Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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!0
-
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.0 -
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
Assuming that is correct, the local authorities are another joke in the entire system...0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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!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).
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-1.27681180 -
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.0 -
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...0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0
-
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.0 -
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...0 -
Advertisement
-
Idbatterim wrote: »ok, can he change the law or guidelines again, so that they do have to now start implementing minimum densities, far higher than is currently the case?
Because it appears, that the local authorities and planning are a massive part of the problem, they wont sort themselves out as they are obviously happy as they are. Someone is going to have to do something about it...
youd wonder what eoghan murphy privately makes of all of this, is he merely a pawn? I wouldnt want that role and flack IF the role was simply created to make it look like something was being done, but all the vested interest snakes, actually blocked any change...
It is one of the reasons I have been reluctant to criticise him. He has produced some better guidelines, he is in a public consultation process on some other better ones, his work on new guidelines for student accommodation have worked, albeit they are very expensive, but every student in student accommodation is one less competing in the private residential market. so he has done many of the high-level things that needed to be done.
My biggest criticism would be the pretense by the government that they can sort it. They can't, they need the input of too many other players.
We all have a chance in the next local elections to change things, but I suspect that the candidates who promise to limit development in your local immediate area will win most of the votes. After all, those that don't live in your area yet, don't have a vote.0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »ok, can he change the law or guidelines again, so that they do have to now start implementing minimum densities, far higher than is currently the case?
Because it appears, that the local authorities and planning are a massive part of the problem, they wont sort themselves out as they are obviously happy as they are. Someone is going to have to do something about it...
youd wonder what eoghan murphy privately makes of all of this, is he merely a pawn? I wouldnt want that role and flack IF the role was simply created to make it look like something was being done, but all the vested interest snakes, actually blocked any change...
It's not an either or situation. The LA's can't bring in broad national policy as easily as Eoghan and Leo can. Both sides carry blame, although I personally don't see it as sides. It's all government both local and national. They are all elected and they all, to some degree, create policy.
NAMA giving cheap loans to private developers and Eoghan thinking merely more builds will suffice is the root of the mindset/problem. Each LA has their own issues and politics too, but we need a change of tack from the top down more than anything. Eoghan is the minister overseeing all LA's and housing. That's his job not Larry the local councilor from PBP or what ever.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »It's not an either or situation. The LA's can't bring in broad national policy as easily as Eoghan and Leo can. Both sides carry blame, although I personally don't see it as sides. It's all government both local and national. They are all elected and they all, to some degree, create policy.
NAMA giving cheap loans to private developers and Eoghan thinking merely more builds will suffice is the root of the mindset/problem. Each LA has their own issues and politics too, but we need a change of tack from the top down more than anything. Eoghan is the minister overseeing all LA's and housing. That's his job not Larry the local councilor from PBP or what ever.
Have you followed any of the discussion today?
The issues with planning implementation at local authority were clearly set out and links provided. The actions taken by the Minister were clearly set out and links provided. The failure of the local authorities to respond was clearly set out and links provided. The restrictions on the Minister's ability to interfere as set out in the Planning Acts were stated and links provided.
How much evidence do you need to change the broken record that "Eoghan" is overseeing all LA's and housing. Once again four mentions of Eoghan and Leo in a post, you have a fixation.
As for the NAMA properties, I have been through this many times. The country needs 35,000 homes a year, yet you think the biggest problem is that the Housing Agency bought 20, yes 20, houses back from Cerebus that NAMA had previously sold them. Unbelievable.
