Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

James Brown · 12-11-2019 4:16pm

Boggles wrote: »

They will like fun.

Look up the BER rating of any ex local authority houses and there will be a picture of a penguin eating a cone.

They have done. Not saying they do it every year. They've had plans and carried them out to upgrade windows.

recedite · 12-11-2019 4:16pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Unless this has changed, no.

Change it then. A new contract for new times - to include basic maintenance. Some responsibility on the tenant towards the upkeep of their own long term home. Surely not too much to ask.

James Brown · 12-11-2019 4:17pm

recedite wrote: »

Change it then. A new contract for new times - to include basic maintenance. Some responsibility on the tenant towards the upkeep of their own long term home. Surely not too much to ask.

Boss, that's already in place AFAIK. Unless they changed it, it was standard.

Boggles · 12-11-2019 4:25pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They have done. Not saying they do it every year. They've had plans and carried them out to upgrade windows.

They certainly do sometimes when they get a glut of money, but more often than not they don't have the funds. Remember the "ring fenced" LPT that went to Irish water.

The reality is they don't know the state of their stock because the majority are not inspected.

Those that are fail the most basic of standards, this is true in the private market too.

beauf · 12-11-2019 5:04pm

recedite wrote: »

I do see the social value, that's why I recognised that exact point...

I disagree.

But if you don't want a tenant to take ownership, then don't let them.
But don't expect to get the benefits that arose from that part ownership.
There nothing on the table to tackle those problems either.

markodaly · 12-11-2019 10:49pm

recedite wrote: »

No the people selling the house didn't invest, they inherited. The taxpayer invested, but lost the investment.
That's privatisation of a social asset.

Via an inheritance by somebody who already has enough money to live on, comfortably.

Surely the very worst form of capitalism?

Do the people in favor of this policy realise that this was one of Margaret Thatcher's core policy.

How does it feel like, to champion Thatcherism? :eek:

beauf · 12-11-2019 11:42pm

markodaly wrote: »

Do the people in favor of this policy realise that this was one of Margaret Thatcher's core policy.

How does it feel like, to champion Thatcherism? :eek:

No one here agrees with not having social housing. Or that it was stupid to stop building it. But it's a nice strawman.

Here another. How does it feel to promoting the creation massive crime ridden ghettos as existed in the past, and huge socially deprived no go areas.

Lol...

What is needed is sustainable social and affordable housing as part of all new developments. That's actually enforced. We should look at what's worked in other countries and not just blindly copy it either.

That said people seem be determined to repeat the cycle of the past.

markodaly · 13-11-2019 12:15am

beauf wrote: »

No one here agrees with not having social housing. Or that it was stupid to stop building it.

The privatization of social housing is being actively supported here.
That is a Thatcherite policy. If you support it fine, but at least own it.

Boggles · 13-11-2019 10:20am

markodaly wrote: »

The privatization of social housing is being actively supported here.

I actively grew up and was a 'product' of it.

Can't recommend highly enough.

Fair play Maggie, she wasn't a complete Bítch, a stopped clock is right at least twice a day.

James Brown · 13-11-2019 4:59pm

markodaly wrote: »

The privatization of social housing is being actively supported here.
That is a Thatcherite policy. If you support it fine, but at least own it.

All property is theft? I hear you're a communist now father?

Boggles wrote: »

I actively grew up and was a 'product' of it.

Can't recommend highly enough.

Fair play Maggie, she wasn't a complete Bítch, a stopped clock is right at least twice a day.

The key flaw in her logic for me was when the economy is booming and markets doing great on the suffering and abject poverty of the general public, she kind of missed the point of her job IMO.

13-11-2019 6:02pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

You're the only one suggesting that Government build housing would be free it has never been free and it never will be it's a nonsense argument given the amount of tax we pay the very least we should be demanding is housing and healthcare.

