There is a massive disconnect going on here in the logic of which ever deity is given responsibility of looking after the Irish taxpayer.
You go on like I'm making it up and come back with reasoning explaining away why what I'm commenting on might have taken place and then tell me to stick to facts. You couldn't make it up.
Once again you try make this about LA's versus national government. You're the only one fighting that imagined war. I know it helps to always have a whatabout, but sometimes it's acceptable to comment on a news item.
Do you realise you've not once given an opinion on this? Merely thrown up ifs and buts as to why the tax payer took a loss selling properties to Cerberus and later bought them back?
This goes back to the question you kept dodging. On an amended version; do you think the state, in a housing crisis, where the housing minister says we need more units, should be selling off housing units rather than using them or upgrading if needed? Would that be a better deal for the tax payer? The LA's didn't sell to Cerberus, but did possibly refuse them. Maybe they'd good reason, maybe they didn't.
The state sells stock, rents or buys it back at a later date, is one of the ways the state avoids making social housing builds in any meaningful number, taking any rent arrears into account I think social housing and affordable housing are the best deals for the tax payer in tackling this worsening crisis.

blanch152 · 28-08-2018 5:22pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes it is because it usually means the tax payer lost money or the tax payer will need pay more for rents/buys.
The state is encouraging profiteering off a crisis. This might be good for some economic numbers but not so much for the tax payer. There is a massive disconnect going on here in the logic of which ever deity is given responsibility of looking after the Irish taxpayer.
You go on like I'm making it up and come back with reasoning explaining away why what I'm commenting on might have taken place and then tell me to stick to facts. You couldn't make it up.
Once again you try make this about LA's versus national government. You're the only one fighting that imagined war. I know it helps to always have a whatabout, but sometimes it's acceptable to comment on a news item.
Do you realise you've not once given an opinion on this? Merely thrown up ifs and buts as to why the tax payer took a loss selling properties to Cerberus and later bought them back?
This goes back to the question you kept dodging. On an amended version; do you think the state, in a housing crisis, where the housing minister says we need more units, should be selling off housing units rather than using them or upgrading if needed? Would that be a better deal for the tax payer? The LA's didn't sell to Cerberus, but did possibly refuse them. Maybe they'd good reason, maybe they didn't.
The state sells stock, rents or buys it back at a later date, is one of the ways the state avoids making social housing builds in any meaningful number, taking any rent arrears into account I think social housing and affordable housing are the best deals for the tax payer in tackling this worsening crisis.

We don't know whether the taxpayer took a loss - Eoin O'Broin said as much this morning, he said it was possible it was a very good deal for the taxpayer.

Now, if the LAs had the opportunity to buy the properties, but stupidly turned them down, and the taxpayer, in need of housing quickly now has to buy them back at a loss, that isn't the government's fault, that is the fault of the local authorities.

And once again, it is only 20 properties out of 4,000.

James Brown · 28-08-2018 5:28pm

blanch152 wrote: »

We don't know whether the taxpayer took a loss - Eoin O'Broin said as much this morning, he said it was possible it was a very good deal for the taxpayer.

Now, if the LAs had the opportunity to buy the properties, but stupidly turned them down, and the taxpayer, in need of housing quickly now has to buy them back at a loss, that isn't the government's fault, that is the fault of the local authorities.

And once again, it is only 20 properties out of 4,000.

Cerberus bought them off us and sold them back to us at a cheaper rate? I don't think that's likely.
How is buying property at market rate from a company/entity making a profit in any way the better deal for the tax payer, putting aside we sold it to them in the first place?
If you are suggesting tax payer money being used by different government entities are unrelated, I disagree, it's all tax payer money.

Now you give benefit of the doubt to the housing department but not the LA's?
We do know that the state took a loss in selling these properties to Cerberus and we do know the state bought them back. Still no idea how you feel about that, still no idea if you think all these efforts are a good deal for the tax payer over and above social/affordable housing.
This is very one sided. I put forth commentary on a news item, you give no opinion and try change the narrative. It's pointless responding to you.

blanch152 · 28-08-2018 7:42pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Cerberus bought them off us and sold them back to us at a cheaper rate? I don't think that's likely.
How is buying property at market rate from a company/entity making a profit in any way the better deal for the tax payer, putting aside we sold it to them in the first place?
If you are suggesting tax payer money being used by different government entities are unrelated, I disagree, it's all tax payer money.

Now you give benefit of the doubt to the housing department but not the LA's?
We do know that the state took a loss in selling these properties to Cerberus and we do know the state bought them back. Still no idea how you feel about that, still no idea if you think all these efforts are a good deal for the tax payer over and above social/affordable housing.
This is very one sided. I put forth commentary on a news item, you give no opinion and try change the narrative. It's pointless responding to you.

If you know the bit in bold for a fact, you will be able to point to a link to back you up.

You gave a link to a news item from the Sunday Business Post behind a paywall, so how can I comment just on your interpretation of it. I heard the SF representative on it, and his words were measured, and he wants to wait and see before commenting. Even he thought there was a chance that the Housing Agency got a good deal or that it was the Local Authorities' fault, he just wanted more facts.

Your rush to judgement that everything is FG bad, cronyism and corruption is tired, old, outdated and mostly completely wrong. It is a problem on these boards that everyone jumps on the latest news item. We had it with Shatter, we had it with Garda Harrison and many other issues where the people who rushed to judgement and condemned all and sundry were plain wrong.

