Leo is the new king of Ireland.

blanch152

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Some of the media reporting on this has been absolutely deplorable. At one point in her interview with the solicitor acting for many of the women yesterday, Sarah McInerney said “well, in some of these cases there will be more negligence than in others”. She appeared to be starting from the assumption that all of the cases in mediation involve some negligence rather than statistically inevitable false negatives (which has yet to be proven either by the courts or Scally)

While I might disagree with him, the solicitor is just doing his job for his clients. The media, on the other hand, have a responsibility to challenge him, establish the facts and inform the public instead of selling an emotional narrative that is light on evidence and fact-based assertions. And they have failed miserably to do so.

It is impossible to get sense in all of this. Nobody has demonstrated yet that the false negatives in Ireland were out of line with the false negatives anywhere else.

These cases are tragic, but you will always get false negatives in any screening programme. Are the numbers out of line? Are the procedures out of line? This has yet to be proven.

tobsey

blanch152 wrote: »

Was like that for me in the 1980s.

All of the cities have grown in size since and you can't build more houses where there is no land unless you build up. And I have shown time and again on here that the fault with not building up lies with local authorities especially DCC as the government have put in place the policies to allow for high-density high-rise in Dublin but they refuse to comply.

High-density, high rise may produce more units, but it won't reduce the cost. If the project is fully owned and built by the state on state owned lands then there might be a reduction in cost versus market value. However if you allow high rise, you simply increase the value of the land, as well as increase the cost per unit build.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

All of the cities have grown in size since and you can't build more houses where there is no land unless you build up. And I have shown time and again on here that the fault with not building up lies with local authorities especially DCC as the government have put in place the policies to allow for high-density high-rise in Dublin but they refuse to comply.

I finished my comment to another poster with the words 'Any suggestions'. Other than a usual go at one of Dublins councils what is the point of your comment?

seamus

emo72 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's bad.

Right. So step 1 is to determine what is "bad" about it.

Step 2 is to determine is the "bad"ness is of sufficient public concern that it warrants the government interfering.

Ignore the emotive language. These are financial companies whose model involves purchasing non-performing loans from banks at a discount.

The bank "loses" money on the contracted loan agreement, but saves money by not having to chase the borrower continually, and at a higher level it has traded a non-liquid liability for a liquid asset, improving the stability of its finances.

One can argue that 10,000 customers have been thrown in front of the bus because they weren't paying their loans. But at the same time we can't expect banks to be charities and just pretend that these loans don't exist.

Unless the state is willing to set up its own "distressed loans" company that takes ownership of these, then the banks have no other option but to sell them on. As usual.

Personally I think the latter isn't a terrible idea; but it would end up being a big money pit that we throw a few billion into and get nothing but whinging in return, both about how much it costs the state and about the fact that it's chasing poor people for mortgage repayments.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Was like that for me in the 1980s.

All of the cities have grown in size since and you can't build more houses where there is no land unless you build up. And I have shown time and again on here that the fault with not building up lies with local authorities especially DCC as the government have put in place the policies to allow for high-density high-rise in Dublin but they refuse to comply.

It is DCCs fault that NIMBY residents/gombeen politicans (such as our very own Taoiseach complain/lodge complaints/prevent high rises,) for not building up?

Quick smmary? DCC can be blamed for not building up, but Leo's entirely blameless and unselfish for not wanting the housing to be built up in his own area?


Taoiseach Leo Varadkar defends objections to constituency development, claiming area has been 'blighted'

Does Trump own any golf courses in the area I wonder :pac:

Who writes the script here?

seamus

Objecting to development in one area doesn't make someone a hypocrite.

All development should be appropriate to the needs and facilities of the local area.

One of the big mistakes made during the boom was exactly what he opposed - building big apartment blocks way out from the city. This increases population densities in locations that do not have the infrastructure to handle them. City centres are equipped for denser populations, so this is where high-rise/high-density development should occur.

The housing crisis will not be fixed by lashing up property anywhere and everywhere without consideration to the long-term strategy for the area and the impact both to existing residents and those who will live in the new properties.

I'm not defending this instance specifically; he may very well be a hypocrite in this instance, I haven't looked at it in-depth. But on the face of it, and in the more general sense, I don't see any disconnect in filing an objection to development if there's a genuine reason why it's not appropriate.

markodaly

blanch152 wrote: »

Was like that for me in the 1980s.

