The real problem with Housing in Ireland

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

Politics is compromise and something you have to bend quite a bit. If they don't get elected they can't remain a politician. The public and voters largely don't give two hoots about the greater good. For them that means a TD representing their local interests. He's done well enough on the greater good anyway on SSM, the repeal of the 8th.

SSM and the 8th were Labour projects. Leo jumped when he saw how the wind was blowing.

Tacitus Kilgore

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

SSM and the 8th were Labour projects. Leo jumped when he saw how the wind was blowing.

Yea I'd say he was definitely against ssm before he realised the public support

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

SSM and the 8th were Labour projects. Leo jumped when he saw how the wind was blowing.

He was always behind both anyway, no less than the 60 odd percent who also supported them.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

He was always behind both anyway, no less than the 60 odd percent who also supported them.

Ah no he wasn't, he has spoken out against abortion and was silent on SSM until it become advantageous to be on the side of history.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Ah no he wasn't, he has spoken out against abortion and was silent on SSM until it become advantageous to be on the side of history.

One could object to abortion and still want to repeal the 8th. SSM was greater good and really no big deal to most voters.

_Brian

whisky_galore wrote: »

Blocking new developments. Happened in Cork, complaining of increase in traffic etc.

People can object all they want, it’s only upheld if it turns out as a genuine concern. They are as citizens entitled to object.

blanch152

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Yea I'd say he was definitely against ssm before he realised the public support

Seriously? As a gay man, the Taoiseach was against SSM?

Snickers Man

_Brian wrote: »

Personally I think the problem is that all landlords have been demonised, there was a concerted effort to tax them heavily as a punishment.

A rental sector cannot work unless it is very attractive for landlords. Buying and renting a house out is a massive risk, there needs to be substantial payback.

I find the thrust of this point of view pretty hard to take. Although it is a familiar one. "I'm not going to do this if you're going to tax me. I should be able to keep all the profits of my hard work (or my hard working piece of inanimate real estate) for myself."

We all think that. Everyone from Leona Hemsley, the notorious Queen of Mean who is famous for saying that "Taxes are for little people". As a "big person" she clearly felt she should not be so encumbered. But really what she was saying is that "taxes are for OTHER people" And everyone, from Hemsley to Niall Quinn to the People before Profit crowd firmly believes that.

Niall Quinn wants tax breaks for League of Ireland clubs to grow soccer. (We shouldn't have to pay tax. Some other sucker can do that.)

Paul Murphy et al don't want to pay for water charges (We shouldn't have to pay for treatment and delivery of an essential resource. Other, supposedly rich, suckers should have to pay for that.)

And now poor struggling put-upon property owners shouldn't have to pay tax on the income they receive for sitting on their arses and maybe unblocking the odd drain or putting up the odd shelf (or paying somebody else to do it--typically cash in hand of course, can't let the taxman know about that, hur, hur).

Get real!

A reasonable tax levy on the cash return of a property investment (ie the rent accruing from it) is perfectly justifiable. I would instead put a whopping punitive tax on perfectly viable housing stock that is just sitting there gathering rot. There is a house on my street, less than 30 years old that is in just that position because the poor put-upon landlord can't be bothered for reasons best known to himself to rent it out as he used to do.

He should be given a choice: pay x percent annual tax on the market value of the vacant house or y percent on the income accruing from the tenants rent where y is very much less than x.

But to say that he should have it both ways: no chance!

Tacitus Kilgore

blanch152 wrote: »

Seriously? As a gay man, the Taoiseach was against SSM?

Yes, he also hates Indian people don't ya know

Nermal

Why do multiple arms of the state need to waste resources fighting each other in court? Why can't central government just make a decision that can't be appealed?

Kidchameleon

blanch152 wrote: »

Seriously? As a gay man, the Taoiseach was against SSM?

Being gay does not mean one is automatically in favor of SSM. There are many valid and understandable problems with it, particularly when it comes to the raising of children (Male and female role models etc.). Being gay does not preclude one from rational and honest thought and I say this as a person who voted in favor of SSM...

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There are many valid and understandable problems with it, particularly when it comes to the raising of children

Nonsense.

Your spiel about role models is absolute balderdash. Are you saying that kids being raised by two lesbians will suffer problems due to a lack of strong male role models in the house? Half the gaffs on my road growing up had auldfellas who were drunkards or liked to use the wife and/or kids as a punching bag whenever they looked at them sideways. Should they have been banned from getting married?