James Brown · 28-08-2018 8:49pm

blanch152 wrote: »

If you know the bit in bold for a fact, you will be able to point to a link to back you up.

You gave a link to a news item from the Sunday Business Post behind a paywall, so how can I comment just on your interpretation of it. I heard the SF representative on it, and his words were measured, and he wants to wait and see before commenting. Even he thought there was a chance that the Housing Agency got a good deal or that it was the Local Authorities' fault, he just wanted more facts.

Your rush to judgement that everything is FG bad, cronyism and corruption is tired, old, outdated and mostly completely wrong. It is a problem on these boards that everyone jumps on the latest news item. We had it with Shatter, we had it with Garda Harrison and many other issues where the people who rushed to judgement and condemned all and sundry were plain wrong.

I quoted a news item. That's all we have to go on. Where I read a news item and comment on it, you dive in to fight the good fight defending government and trying to throw in a dig or two to the LA's or Paul Murphy or who ever.
Are you denying any such thing happened or just trying to dismiss it?
You will constantly find criticism of bumbling government antics. That's par for the course. There's no conspiracy in commenting on news items. You can surmise that down the road they'll amount to nothing and sometimes that's true. These boards gather dust until somebody like myself posts commentary on a news item, which tend to awaken the likes of yourself, who put forward no opinion, as is tradition in a discussion, but spend your time trying to quash the subject matter, to the point where you've admitted only recently you've sometimes no actual interest in a topic itself. So why you spend time on it only you can answer. That's the big problem with these boards, lack of genuine discussion, risks of getting another thread criticising government closed down. Odd goal for any politics forum poster I'll grant you.
In this case you are true to form.
The state sold properties at a loss, I say loss because NAMA was in the business of off loading property in the debt throws of a crash. Prove me wrong.

Nama, the bad bank set up to clear toxic property loans from Irish bank balance sheets, on Wednesday sold loans linked to Irish property and land with a par value of €800m to a joint venture company in which it will retain a 20 per cent stake. The remaining 80 per cent equity is owned by a consortium led by Starwood Capital. Other consortium members include Key Capital Real Estate and Catalyst Capital.

The loans were sold for about €200m, which amounts to a 75 per cent haircut on the original loan value.
https://www.ft.com/content/0dac849a-b330-11e2-95b3-00144feabdc0

We do know the state sold properties to a vulture fund Noonan had inappropriate dealing with, read any conspiracy into that you like, and then bought them back. We also know you refuse to give an opinion on this yet persist in trying to dismiss it as nothing to see here.
I'll not waste my time on your ifs and buts and hyperbollo.
Enjoy.

blanch152 · 28-08-2018 10:32pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I quoted a news item. That's all we have to go on. Where I read a news item and comment on it, you dive in to fight the good fight defending government and trying to throw in a dig or two to the LA's or Paul Murphy or who ever.
Are you denying any such thing happened or just trying to dismiss it?
You will constantly find criticism of bumbling government antics. That's par for the course. There's no conspiracy in commenting on news items. You can surmise that down the road they'll amount to nothing and sometimes that's true. These boards gather dust until somebody like myself posts commentary on a news item, which tend to awaken the likes of yourself, who put forward no opinion, as is tradition in a discussion, but spend your time trying to quash the subject matter, to the point where you've admitted only recently you've sometimes no actual interest in a topic itself. So why you spend time on it only you can answer. That's the big problem with these boards, lack of genuine discussion, risks of getting another thread criticising government closed down. Odd goal for any politics forum poster I'll grant you.
In this case you are true to form.
The state sold properties at a loss, I say loss because NAMA was in the business of off loading property in the debt throws of a crash. Prove me wrong.

We do know the state sold properties to a vulture fund Noonan had inappropriate dealing with, read any conspiracy into that you like, and then bought them back. We also know you refuse to give an opinion on this yet persist in trying to dismiss it as nothing to see here.
I'll not waste my time on your ifs and buts and hyperbollo.
Enjoy.

I apply some discernment to newspaper articles and items. Over the last decade there has been a tendency for news items to focus on scandal and hyperbole at the expense of humdum truth and reality. We then get shouts of cronyism, corruption etc from the loudest empty vessels. Unfortunately, most of the time, there is really nothing to see here.

So FG Ministers are not spending their time dreaming up schemes to make Denis O'Brien richer, neither are they wining and dining in expensive restaurants discussing how to sell more of the State silver to vulture funds.

However, we still get a situation where 20, yes 20, out of 4,000 houses rejected by local authorities and subsequently sold by NAMA to Cerebus, before being bought back by the Housing Agency (and correct any of that if it isn't true) is a scandal of gigantic proportions requiring the condemnation of the FG Minister for Housing rather than an acceptable error rate of 0.5% or perhaps a mistake made by local authorities.

So sorry if I don't want to join the circus of hyperbole and hysterics and just want to look at the bare mundane facts. Unless you have some new piece of information to add, I am with the SF spokesperson who wants more real information before he comments.

blanch152 · 28-08-2018 10:39pm

More factual news for comment:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0828/988059-employment-up-3-4-in-q2-according-to-cso/

"The Department of Finance said it was the highest level of employment ever within the State."

Good news all round.

Mongfinder General · 28-08-2018 10:45pm

blanch152 wrote: »

More factual news for comment:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0828/988059-employment-up-3-4-in-q2-according-to-cso/

"The Department of Finance said it was the highest level of employment ever within the State."