I made no such suggestion; my reference to a "free forever home" was - as was patently obviously to anyone of average intelligence - ironic. So the only nonsense is that contained in your lame response - in particular in its final clause.

pinkyeye · 14-11-2019 9:49pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that entire second article is about the issue, the entire first one is about a 'homeless activist' turning it down . I gave you exactly what you ask for. I think your post is being intentionally obtuse trying to pretend that this isnt a massive scam by these people for the most part.

Where EXACTLY does it state in either of those articles that the MAJORITY turn down offers of housing which was your statement????

Total BS and you know it. You have NO back up for your statement.

markodaly · 14-11-2019 11:48pm

Boggles wrote: »

I actively grew up and was a 'product' of it.

Can't recommend highly enough.

Fair play Maggie, she wasn't a complete Bítch, a stopped clock is right at least twice a day.

As a direct benifactor of this policy, dare I say you have a vested interest in it.
And good for your parents and the taxpayer of the time, giving you that leg up.
However, what has actually transpired is that house, that could be used to house another family was not replaced, thus exasperating the issue. I guess you are against property tax as well.

Again, social housing stock is not privatised on the continent, and for for good reason.

14-11-2019 11:56pm

Boggles wrote: »

I actively grew up and was a 'product' of it.

Can't recommend highly enough.

Fair play Maggie, she wasn't a complete Bítch, a stopped clock is right at least twice a day.

So was I a 'product ' of it.
It's still not a good policy

markodaly · 15-11-2019 12:44am

bubblypop wrote: »

So was I a 'product ' of it.
It's still not a good policy

Dare I say its a populist policy.

Boggles · 15-11-2019 9:48am

markodaly wrote: »

As a direct benifactor of this policy, dare I say you have a vested interest in it.

You are incorrect.

markodaly wrote: »

And good for your parents and the taxpayer of the time, giving you that leg up.

They were tax payers as now are all their kids. Money used to subsidies your little expensive footprint and give "you that leg up".

markodaly wrote: »

However, what has actually transpired is that house, that could be used to house another family was not replaced,

How do you know?

markodaly wrote: »

Again, social housing stock is not privatised on the continent, and for for good reason.

Incorrect. Unsurprisingly.

Boggles · 15-11-2019 9:50am

bubblypop wrote: »

So was I a 'product ' of it.
It's still not a good policy

It is a excellent policy which has proven fantastic economic and social benefits.

Your problem is the incompetence and mismanagement of national and local governance.

markodaly · 15-11-2019 11:34am

Boggles wrote: »

How do you know?

Because the state has by and large stopped building social housing for the past 30 years. Its the very topic of this thread.

Incorrect. Unsurprisingly.

Really? Tell me, how much of German social housing stock is sold off each year?

Boggles · 15-11-2019 11:37am

markodaly wrote: »

Because the state has by and large stopped building social housing for the past 30 years. Its the very topic of this thread.

Yip they privatized it.

In the ludicrous example above given the a developer free land and buying the dwelling at market value.

markodaly wrote: »

Really? Tell me, how much of German social housing stock is sold off each year?

Jesus you are going to wreck your back moving those goalposts lad.

markodaly wrote: »

Again, social housing stock is not privatised on the continent

When did Germany become a continent?

markodaly · 15-11-2019 11:43am

Boggles wrote: »

Yip they privatized it.

In the ludicrous example above given the a developer free land and buying the dwelling at market value.

For someone so intent on fact-checking others this is actually incorrect.
The land was given 'away' in return for

247 Social Housing Units
247 Cost Rental Units.
164 Affordable Housing Units at a maximum purchase price of E310,000.
164 units to be sold privately

Jesus you are going to wreck your back moving those goalposts lad.

When did Germany become a continent?

So you cannot provide us with any facts about social housing privatisation then.
I just used Germany as an example, but by all means use Denmark, Austria, Finland, or another EU country of your choice.

Boggles · 15-11-2019 11:46am

markodaly wrote: »

So you cannot provide us with any facts about social housing privatisation then.
I just used Germany as an example, but by all means use Denmark, Austria, Finland, or another EU country of your choice.