All of the cities have grown in size since and you can't build more houses where there is no land unless you build up. And I have shown time and again on here that the fault with not building up lies with local authorities especially DCC as the government have put in place the policies to allow for high-density high-rise in Dublin but they refuse to comply.

DCC's statement on the matter.

The released a long await development strategy on Dublin in 2016.

The development plan acknowledges that Dublin is a “low-rise city and considers that it should remain predominantly so”, but also that the council “recognises the merit of taller buildings”.

THAT is the reason why there is a housing crisis in Dublin.
There are taller buildings being built in Sandyford and Cork, than in Dublin City.

Who runs DCC?

Hitman3000

markodaly wrote:

Tell him to hold right for a few years, as once he gets a nice transfer to another part of the country, he will be golden to get a mortgage for a 4/5 bed detached house. Retire at 55 at half pay. Boom! Not all bad now is it.

Lot of assumptions there. He will not retire on half pay at 55. At present he needs to live so I asked the poster who made the usual smart alec comments for suggestions. I guess on this occasion he has none and judging by your post neither do you.

blackwhite

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Lot of assumptions there. He will not retire on half pay at 55. At present he needs to live so I asked the poster who made the usual smart alec comments for suggestions. I guess on this occasion he has none and judging by your post neither do you.

I'd suggest that the claim that it's an extreme exaggeration to claim he can't find affordable accmomodation within 2 hours of his work TBH.

Sounds suspiciously like he's unwilling to consider certain options and has made a choice to live 2 hours away in exchange for superior accommodation.

Trainees in the large accountacy firms are starting on 24-26k PA at the moment (and they don't get anything by way of allowances, etc to bump that up - and overtime isn't paid, it's held to be set against study leave around exams), and can somehow find accommodation in Dublin (and inside the M50 at that). They mostly live in house-shares of 3-4 people., the same as all young people starting their careers.

This nonsense of expecting to be able to rent on your own, or in a 2-bed, form the day you begin your career is utter nonsense - it's never been the case in the past so why should it suddenly be seen as an "entitlement" now.

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

Or
You work. You can't afford rent. You work harder/longer/better. You can afford the rent! The State has no need to provide.

Or
Without the State you work, but have no roof of your own.
So you get a mortgage, borrow from the parents, wait for an inheritance, share a house, get married, win the lotto, get lucky etc etc.

Life throws up many options.

Great points. Not related to mine mind. So the housing crisis is a lifestyle choice. Noted.
There are working people dependent on the state. The next time you see someone complaining about being in the squeezed middle, too much tax going to this or that, tell them to work harder/longer/better.

James Brown

emo72 wrote: »

Has Leo not got any advisors? How the **** could he not be briefed about the PTSB sale?

He didn't know, or, doesn't want to know, or, just doesn't give a ****.

That's the standard FF/FG defense. 'I didn't know' 'I wasn't aware', even if it's within their own department.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I finished my comment to another poster with the words 'Any suggestions'. Other than a usual go at one of Dublins councils what is the point of your comment?

Sort out the council, do you agree?

If not, explain why you think DCC are doing a good job.

James Brown

seamus wrote: »

Maybe it doesn't matter? Banks sell loan books all the time. Should the government be involved in the minutiae of every decision made by banks' boards?

I know it's trendy at the moment for people to cry about "vulture funds", but this kind of activity has been going on for decades. That doesn't make it good or bad, but it also doesn't mean the state should be interfering just because it's the populist thing to do.

It's about protecting home owners with loans on their homes. People lose money on stocks and bonds all the time. The government shouldn't be getting involved in...oh wait.
'The government can't be involved in the minutiae of every decision made by banks' boards', what could possibly go wrong?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It is DCCs fault that NIMBY residents/gombeen politicans (such as our very own Taoiseach complain/lodge complaints/prevent high rises,) for not building up?

Quick smmary? DCC can be blamed for not building up, but Leo's entirely blameless and unselfish for not wanting the housing to be built up in his own area?


Taoiseach Leo Varadkar defends objections to constituency development, claiming area has been 'blighted'

Does Trump own any golf courses in the area I wonder :pac:

Who writes the script here?

Textbook example of whataboutery.

Varadkar's objection is in another council area. How does that prevent DCC doing their job?

Even if it was, fully in their power to overrule objections. What have DCC done?