Good news all round.

So the employment rate is approx 62% (not including black economy). Not bad but not great.

blanch152 · 29-08-2018 12:43pm

Mongfinder General wrote: »

So the employment rate is approx 62% (not including black economy). Not bad but not great.

It is on a rising trend which is good.

James Brown · 29-08-2018 2:02pm

Mongfinder General wrote: »

So the employment rate is approx 62% (not including black economy). Not bad but not great.

It's good news. But we can't look at one side of the story. Bragging about more people returning than leaving is a little sad. How many years before that's reversed again?
All down to the way we do business. The same goes for housing and the working tax payer needing state aid to get by. It's a ponzi scheme waiting to be found out. It could not be more plainly spelled out than a housing and local authority minister, (that's right Eoghan is the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government) buying houses off the market to pass off as social housing and NAMA selling to Noonan's Cerberus chums only for Eoghan to buy them back at a later date. Of course it'll be the left and the unions fault when it goes arse about tit again. And we'll still have the myriad crisis, either making too much private profit (housing) or not enough money in it to bother tackling (health).

blanch152 · 29-08-2018 2:54pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's good news. But we can't look at one side of the story. Bragging about more people returning than leaving is a little sad. How many years before that's reversed again?
All down to the way we do business. The same goes for housing and the working tax payer needing state aid to get by. It's a ponzi scheme waiting to be found out. It could not be more plainly spelled out than a housing and local authority minister, (that's right Eoghan is the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government) buying houses off the market to pass off as social housing and NAMA selling to Noonan's Cerberus chums only for Eoghan to buy them back at a later date. Of course it'll be the left and the unions fault when it goes arse about tit again. And we'll still have the myriad crisis, either making too much private profit (housing) or not enough money in it to bother tackling (health).

What is the ponzi scheme? Explain that reference to me, please.

Red_Wake · 29-08-2018 3:48pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Mongfinder General wrote: »

So the employment rate is approx 62% (not including black economy). Not bad but not great.

It's good news. But we can't look at one side of the story. Bragging about more people returning than leaving is a little sad. How many years before that's reversed again?
All down to the way we do business. The same goes for housing and the working tax payer needing state aid to get by. It's a ponzi scheme waiting to be found out. It could not be more plainly spelled out than a housing and local authority minister, (that's right Eoghan is the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government) buying houses off the market to pass off as social housing and NAMA selling to Noonan's Cerberus chums only for Eoghan to buy them back at a later date. Of course it'll be the left and the unions fault when it goes arse about tit again. And we'll still have the myriad crisis, either making too much private profit (housing) or not enough money in it to bother tackling (health).

Certainly couldn't be looking too closely at anything that paints the country as doing well under FG.....

James Brown · 29-08-2018 3:55pm

Red_Wake wrote: »

Certainly couldn't be looking too closely at anything that paints the country as doing well under FG.....

I disagree. As a former FG voter, among others, I'm very happy for any good news regardless of which party happens to be at the helm. It's just unfortunate it often becomes a game of sides and supporting your team.

I think selling properties likely at a loss to the tax payer only to buy them back at a latter date from the same people you sold them to is being a bit of a silly billy with the tax payers money. I'd feel the same if it was Clare Daly or Dustin the Turkey in government.

blanch152 · 29-08-2018 3:56pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's good news. But we can't look at one side of the story.

How is there another side to the story that more people are working, less people are unemployed, more Irish are coming home etc.????

How is there a downside to that?

blanch152 · 29-08-2018 4:02pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I disagree. As a former FG voter I'm very happy for any good news regardless of which party happens to be at the helm. It's just unfortunate it often becomes a game of sides and supporting your team.

I think selling properties likely at a loss to the tax payer only to buy them back at a latter date from the same people you sold them to is being a bit of a silly billy with the tax payers money. I'd feel the same if it was Clare Daly or Dustin the Turkey in government.

20 properties, yes 20.

How is that important?

I know a civil servant who once told me he put in an expense claim with a bus ticket for €1.60 that he found on the ground. Should I have reported that corruption to SIPO?

You have a blindspot where some tiny little things assume huge importance at the expense of the big picture. The country is getting back on its feet, people are working and earning again, great news, but, but, but, 20 properties. Perspective is needed.

That doesn't mean I believe it was right, that doesn't mean I believe it should be disregarded, it only means that I believe it is a small issue in the greater scheme of things, given its scale - only 20 properties. If more comes out, if more is shown to have transpired, of course, it could mean something, but it is a small issue at the moment.

Red_Wake · 29-08-2018 4:43pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Certainly couldn't be looking too closely at anything that paints the country as doing well under FG.....

I disagree. As a former FG voter, among others, I'm very happy for any good news regardless of which party happens to be at the helm. It's just unfortunate it often becomes a game of sides and supporting your team.

I think selling properties likely at a loss to the tax payer only to buy them back at a latter date from the same people you sold them to is being a bit of a silly billy with the tax payers money. I'd feel the same if it was Clare Daly or Dustin the Turkey in government.

Is there anything you'd commend the current government[let's include Lab/FG in there as well] for?

I don't think I've ever seen you say anything remotely positive about the Government.

James Brown · 29-08-2018 5:04pm

Red_Wake wrote: »

Is there anything you'd commend the current government[let's include Lab/FG in there as well] for?

I don't think I've ever seen you say anything remotely positive about the Government.