Is Spain in your ever redefined continent?

Do your research lad before making sweeping false statements, articulate a point based on reality and not snobbery and we will have a chat.

Until then. it's Friday stop being so miserable and go enjoy life.

suicide_circus · 15-11-2019 11:52am

selling off social housing, public land or infrastructure should be avoided at all costs.

markodaly · 15-11-2019 11:56am

Boggles wrote: »

Is Spain in your ever redefined continent?

Do your research lad before making sweeping false statements, articulate a point based on reality and not snobbery and we will have a chat.

Until then. it's Friday stop being so miserable and go enjoy life.

So, what % of social housing does Spain privatise a year?

James Brown · 15-11-2019 5:51pm

All the average tax paying worker can aspire to, within reason, is one day owning his or her own house. The current system makes that impossible for an ever increasing number.
I don't think it's right for a government to assist in putting that aspiration further out of reach of the average tax payer.

If you work and pay tax all you life it should be towards more than paying rent or subsidised rent for the private profits of an entity welcomed with open arms by the LA's/state with low taxation and their custom.
Instead the LA's/state should be working in the average tax payers interest, IMO.

It seems unreasonable to expect a company to break even, get by, yet that's what the fortunate working tax payer might expect and is supposed to be happy at that. The unfortunate called spongers looking for a 'foreva' home in some circles, while we dole out grants and subsidies, low taxation to business as par for the course.

expectationlost · 18-11-2019 5:33pm

Horsebox9000 wrote: »

Seriously... I'm baffled by this
https://twitter.com/ohnofalafel/status/1191471042109284352

What do people think?

https://twitter.com/1GaryGannon/status/1191344958286041089

did he really sort it? https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/1118/1092533-housing-devaney-gardens/

Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy has warned an agreement, claimed to have been reached by a group of Dublin city councillors on O'Devaney Gardens, cannot be implemented due to funding and legal concerns.

NewbridgeIR · 19-11-2019 12:05am

Oh No! Falafel has now gone down the protected tweets route. Gobsh*te,

Scoundrel · 19-11-2019 10:59am

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

Oh No! Falafel has now gone down the protected tweets route. Gobsh*te,

And?? What has this got to do with the topic?

hatrickpatrick · 19-11-2019 4:48pm

markodaly wrote: »

For someone so intent on fact-checking others this is actually incorrect.
The land was given 'away' in return for

247 Social Housing Units
247 Cost Rental Units.
164 Affordable Housing Units at a maximum purchase price of E310,000.
164 units to be sold privately

That's under the council's deal which Murphy and FG are trying to kill. The deal they want involves no cost rental units at all and 411 privately sold (rip-pff market value) unites. The original development had 278 units of social housing, so that's a loss of 31 units, under the deal FG's government wants to push through by blocking anything else the council comes up with.

Idbatterim · 19-11-2019 5:35pm

they can magically increase the amount of units, by increasing the density permitted on the site...

James Brown · 19-11-2019 5:37pm

Pretty much sums it up for me.

'Generation Rent searches for homes as Government invests in corporate welfare'
The O'Devaney Gardens estate in North Dublin has become the latest political battleground for affordable housing.

Controversial plans to build a mix of social and private housing on O'Devaney through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) were reluctantly agreed in recent weeks by Dublin City Council. But as detailed in the Irish Independent yesterday, the plans are in crisis once more as Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy states there is no funding for proposed affordable rental units.

This shows that, despite all the rhetoric, his Government is ideologically opposed to building genuinely affordable rental and social housing on a major scale on public land. Rather than using our huge public land banks to solve the devastating crisis facing renters and the homeless, instead they are forcing failed PPP policies that hand the land to developers to build mainly private "unaffordable" housing on public land.
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/rory-hearne-generation-rent-searches-for-homes-as-government-invests-in-corporate-welfare-38705066.html

Less private profit in looking after the tax payer, that's the real barrier for FG.