James Brown

seamus wrote: »

Objecting to development in one area doesn't make someone a hypocrite.

All development should be appropriate to the needs and facilities of the local area.

One of the big mistakes made during the boom was exactly what he opposed - building big apartment blocks way out from the city. This increases population densities in locations that do not have the infrastructure to handle them. City centres are equipped for denser populations, so this is where high-rise/high-density development should occur.

The housing crisis will not be fixed by lashing up property anywhere and everywhere without consideration to the long-term strategy for the area and the impact both to existing residents and those who will live in the new properties.

I'm not defending this instance specifically; he may very well be a hypocrite in this instance, I haven't looked at it in-depth. But on the face of it, and in the more general sense, I don't see any disconnect in filing an objection to development if there's a genuine reason why it's not appropriate.

Yet Eoghan Murphy was at a photo op for St. Michael's Estate, (although we are to believe I've as much to do with that as he does) an area pegged for high density, with little local amenities? Or sure that's DCC? Well in the least Eoghan was all for it.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's about protecting home owners with loans on their homes. People lose money on stocks and bonds all the time. The government shouldn't be getting involved in...oh wait.
The government can't be involved in the minutiae of every decision made by banks' boards, what could possibly go wrong?

Yes, it is about protecting the wealthy like the Brian O'Donnells of this world:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/court-orders-nailed-to-gates-of-o-donnell-home-in-killiney-1.2124914


It really is astounding that people who profess to want to help the poor are arguing that we should do something for the wealthy. Let the vulture funds sort out the O'Donnells of this world.

markodaly

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Lot of assumptions there. He will not retire on half pay at 55. At present he needs to live so I asked the poster who made the usual smart alec comments for suggestions. I guess on this occasion he has none and judging by your post neither do you.

How many years service does he have under his belt?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yet Eoghan Murphy was at a photo op for St. Michael's Estate, (although we are to believe I've as much to do with that as he does) an area pegged for high density, with little local amenities? Or sure that's DCC? Well in the least Eoghan was all for it.

We have had one poster talking about Leo in another council area and another poster talking about Eoghan and a photo opportunity, all in the cause of defending the decision of DCC to opt for low-rise in the city centre

Come off it lads. Get real. Do you agree with DCC and their low rise plans?

James Brown

blackwhite wrote: »

I'd suggest that the claim that it's an extreme exaggeration to claim he can't find affordable accmomodation within 2 hours of his work TBH.

Sounds suspiciously like he's unwilling to consider certain options and has made a choice to live 2 hours away in exchange for superior accommodation.

Trainees in the large accountacy firms are starting on 24-26k PA at the moment (and they don't get anything by way of allowances, etc to bump that up - and overtime isn't paid, it's held to be set against study leave around exams), and can somehow find accommodation in Dublin (and inside the M50 at that). They mostly live in house-shares of 3-4 people., the same as all young people starting their careers.

This nonsense of expecting to be able to rent on your own, or in a 2-bed, form the day you begin your career is utter nonsense - it's never been the case in the past so why should it suddenly be seen as an "entitlement" now.

Do you notice how common or garden things, years ago are now fantasy and 'nonsense'? A family use to be able to buy a modest house on one good salary. Now two with good salaries often need move outside of the city. Anyone with any kind of a job could afford to rent a flat somewhere, now it's 'utter nonsense'. What are we working towards exactly? 'Entitlement'? That's utter nonsense.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

Sort out the council, do you agree?

You wish to have your usual rant about councils, be my guest, I however have no interest in doing the same.

blanch152 wrote:

If not, explain why you think DCC are doing a good job.

See above.

seamus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's about protecting home owners with loans on their homes. People lose money on stocks and bonds all the time. The government shouldn't be getting involved in...oh wait.
'The government can't be involved in the minutiae of every decision made by banks' boards', what could possibly go wrong?

Still on the "burn the bondholders" stuff? That was a strategic decision to protect the country's economy. And while I still don't fully support the extent of what was done, given the current state of our national fnancies it can't be denied that the right decision was made.

Show me how protecting people who aren't paying their mortgages is in the national interest and you may have a point.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yet Eoghan Murphy was at a photo op for St. Michael's Estate, (although we are to believe I've as much to do with that as he does) an area pegged for high density, with little local amenities? Or sure that's DCC? Well in the least Eoghan was all for it.