You'd be wrong. By the by, no interest in the state selling with one hand and buying back with the other? We should ignore such things? I'm bias towards crony idiocy. Guilty as charged. Should I take a leaf out of your book and only raise my head to fight the good fight for failed government policy and other miscellaneous shenanigans?
Do you think NAMA selling properties likely at a loss and the Dept. of Housing buying them back at a later date is news worthy or it should be ignored on the fear a person like yourself might accuse any commentators of bias? Is that the point here? Should we censor any criticism however valid lest we fall foul of the rapier witticisms of Red_Wake? I'll stick to politics thanks you take your vaudeville act elsewhere there chief.

blanch152 · 29-08-2018 6:02pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You'd be wrong. By the by, no interest in the state selling with one hand and buying back with the other? We should ignore such things? I'm bias towards crony idiocy. Guilty as charged. Should I take a leaf out of your book and only raise my head to fight the good fight for failed government policy and other miscellaneous shenanigans?
Do you think NAMA selling properties likely at a loss and the Dept. of Housing buying them back at a later date is news worthy or it should be ignored on the fear a person like yourself might accuse any commentators of bias? Is that the point here? Should we censor any criticism however valid lest we fall foul of the rapier witticisms of Red_Wake? I'll stick to politics thanks you take your vaudeville act elsewhere there chief.

Yawn, nobody said anything about ignoring such things.

What was said was that perspective should be maintained. In this era of Trump and Brexit, hyperbole and hysterics, the unimportant, immaterial and innane often get raised to greater heights than they deserve.

The fact that the State appears (and appears, because we don't have all the facts) to have bought back 0.5% of the properties (20) unwanted by local authorities and sold by NAMA is not the biggest thing in the world. All we are saying is that your criticism lacks validity because there are no facts to base it on and that the information to date, if correct, looks like a small issue at best.

Back to big and important news that affects working people:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0829/988279-average-weekly-earnings-increased-in-all-sectors/

"Average weekly earnings increased in all sectors in the economy in the second quarter of the year, according to figures published by the Central Statistics Office. "

And the best ever July for tourism!!

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0829/988288-best-ever-july-for-tourism/

"The number of tourists who visited Ireland in July increased by 12.5%, making it the best ever month of July for Irish tourism. "

We should rename this - the good news government thread.

Idbatterim · 29-08-2018 6:10pm

regarding the post above, they sold thousands of properties for a total pittance, those properties or emergency accommodation are now costing the state a fortune! there is no defending it, its idiocy beyond belief or a totally planned action!

blanch152 · 29-08-2018 6:13pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

regarding the post above, they sold thousands of properties for a total pittance, those properties or emergency accommodation are now costing the state a fortune! there is no defending it, its idiocy beyond belief or a totally planned action!

Where did you read this?

The current issue being referenced by Matt is the buyback of 20 properties by the Housing Agency out of 4,000 that were rejected by local authorities and subsequently sold by NAMA.

NAMA offered all properties to the local authorities. They accepted around 2,000 and rejected 4,000 for various reasons. If those local authorities are now renting those properties or using them for emergency accommodation, that is the responsibility of the local authorities. They should be criticised if that is the case, but show us the evidence first.

blanch152 · 29-08-2018 6:19pm

To help with this let's put a sequence on events:

(1) NAMA acquire 6,000 residential properties

(2) NAMA offer 6,000 residential properties to local authorities for social housing

(3) (a) Local Authorities take ownership of 2,000 properties

(b) Local Authorities reject 4,000 properties

(4) NAMA sell the rejected 4,000 properties to several different corporations

(5) (a) As part of a job lot of 200 houses, the Housing Agency buy back 20 of the original 4,000 properties rejected by local authorities and sold my NAMA

(b) Local Authorities have started renting and using for social housing some of the 4,000 properties they previously rejected.

For what has been reported, either here or elsewhere, those seem to be the facts. Now, I am open to correction if anyone has any other news sources, or if the newspaper reports turn out to be inaccurate. If we can start with agreement on the above facts, we can then decide whether anything was wrong in relation to the above and/or is anyone to blame and/or if it is acceptable error or genuine mistake.

So, anyone dispute the facts?

Idbatterim · 29-08-2018 6:23pm

Assuming that is correct, the local authorities are another joke in the entire system...

James Brown · 29-08-2018 6:26pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

regarding the post above, they sold thousands of properties for a total pittance, those properties or emergency accommodation are now costing the state a fortune! there is no defending it, its idiocy beyond belief or a totally planned action!

Agreed. I'd be very happy with changes to policy be it from FG/FF or another party. Dismissing this kind of behaviour like a nothing, rather than discussing it and looking to divert blame is a waste of everybody's time that nobody is buying.

BonnieSituation · 29-08-2018 7:44pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Assuming that is correct, the local authorities are another joke in the entire system...

Of course they are. Powerless little fiefdoms. Working in one would soon alert you to some of the **** that goes on in this country.

VonZan · 29-08-2018 11:31pm

blanch152 wrote: »

To help with this let's put a sequence on events:

(1) NAMA acquire 6,000 residential properties

(2) NAMA offer 6,000 residential properties to local authorities for social housing

(3) (a) Local Authorities take ownership of 2,000 properties

(b) Local Authorities reject 4,000 properties

(4) NAMA sell the rejected 4,000 properties to several different corporations

(5) (a) As part of a job lot of 200 houses, the Housing Agency buy back 20 of the original 4,000 properties rejected by local authorities and sold my NAMA

(b) Local Authorities have started renting and using for social housing some of the 4,000 properties they previously rejected.