If you think that Eoghan Murphy is the problem, rather that tossing out platitudes like a politician, maybe you could explain in concrete detail what you expect the Minister to do, giving links to back up what you are saying.0 -
I dont think we will have the chance to rectify anything, they all run on a "develop as little as possibly can be gotten away with" platform, from what I can tell anyway...We all have a chance in the next local elections to change things, but I suspect that the candidates who promise to limit development in your local immediate area will win most of the votes. After all, those that don't live in your area yet, don't have a vote.
that is very true, except those living at home with their parents or renting in the area, they would be local voters and it would make sense for them that supply were increased...
one good change that was made, was anything over 100 units going straight to ABP, the decision time is pretty quick now... I wouldnt commend them on much else. The cost to construct apartments is simply way too high for the average joe to afford. Developers are let build what is most profitable, not what is better use of land and best for society. (this is then supported at all levels of planning, particularly local).
Say you had a magic wand, I would reckon, simply insisting and mandating far higher densities and addressing the cost of construction for apartments could nearly single handedly sort this crisis...0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »NAMA giving cheap loans to private developers [...] thinking merely more builds will suffice is the root of the mindset/problem.
Sound-bite posting tbh, no logic to the theory that more building is part of the problem of housing shortage.
More houses = fewer houses
0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »I dont think we will have the chance to rectify anything, they all run on a "develop as little as possibly can be gotten away with" platform, from what I can tell anyway...
that is very true, except those living at home with their parents or renting in the area, they would be local voters and it would make sense for them that supply were increased...
one good change that was made, was anything over 100 units going straight to ABP, the decision time is pretty quick now... I wouldnt commend them on much else. The cost to construct apartments is simply way too high for the average joe to afford. Developers are let build what is most profitable, not what is better use of land and best for society. (this is then supported at all levels of planning, particularly local).
Say you had a magic wand, I would reckon, simply insisting and mandating far higher densities and addressing the cost of construction for apartments could nearly single handedly sort this crisis...
What else do you expect developers - or anyone else in the private sector - to do? Each developer (I presume) seeks to maximise his profits and to survive in business as long as possible. It's the competition amongst developers that limits and gradually reduces their profits until there is stability. Most developers build average houses by definition - to stay in business.
When expensive houses/apartments are built, and occupied, there is a cascade effect further down the ladder.
As house prices in Dublin increase occupiers can cash out if they wish and move abroad or to rural areas and increase their living standards appreciably on the surplus value.
The housing market is highly complex. Above all it is a market.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »It's not an either or situation. The LA's can't bring in broad national policy as easily as Eoghan and Leo can. Both sides carry blame, although I personally don't see it as sides. It's all government both local and national. They are all elected and they all, to some degree, create policy.
NAMA giving cheap loans to private developers and Eoghan thinking merely more builds will suffice is the root of the mindset/problem. Each LA has their own issues and politics too, but we need a change of tack from the top down more than anything. Eoghan is the minister overseeing all LA's and housing. That's his job not Larry the local councilor from PBP or what ever.
Would you regard Leo and Eoghan as 'class enemies'?
Just to help shorten your posts.0 -
-
Was reading that this morning alright, might explain Leo's reluctance to give up his propaganda unit (and the millions of euro of taxpayers cash associated with it ) and why he held on to it for dear life until he coulddo so no longer.
I wonder if he has an account on here:)?0 -
Advertisement
-
The government could do what has worked elsewhere - push higher density and provide tax breaks for developments with a certain percentage of social/affordable housing units. This isn't rocket science here... there is no one magic bullet, so ignore the far left claiming the only way to solve this problem is by LAs building social units and that NAMA and capitalism are the problem. This is a policy/taxation issue more than anything else.Good loser wrote: »What else do you expect developers - or anyone else in the private sector - to do? Each developer (I presume) seeks to maximise his profits and to survive in business as long as possible. It's the competition amongst developers that limits and gradually reduces their profits until there is stability. Most developers build average houses by definition - to stay in business.
When expensive houses/apartments are built, and occupied, there is a cascade effect further down the ladder.
As house prices in Dublin increase occupiers can cash out if they wish and move abroad or to rural areas and increase their living standards appreciably on the surplus value.
The housing market is highly complex. Above all it is a market.0
Advertisement