Idbatterim · 19-11-2019 5:44pm

maybe if those in social housing, werent put there at nearly 100% cost to the taxpayer, they could afford more cost plus homes?

Idbatterim · 19-11-2019 5:45pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Pretty much sums it up for me.

Less private profit in looking after the tax payer, that's the real barrier for FG.

I agree with much of what that article says. But the total overlooking of giving some people very expensive housing for nothing, and not seeing that as part of the problem, is comedy! COMEDY!

James Brown · 19-11-2019 5:46pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

maybe if those in social housing, werent put there at nearly 100% cost to the taxpayer, they could afford more cost plus homes?

Do you think the developer is breaking even? Is he f***. That's the problem with PPP. We the tax payer seem to get the raw end of the deal. The developer is in situ now and Murphy is talking about homes being to costly to buy off the man building them on our own land. I don't believe Fine Gael are the complete f***wits they come across as. This is what they want, so I can only guess they're in no hurry to tackle the housing crisis if it mean loss of private profit for the market. In other words f*** the tax paying donkeys, we're looking after our own.

Idbatterim · 19-11-2019 5:51pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you think the developers is breaking even? Is he f***. That's the problem with PPP. We the tax payer seem to get the raw end of the deal. The developer is in situ now and Murphy is talking about homes being to costly to buy off the man building them on our own land.

yeah, I dont think the process is a great one. I am sick to death of the local Councillors etc crying about the lack of housing though, when they block as much as possible at every attempt, wont increase the laughably low LPT etc, allow farcically low "rents" on social housing etc. Its a joke for everyone except those at the receiving end paying well over the odds. While their likely neighbors, give nothing a good work out except their mouths!

This might not go down well, but Im not a politician looking for a vote! The more working people they get into those areas, the better!

James Brown · 19-11-2019 5:52pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

I agree with much of what that article says. But the total overlooking of giving some people very expensive housing for nothing, and not seeing that as part of the problem, is comedy! COMEDY!

You can choose to read it that way. I see it as the government/LA's stepping in to help hard working tax payers buy or rent at affordable rates rather than keeping the developers and vulture funds in more profit by subsidising their customer base or giving them business.

James Brown · 19-11-2019 5:55pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah, I dont think the process is a great one. I am sick to death of the local Councillors etc crying about the lack of housing though, when they block as much as possible at every attempt, wont increase the laughably low LPT etc, allow farcically low "rents" on social housing etc. Its a joke for everyone except those at the receiving end paying well over the odds. While their likely neighbors, give nothing a good work out except their mouths!

This might not go down well, but Im not a politician looking for a vote! The more working people they get into those areas, the better!

I agree.
People are charged rent based on income. If they are on the dole that's for the welfare to vet, also they have to be housed somehow why not the cheapest option, (if done right)? Doesn't take away from the concept.
Nobody on the dole will be buying an affordable house.

hatrickpatrick · 19-11-2019 6:15pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

they can magically increase the amount of units, by increasing the density permitted on the site...

Or, the government could stop trying so desperately to force the council into selling public land on the market to the highest bidder.

I fully agree about increasing the density btw, but there are two distinct issues here. One is DCC's total lack of vision for high rise development, and the other is the central government's ideological refusal to accept that a large number of people cannot afford market rents and shouldn't be being asked to make the kinds of sacrifices necessary in order to do so.

Idbatterim · 19-11-2019 6:31pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Or, the government could stop trying so desperately to force the council into selling public land on the market to the highest bidder.

I fully agree about increasing the density btw, but there are two distinct issues here. One is DCC's total lack of vision for high rise development, and the other is the central government's ideological refusal to accept that a large number of people cannot afford market rents and shouldn't be being asked to make the kinds of sacrifices necessary in order to do so.

they government can literally massively increase the site value, by dictating reasonable densities, would raise way more in the sale of land if choosing that route or could negotiate far more units if going down the ppp route. Would take in a lot more from LPT, the large increase in the cost of the development, a decent chunk goes back to government anyway.