For what has been reported, either here or elsewhere, those seem to be the facts. Now, I am open to correction if anyone has any other news sources, or if the newspaper reports turn out to be inaccurate. If we can start with agreement on the above facts, we can then decide whether anything was wrong in relation to the above and/or is anyone to blame and/or if it is acceptable error or genuine mistake.

So, anyone dispute the facts?[/quit's]

Those are currently the facts or close enough.

What we do not know is:

1) Why the local authorities rejected two thirds of properties?

2) Of the 4,000 offered and rejected by the local authorities, how many of those were occupied?

3) Since the occupied houses would laregly lead to netting of homeless figures, on what basis were these rejected?

4) Why is Nama on one hand being used to provide social housing and on other being used to drive people back into the hands of the state by selling to foreign vulture funds?

5) How many of the properties were buy-to-let failures?

We have absolutely no context to the numbers.

blanch152 · 30-08-2018 8:54am

VonZan wrote: »

To help with this let's put a sequence on events:

(1) NAMA acquire 6,000 residential properties

(2) NAMA offer 6,000 residential properties to local authorities for social housing

(3) (a) Local Authorities take ownership of 2,000 properties

(b) Local Authorities reject 4,000 properties

(4) NAMA sell the rejected 4,000 properties to several different corporations

(5) (a) As part of a job lot of 200 houses, the Housing Agency buy back 20 of the original 4,000 properties rejected by local authorities and sold my NAMA

(b) Local Authorities have started renting and using for social housing some of the 4,000 properties they previously rejected.

For what has been reported, either here or elsewhere, those seem to be the facts. Now, I am open to correction if anyone has any other news sources, or if the newspaper reports turn out to be inaccurate. If we can start with agreement on the above facts, we can then decide whether anything was wrong in relation to the above and/or is anyone to blame and/or if it is acceptable error or genuine mistake.

So, anyone dispute the facts?

Those are currently the facts or close enough.

What we do not know is:

1) Why the local authorities rejected two thirds of properties?

2) Of the 4,000 offered and rejected by the local authorities, how many of those were occupied?

3) Since the occupied houses would laregly lead to netting of homeless figures, on what basis were these rejected?

4) Why is Nama on one hand being used to provide social housing and on other being used to drive people back into the hands of the state by selling to foreign vulture funds?

5) How many of the properties were buy-to-let failures?

We have absolutely no context to the numbers.

Your post, combined with mine, appears to accurately summarise the situation, given what we know - but we are still missing information. In relation to NAMA, they were initially tasked with getting the best deal for the taxpayer, they were later dragged into the social housing issue, which probably explains their conflicting objectives. Here is the latest update from the Housing Agency, which includes the number purchased by each Local Authority:

https://www.housingagency.ie/NAMA

The numbers purchased by the Dublin local authorities seem quite low.

Two possible explanations:

(1) Few NAMA properties in Dublin
(2) Local Authorities in Dublin turned down Dublin options

Either way, the low number purchased in Dublin would explain why the NAMA properties have made little impact on the housing problem in its biggest area. Nothing to do with the Minister or the Housing Agency, possibly nothing to do even with the Local Authorities (unless (2) applies), just the simple result of not very many NAMA properties in Dublin.

Idbatterim · 30-08-2018 12:12pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's good news. But we can't look at one side of the story. Bragging about more people returning than leaving is a little sad. How many years before that's reversed again?
All down to the way we do business. The same goes for housing and the working tax payer needing state aid to get by. It's a ponzi scheme waiting to be found out. It could not be more plainly spelled out than a housing and local authority minister, (that's right Eoghan is the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government) buying houses off the market to pass off as social housing and NAMA selling to Noonan's Cerberus chums only for Eoghan to buy them back at a later date. Of course it'll be the left and the unions fault when it goes arse about tit again. And we'll still have the myriad crisis, either making too much private profit (housing) or not enough money in it to bother tackling (health).

Matt. This “posh boy “ out of touch with reality thing is starting to take hold on Leo and Murphy. It could be like the last time with their “keep the recovery going “ cock up. This posh out of touch perception will stick rightly or wrongly. I hope it forces them into more action. For those defending the pathetic housing related performance and much Blame goes to the local authorities, read this!

From Irish architecture forum on SkyscraperCity...

HandyAndrew wrote: »

some relevant links at the end for the most interesting site I looked at (Bailey Gibson Players site)

So, I have nothing to be doing in work and was listening to a podcast where Ivan Yates referenced how there was apparently enough vacant zoned land in Dublin to supply 116,000 new residential units.

So I had a search and I came across references for Mel Reynolds who seems to have been the most vocal commentator on this subject. Through his links he seems to have based his complaints off a Residential Land Survey completed by the Local Authorities in 2014 published in 2015.

So I looked at the survey (link below). I found the map (link below also) and I started clicking on the largest most obvious sites listed close to the city.

And guess what, it's an absolute load of rubbish. They've basically taken an estimate of the site boundaries and assumed the site size and just divided that by whatever the max allowable density ratio is. But in most cases those densities aren't possible, or if they are, they won't approve them. It's a completely meaningless figure and in many cases the LAs completely overestimated the densities for sites that they actually owned. Anyway, an afternoon well spent.

The first site is the Glass Bottle site. DCC have listed this as having the potential for 5,000 units. That's 43% more than the site is currently seeking which people are already insisting is overdevelopment.