Kidchameleon

Deleted User wrote: »

Nonsense.

Your spiel about role models is absolute balderdash. Are you saying that kids being raised by two lesbians will suffer problems due to a lack of strong male role models in the house? Half the gaffs on my road growing up had auldfellas who were drunkards or liked to use the wife and/or kids as a punching bag whenever they looked at them sideways. Should they have been banned from getting married?

I probably worded that wrong apologies. I should have said there are valid "concerns" as opposed to "problems". Anyway there is mountains of evidence that shows children are better off with a mixture of male and female role models. Note I used the term "better off" not "doomed". Again, I voted in favor of SSM despite these concerns.

This line of discussion is off topic so back to housing...

I take your point. My point, however, is that having same sex parents in no way impinges upon whther or not a child has strong male and female role models.

Just because there is both a mother and father at home (versus having two Das) doesn't mean that the former is worse off or that the latter will not have strong role models of either sex.

Idbatterim

Op you are one hundred percent right. But in other countries they don’t facilitate this bull****. How will you ever please everyone? I believe in Spain for big infrastructure, they have a very , very brief public consultation period here. I’m sure others countries don’t bother with them at all, their likely the ones that get stuff built. What happens here ? Endless public consultation, they probably have a public consultation for the local animals in the area ...

Varik

Would say statistically ssc are probably on the upper end of the parents, just due to all the extra hurdles they have and there being little chance of any surprise pregnancies.

Since there's no DIY option for male couples, I'd say they're also probably in the upper end on income too and while money doesn't solve everything it does remove a lot of problems.

Idbatterim

markodaly wrote: »

That is the symptom of a larger issue.

If there are plans for high rise apartment blocks you can be sure that An Taisce will object, to take one example. You can also be sure half a dozen other groups, from the Irish Georgian Society to a hodgepodge of residents groups will object.

You are right mark. An taisce are pathetic. But they aren’t the ones making planning decisions

Idbatterim

blanch152 wrote: »

We are just waiting to see who will arrive with the link to the objection that Varadkar made about five or six years ago to a four-storey development.

What nobody will tell you about that development is that there is a new application gone in for build-to-rent shared accommodation on that site. Varadkar hasn't objected this time, but plenty of our protest party politicians have.

Edit: Ooops, you beat Johnny, Matt and the others to it

If the housing crisis , keeps him up at night. I hope he plans on submitting a letter of support for the development!

All of these rats want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds !

Idbatterim

whisky_galore wrote: »

The "haves", i.e. generally older home owners, blocking the "have nots", generally younger people prevented from home ownership.
That and developers won't put up anything other than unaffordable luxury high end stuff, student accommodation or offices.

Nail on the head , but all businesses look to maximize profit. This just lets the wasters in local and national government off the hook. “ oh look a big bad business trying to maximize profit “

Idbatterim

is_that_so wrote: »

Not if he wants to keep his seat and he is local! I'd give them a pass on this as long as we see some results and those are very, very slow. Worth noting here that the objection in the OP is a carbon copy of what happened in Raheny on the northside of Dublin. There, they have now gone for higher density in a new application.

Bulk****. Varadkar coujdceacily afford to lose the votes of a few selfish morons and still win his seat, would actually make him more voteable. How many non homeowner working people has he deceived !

mikep

I agree with the OP.
I'm sure if we looked into the objections lodged to various housing schemes in EVERY constituency you would find EVERY TD on the list of objectors...
Generally if Joe Public is against something then the local TD will join them.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

We are just waiting to see who will arrive with the link to the objection that Varadkar made about five or six years ago to a four-storey development.

What nobody will tell you about that development is that there is a new application gone in for build-to-rent shared accommodation on that site. Varadkar hasn't objected this time, but plenty of our protest party politicians have.

Edit: Ooops, you beat Johnny, Matt and the others to it

So we aren't allowed show Leo's hypocrisy because it's not cool or hip?
You really work hard for that man.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Exhibit A:

...

It is also not only related to housing. It stems across much of our society from public transport, health and education.

Yeah related but not 'the real problem' now is it MarkO?

Aul' Mickey McDowell had a good article in the Irish Times. Interesting stuff. All about how apart from frittering away money and making a hames of housing policy, the DCC also have their hands tied by government bureaucracy.