They really are morons of the highest order here!

James Brown · 19-11-2019 7:22pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

they government can literally massively increase the site value, by dictating reasonable densities, would raise way more in the sale of land if choosing that route or could negotiate far more units if going down the ppp route. Would take in a lot more from LPT, the large increase in the cost of the development, a decent chunk goes back to government anyway.

They really are morons of the highest order here!

I disagree. They know what the outcome of their actions are at this stage.

NewbridgeIR · 19-11-2019 9:39pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

And?? What has this got to do with the topic?

That person wrote the tweet (criticising Gary Gannon) quoted by the OP in the very first post in this thread. So quite a lot to do with the topic.

Scoundrel · 20-11-2019 11:29am

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

That person wrote the tweet (criticising Gary Gannon) quoted by the OP in the very first post in this thread. So quite a lot to do with the topic.

Oh I see that now I thought it you were on the wrong thread or something my bad. That person seems like a head banger to be fair.

Geuze · 20-11-2019 11:35am

Why didn't the City Council cut out Bartra and develop the site itself?

They own the land.

They have an architect and planners.

Then appoint a contractor.

Sell some as regular apts for sale into normal market.

Sell some as "affordable" homes.

Keep some for social housing tenants.

BattleCorp · 20-11-2019 12:34pm

Geuze wrote: »

Why didn't the City Council cut out Bartra and develop the site itself?

They own the land.

They have an architect and planners.

Then appoint a contractor.

Sell some as regular apts for sale into normal market.

Sell some as "affordable" homes.

Keep some for social housing tenants.

Given the shennanigans around the costs for the children's hospital (escalating expedentially), I doubt that the city council have the expertise to effectively manage such projects.

hatrickpatrick · 20-11-2019 12:35pm

Geuze wrote: »

Why didn't the City Council cut out Bartra and develop the site itself?

They own the land.

They have an architect and planners.

Then appoint a contractor.

Sell some as regular apts for sale into normal market.

Sell some as "affordable" homes.

Keep some for social housing tenants.

Because Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in the central government won't allow this. Since the early 1990s, the idea of directly built social housing has been ideologically rejected by the two main parties and unfortunately because people keep voting for them, we're stuck with that paradigm until something changes electorally.

What you're describing is precisely what was voted for by Dublin City Council a few years ago, but the government point blank stated that they would refuse to fund anything which didn't involve sell-offs to private developers. And in this particular case, they're stating point blank that they will not even fund a deal which involves buying units back from a private developer. They simply do not believe in publicly owned housing because it doesn't suit their neoliberal, devoid-of-empathy "everything is about market economics and not about people" ideology.

James Brown · 20-11-2019 3:16pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Given the shennanigans around the costs for the children's hospital (escalating expedentially), I doubt that the city council have the expertise to effectively manage such projects.

That's irrelevant. This project we are discussing is in the ****ter and it's PPP, so we stop PPP and say 'sure look at O'Devany Gardens'? I wish.
TBF, as regards the National Children' Hospital it's not a DCC project and the Ministers of Finance and Health not only took their hands off the wheel, they were in the back seat playing Punch Buggy.

James Brown · 20-11-2019 3:20pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in the central government won't allow this. Since the early 1990s, the idea of directly built social housing has been ideologically rejected by the two main parties and unfortunately because people keep voting for them, we're stuck with that paradigm until something changes electorally.

What you're describing is precisely what was voted for by Dublin City Council a few years ago, but the government point blank stated that they would refuse to fund anything which didn't involve sell-offs to private developers. And in this particular case, they're stating point blank that they will not even fund a deal which involves buying units back from a private developer. They simply do not believe in publicly owned housing because it doesn't suit their neoliberal, devoid-of-empathy "everything is about market economics and not about people" ideology.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

Comments