The next big site I looked at was the Bailey Gibson Players off the South Circular Road near Dolphins Barn, next to the Coombe. DCC have listed the potential units for this site as 1,760. But there is a lapsed planning on this site for a mixed use development only containing 752 resi units (from the Indo). So 130% overestimate. I looked at rejected applications on the site and there's an interesting one from 2006/2007 [app # 4423/06] which sought 879 resi units. Now, that application contained a 1.3m sqft development but required 16 buildings with 7 above 10 story including one 28 story building. Yes, that application includes 16,000sqm park but public outdoor amenities would be required. There would be scope to strip out some of the office/commercial and it remain balances which might add another 200 units (max 1,100 units) but that would still reflect a 60% overestimation.

The next site I looked at was out in Blue Bell near Kylemore Luas Stop. This site is listed as capacity for 1,640 units. But it's in the middle of an industrial area. There is no way that site is viable for a private resi complex.

Then there is the O'Devaney Gardens site which is listed on the map with capacity for 960 units. Yet the current in-plan, shovels in the ground redevelopment is only 600 units. So again we have a 60% overestimate.

The ship graveyard in Grand Canal Docks at the end of South Dock Road is also includes as capacity for 222 units. This site is owned by Waterways Ireland but there has been vocal support for it to be developed for public amenities (some sort of museum, theater or community thingy).

Then you've the Capital Dock site which is listed as having capacity for 346 units but Kennedy Wilson are only building 190 units so an 82% overestimation.

Next you've got 76 Sir John Rogerson's Quay which is listed as having capacity for 124 units yet only 72 are actually planned for development. Oddly I think this one is slightly accurate as if you removed the office element you might get to 120/130. However it does show that the fact land is zoned for resi doesn't mean a bloody thing. The end result is DCC overestimated the available units based on actual output by 72%.

The Cardiff Lane An Post redevelopment again listed as capacity for 222 units but we're only actually going to get 56 units. 300% overestimate based on actual output.

I imagine the whole dockland area is going to look like that as while DCC have listed as potential zoned land, the land is in fact more valuable as office/mixed for which it is also permissible.

The North Wall Train Yard (vacant rail yard land next to the Docklands Train Station on the north side of Sheriff Street) is included with capacity for 444 units (land is owned by NTA/IE).

Next you've the former Cahil Printworks site at East Wall Road & Church Road junction. Listed as capacity for 180 units. But guess what, it was redeveloped based on a 2013 planning application as a lidl and a McDonalds so no units. Now, the land survey was completed in 2014 and actually released in Feb 2015 which is after these plans were actually approved.

Then you've the Croke Villas/Sackville Ave regeneration in Ballybough listed with capacity for 222. DCC approved the Part 8 redevelopment plan for this site in Dec 2017. A total of 74 units. Bang on 200% over estimation of the site that they actually control. Jesus wept.

We've the vacant site on the North Circular Road behind Rosemount Road next to the Phibsborough Luas stop. This was listed with capacity for 260 units. Yet in March 2013 this site (planning app #2313/12) was approved by ABP for a whopping grand total of 85 units - another 200% overestimation. This was literally approved a year before this report was completed.

Residential Land Survey
https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad%2C40214%2Cen.pdf

Survey Results Mapped - Link is down the page a little
https://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/residential-land-availability/residential-land-availability-survey

Indo comment of Players Site
https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/players-square-planning-delay-stalls-new-homes-36867327.html

Grand Canal dry docks
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/forum-looks-to-paris-and-liverpool-in-vision-for-grand-canal-basin-1.2768118

blanch152 · 30-08-2018 12:32pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Matt. This “posh boy “ out of touch with reality thing is starting to take hold on Leo and Murphy. It could be like the last time with their “keep the recovery going “ cock up. This posh out of touch perception will stick rightly or wrongly. I hope it forces them into more action. For those defending the pathetic housing related performance and much Blame goes to the local authorities, read this!

From Irish architecture forum on SkyscraperCity...

If true, that is a level of incompetence from DCC that I didn't think was possible.

I would guess that some of the estimates were based on government plans for increased housing density, but that the much lower outcomes were based on the restrictive planning conditions set by DCC themselves. Another factor as you point out is the relative attractiveness of office accommodation.

For example, the O'Devaney Gardens plan contains the following:

"Most of the homes are expected to be apartments of varying sizes in blocks of three to five storeys, with around 100 two- and three-storey terraced houses, and a small number of duplex units."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/o-devaney-gardens-site-construction-to-start-after-10-year-delay-1.3552375

I could certainly envisage a different configuration resulting in 60% more, as you could easily go to nine or ten storey for some of the blocks. All of that is the fault of the local authority.

Idbatterim · 30-08-2018 1:51pm

Ill tell you what, I dont think the local authorities, making a decision to massively exacerbate the housing crisis, is acceptable, I am f*cking furious! WE hear this, there are no easy solutions bull****, oh yes they are, so glaringly simple, it seems beyond belief!

Most of the issues come down to lack of funding in this state, the state is a massive land owner, we have a massive housing shortage and it is exacerbating the housing shortage and not realising the full value of its land with the ridiculous low densities that it permits?!

Am I missing something?!

as per your post above Blanch, why are these sites being massively underutilised?! The only reason I can think of is to appease nimbies and ALL of the local and national politicians that court their vote and then also because most of those that vote are home owners and are delighted with the runaway prices. Likewise all the decision makers, are also homeowners and many potentially landlords. There is a massive conflict of interest here...