Unscrupulous landlords
All around our capital city, an unscrupulous minority of landlords are raking in money with gross overcrowding of rooms with multiple bunks sleeping four to six people in small rooms and back-garden sheds.
Between the departmental geniuses in the Custom House and the city managers, bedsits were outlawed in 2013. That was on foot of a delayed-action ministerial housing regulation made in 2009 on foot of campaigning by a homeless charity. I will charitably omit to identify the minister or the charity.

But the result was that between 8,000 and 12,000 low-cost dwellings were emptied at a time when the housing shortages were accelerating. The problem with bedsits, we were told, was the sharing of kitchen or bathroom facilities.

White-water rafting plan: who voted for it?
Canoeing Ireland ‘delighted’ Dublin getting €23m rafting course
Green light for €23 million white water rafting course for Dublin
In 2019, shared-living “boutique” accommodation involving shared kitchen facilities became ministerial departmental policy again in the Custom House. Pity the thousands who had been evicted from bed-sits in 2013.
The city council seems to have no real function in transport policy, where all real decisions are made by an unelected National Transport Authority (NTA).https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-mcdowell-daft-white-water-rafting-plan-is-anything-but-a-capital-idea-1.4103602

Great point about closing bedsits and suggesting boutique tenements.

Idbatterim

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So we aren't allowed show Leo's hypocrisy because it's not cool or hip?
You really work hard for that man.

dont worry Matt, many of us ex FG voters figured that windbag , fraud for what he was, a long time ago!

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So we aren't allowed show Leo's hypocrisy because it's not cool or hip?
You really work hard for that man.

Here you go again, making things up that people said. Completely sad and completely predictable.

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

dont worry Matt, many of us ex FG voters figured that windbag , fraud for what he was, a long time ago!

I dropped my passing support after Reilly's clinics.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Here you go again, making things up that people said. Completely sad and completely predictable.

Did I quote you? It's a question. The '?' is the hint.
Stop telling lies about lies try discussing topics maybe. More ball less man.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Blocking new developments. Happened in Cork, complaining of increase in traffic etc.

I'm one of the "haves". I have a house in Cork. Did seek to block one development in my area. Your comment is far too generalised. Any specifics as to why people sought to block the development? There's loads of house owners who would have no issue with Cork becoming more built up, as long as services/infrastructure was upgraded to match the increased demands... I would love to see the roads aronund Cork upgraded rather than become another Dublin. But long term planning is not a quality of Irish governments or councils. The road from Cork to Carrigaline is nuts in the morning or late evening considering the population of the general area.

I think many of the objections that house owners have is that such developments are simply plonked down without consideration for what happens next, or how it will affect their neighbors. My own estate blocked the building of "affordable" social housing beside us, because it would have dropped our property values by at estimated 40% (by local analysts). [Also the houses would be given to Travellers, not working people] We're barely recovering property values from before the boom as it is, in many areas. I'd love to sell my place and lose my mortgage.. It's just not feasible, and government initiatives often don't take people like myself into account with their developments. But the property value aside, the area where my estate is simply doesn't have the infrastructure to support many more people. That's a serious consideration for those of us with houses.

OP. Honestly, I think you're deflecting. There are heaps of opportunities for the government to reduce building limits on sky-rise apartments and those would significantly decrease the housing shortage. Placing such tower apartments outside the main housing areas would avoid a lot of the objections from people with historical related objections, or such. Using buildings which have historical significance is idiotic though. Just as placing any such kind of tower in any established housing area. People will object. Expecting otherwise is delusional.

The environmentalists will always object. That's a given.

Stark

blanch152 wrote: »

Seriously? As a gay man, the Taoiseach was against SSM?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_oppression

I don't think he is anymore since coming out and coming to terms with his sexuality. But he was against it years ago when still in the closet.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So we aren't allowed show Leo's hypocrisy because it's not cool or hip?
You really work hard for that man.

You're not Matt Barrett, his partner by any chance? :pac:

blanch152

Stark wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_oppression

I don't think he is anymore since coming out and coming to terms with his sexuality. But he was against it years ago when still in the closet.



You're not Matt Barrett, his partner by any chance? :pac:

Read Matt's posts and draw your own conclusion as to why his username is the same as the Taoiseach's partner.