I thought we were talking about Leo Varadkar.
In fact, you're basically proving my point. High density in the city centre is a good thing. It's the way to go. The infrastructure is there to support it.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Lot of assumptions there. He will not retire on half pay at 55. At present he needs to live so I asked the poster who made the usual smart alec comments for suggestions. I guess on this occasion he has none and judging by your post neither do you.

https://gra.ie/information/pension-retirement/


Apologies on behalf of the other poster, you are correct, he won't be retiring on half-pay at 55, he will be able to retire on half-pay at 50, assuming he joined before 20. If he joined after the age of 20, he will be able to retire on half pay once he has worked 30 years.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you notice how common or garden things, years ago are now fantasy and 'nonsense'? A family use to be able to buy a modest house on one good salary. Now two with good salaries often need move outside of the city. Anyone with any kind of a job could afford to rent a flat somewhere, now it's 'utter nonsense'. What are we working towards exactly? 'Entitlement'? That's utter nonsense.

When I joined the civil service way back when, anyone not from Dublin was in a bedsit or a houseshare. Bedsits were outlawed by FF and that leaves only a houseshare.

All the Guards I knew were living in houseshares at the time. It was only during the Celtic Tiger years when FF had us living beyond our means that having your own place in your early 20s became common or garden.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

We have had one poster talking about Leo in another council area and another poster talking about Eoghan and a photo opportunity, all in the cause of defending the decision of DCC to opt for low-rise in the city centre

Come off it lads. Get real. Do you agree with DCC and their low rise plans?

Fudging again.
A poster had Leo's back contending high density may not have been suitable in Leo's area due to amenities and so on. I pointed out Eoghan was all for high density in an area with few amenities. Your response is to fudge and bring it to DCC which has no bearing on whether leo engaged in nimbyism or not, but it helps to deflect.
'Leo engaged in Nimbyism. Not he didn't. DCC something!' You come off it.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You wish to have your usual rant about councils, be my guest, I however have no interest in doing the same.



See above.

Well, there is a clear agenda from a number of posters to refuse to discuss the abysmal performance of DCC in order to talk about Eoghan and the Gardai.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Fudging again.
A poster had Leo's back contending high density may not have been suitable in Leo's area due to amenities and so on. I pointed out Eoghan was all for high density in an area with few amenities. Your response is to fudge and bring it to DCC which has no bearing on whether leo engaged in nimbyism or not, but it helps to deflect.

DCC have rejected the better St. Patrick's Athletic option for Inchicore because of the ideological attitude of the councillors who are against all private development.

markodaly

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Should have been your first question instead of a reply full of assumptions.

Do you want to answer the question?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

When I joined the civil service way back when, anyone not from Dublin was in a bedsit or a houseshare. Bedsits were outlawed by FF and that leaves only a houseshare.

All the Guards I knew were living in houseshares at the time. It was only during the Celtic Tiger years when FF had us living beyond our means that having your own place in your early 20s became common or garden.

You're wrong. Myself and pretty much everyone I knew moved out in their late teens/early twenties to bed sits, one bedroom flats, rooms in houses, shared houses. Things have gotten worse, especially in regard to a working wage not being able to afford to buy a roof. I've no interest in your denials and nothing to see here efforts, they ignore uncomfortable reality. Yes bedsits are gone.

Here's fun. When I was 28 I bought a 2 bedroom house in Dublin city.

markodaly

Just reading up on this Jerry Beades idiot.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/bank-can-repossess-jerry-beadesowned-properties-37065492.html

KBC claimed Mr Beades borrowed approximately €1.3m in 2003 from IIB Homeloans (now KBC) secured on the properties. KBC claimed some €2.1m remains outstanding. The lender secured possession orders from the High Court in 2008. Those orders were appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the High Court's decision in 2014.

The whole process taking ten years? Again, another reason why we have a development crisis in housing. The sooner NP loans are sold off the better.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're wrong. Myself and pretty much everyone I knew moved out in their late teens/early twenties to bed sits, one bedroom flats, rooms in houses, shared houses. Things have gotten worse, especially in regard to a working wage not being able to afford to buy a roof. I've no interest in your denials and nothing to see here efforts, they ignore uncomfortable reality. Yes bedsits are gone.

Here's fun. When I was 28 I bought a 2 bedroom house in Dublin city.

How old were you when you moved into a bedsit? Was this in the 70's/80's ?