James Brown · 30-08-2018 2:47pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Matt. This “posh boy “ out of touch with reality thing is starting to take hold on Leo and Murphy. It could be like the last time with their “keep the recovery going “ cock up. This posh out of touch perception will stick rightly or wrongly. I hope it forces them into more action. For those defending the pathetic housing related performance and much Blame goes to the local authorities, read this!

From Irish architecture forum on SkyscraperCity...

To be honest I couldn't care less about Leo and Eoghan as long as they make a decent effort. They are full of talk and Leo specifically gets childish when cornered. I see Eoghan as a bit of a stooge in all this. I don't think he has much of an idea and he's going through the party motions throwing in the odd nonsense sound bite. He's in over his head. Leo's poor attitude has them looking like they are out of touch, when in reality, possibly unbeknownst to Eoghan, everything is going to plan IMO. The housing crisis is just something they need waffle about from time to time. I say that because they continue with policies that make it worse. I think they are intelligent enough to be aware of this.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Ill tell you what, I dont think the local authorities, making a decision to massively exacerbate the housing crisis, is acceptable, I am f*cking furious! WE hear this, there are no easy solutions bull****, oh yes they are, so glaringly simple, it seems beyond belief!

Most of the issues come down to lack of funding in this state, the state is a massive land owner, we have a massive housing shortage and it is exacerbating the housing shortage and not realising the full value of its land with the ridiculous low densities that it permits?!

Am I missing something?!

as per your post above Blanch, why are these sites being massively underutilised?! The only reason I can think of is to appease nimbies and ALL of the local and national politicians that court their vote and then also because most of those that vote are home owners and are delighted with the runaway prices. Likewise all the decision makers, are also homeowners and many potentially landlords. There is a massive conflict of interest here...

There certainly is an element of NIMBYism. I've been at announcements of proposed high rise were local people kick off, (Leo?). I think both LA's and the state really need to work on the PR of selling high rise to innercity communities, (those left) that it won't be Ballymun or Fatima part 2.
The regeneration schemes turned out to be a sham. It was a ruse to move council tenants out to the suburbs so the LA's could sell off public land or partially sell it off. This was government backed. This is another reason the public are hesitant of any new high rise scheme. If you look at Herberton, were Fatima use to stand, it's pretty much returned to it's former 'glory'. There are few in the way of amenities with the exception of the odd cookie cutter Spar that seems to be designed into these building complexes.

I really don't see why any criticism of government should be deflected to the LA's. They all play a role. Surely we can talk about the broad crisis without scrutinising Wicklow CC every time Eoghan makes a national level gaffe? Each LA looks after their local area, Eoghan is the minister in charge of all LA's and housing, so it stands to reason one might hone in on Eoghan rather than a specific LA, which is made up of politicians of many stripes, FG included so FG are not dodging this, like it or not. It's unfortunate. Maybe if FF were officially in government we could have a discussion on the housing crisis that included the housing minister and his wasteful antics.
Again, it wasn't an LA who sold properties to Cerberus and then bought them back.

blanch152 · 30-08-2018 3:59pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Ill tell you what, I dont think the local authorities, making a decision to massively exacerbate the housing crisis, is acceptable, I am f*cking furious! WE hear this, there are no easy solutions bull****, oh yes they are, so glaringly simple, it seems beyond belief!

Most of the issues come down to lack of funding in this state, the state is a massive land owner, we have a massive housing shortage and it is exacerbating the housing shortage and not realising the full value of its land with the ridiculous low densities that it permits?!

Am I missing something?!

as per your post above Blanch, why are these sites being massively underutilised?! The only reason I can think of is to appease nimbies and ALL of the local and national politicians that court their vote and then also because most of those that vote are home owners and are delighted with the runaway prices. Likewise all the decision makers, are also homeowners and many potentially landlords. There is a massive conflict of interest here...

Funding isn't the issue when a local authority like DCC allows for two- and three- storey development where it could be nine or ten.

What makes me mad is that solutions within the existing financial and legal constraints are ignored. I have never heard of a case of DCC throwing out a planning permission because the heights were too low and there wasn't enough density. The day that they do that will be the day that they are serious about the housing issue.

It is not all about nimbies either. There are people who are ideologically committed to low-rise and oppose high-rise. Some of these are on Dublin City Council, some of them write for the Irish Times:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/department-declares-an-open-season-for-tall-buildings-1.3597500?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fdepartment-declares-an-open-season-for-tall-buildings-1.3597500

Minister Murphy has produced the following guidelines which increase the number of one-bedroom apartments allowed in developments, reduce the requirement to provide car parking, reduce the minimum floor-space, reduce the number of lifts required, and reduce the number of dual-aspect apartments required:

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/design_standards_for_new_apartments_-_guidelines_for_planning_authorities_2018.pdf

These guidelines will allow local authorities to provide higher-density schemes even in low-rise schemes. The problem is that local authorities have to implement it. The Minister is also moving to force DCC to lift their nonsensical height restrictions:

https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/the-right-moves-could-the-answer-to-the-building-height-debate-be-20-storeys-in-the-city-36261665.html

The problem as the article points out is that while the Minister is doing the right thing, developers may wait to see the outcome of his battle with DCC and delay development.

blanch152 · 30-08-2018 4:04pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

To be honest I couldn't care less about Leo and Eoghan as long as they make a decent effort. They are full of talk and Leo specifically gets childish when cornered. I see Eoghan as a bit of a stooge in all this. I don't think he has much of an idea and he's going through the party motions throwing in the odd nonsense sound bite. He's in over his head. Leo's poor attitude has them looking like they are out of touch, when in reality, possibly unbeknownst to Eoghan, everything is going to plan IMO. The housing crisis is just something they need waffle about from time to time. I say that because they continue with policies that make it worse. I think they are intelligent enough to be aware of this.

There certainly is an element of NIMBYism. I've been at announcements of proposed high rise were local people kick off, (Leo?). I think both LA's and the state really need to work on the PR of selling high rise to innercity communities, (those left) that it won't be Ballymun or Fatima part 2.
The regeneration schemes turned out to be a sham. It was a ruse to move council tenants out to the suburbs so the LA's could sell off public land or partially sell it off. This was government backed. This is another reason the public are hesitant of any new high rise scheme. If you look at Herberton, were Fatima use to stand, it's pretty much returned to it's former 'glory'. There are few in the way of amenities with the exception of the odd cookie cutter Spar that seems to be designed into these building complexes.

I really don't see why any criticism of government should be deflected to the LA's. They all play a role. Surely we can talk about the broad crisis without scrutinising Wicklow CC every time Eoghan makes a national level gaffe? Each LA looks after their local area, Eoghan is the minister in charge of all LA's and housing, so it stands to reason one might hone in on Eoghan rather than a specific LA, which is made up of politicians of many stripes, FG included so FG are not dodging this, like it or not. It's unfortunate. Maybe if FF were officially in government we could have a discussion on the housing crisis that included the housing minister and his wasteful antics.
Again, it wasn't an LA who sold properties to Cerberus and then bought them back.

Yes, we know you don't like Leo or Eoghan, no need to mention them 10 times in the one post in a discussion about local authority housing.

The point in bold - criticism needs to go where criticism is deserved. Here is a simple example:

If a Minister introduces better guidelines and the councils fail to implement them, the councils are to blame.
If the Minister fails to introduce better guidelines, then the Minister is to blame.

Meaningless guff about the Minister being in charge of everything is just meaningless guff because it ignores the varying statutory responsibilities of the different players. Examine the facts, see what is happening, and then draw conclusions about who is to blame or who deserves praise.

blanch152 · 30-08-2018 4:12pm

Next question, who is to blame for the mess in DCC?

Here is the one who claims to be the chairperson of Dublin City Council's Strategic Policy Committee on Housing:

http://www.sinnfein.ie/criona-ni-dhalaigh

According to this, it is Daithi Doolan, another esteemed member of Sinn Fein:

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-your-council/strategic-policy-committees-corporate-policy-group

Andrew Montague, a Labour Party Councillor heads the planning committee.

These are the people who should be asked to account for what DCC is doing in the planning and housing arena.

Idbatterim · 30-08-2018 4:19pm

Blanch that is a good insight, and I agree that far more than Leo and Eoghan Murphy are responsible for this farce. But do you not think in a crisis situation like this, that that the Taoiseach could get the people responsible for this together and say enough is enough and change the course? IF you believe that they actually want to change the situation?

blanch152 · 30-08-2018 4:38pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Blanch that is a good insight, and I agree that far more than Leo and Eoghan Murphy are responsible for this farce. But do you not think in a crisis situation like this, that that the Taoiseach could get the people responsible for this together and say enough is enough and change the course? IF you believe that they actually want to change the situation?

The Planning Acts set out the Legal Framework:

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/EN_ACT_2000_0030.PDF

Under Section 28, the Minister can "issue guidelines to planning authorities
regarding any of their functions under this Act and planning authorities shall have regard to those guidelines in the performance of their functions"

Notice, the planning authority must only have regard to the Ministerial guidelines, they are not required to adhere to them.

Under Section 29, the Minister can "may, from time to time, issue policy directives to planning authorities regarding any of their functions under this Act and planning authorities shall comply with any such directives in the performance of their functions."

This is stronger than the previous section in that planning authorities shall comply. However, it is only policy directions, which are more vague, not guidelines, which are more detailed. So, when a Minister issues a policy direction that councils should prioritise the building of housing, he must be obeyed, but if he then issues a guideline on heights or density, they only need to have regard to it. Hence, they can give permission for a low-density redevelopment of Devaney Gardens, and the Minister can do nothing.

This is copper-fastened in Section 30, which states:

"Notwithstanding section 28 or 29 and subject to subsection (2), the Minister shall not exercise any power or control in relation to any particular case with which a planning authority or the Board is or may be concerned"

This is a provision which means a Minister cannot interfere in the planning process, which is a welcome anti-corruption feature, but it also means that the local authority can ignore the guidelines at will, while paying lip-service to the policy directions e.g. Devaney Gardens.

Section 31 does give the Minister more power in relation to development plans, but only at the time they are being developed.

I am not an expert on planning law, so I may be reading those wrong, but it certainly reads to me that the local authorities have a lot of leeway, no matter what the Minister says. Certainly, in a situation where there is a housing crisis, and one party or group of parties is in power in the Oireachtas and taking all the blame, it is in the interests of other parties or groups of parties to frustrate the Minister if they are in charge of the local authority, as most people won't spot this and continue to blame the Minister.

Idbatterim · 30-08-2018 4:44pm

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...

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments