Planning permission granted for 2nd Tallest building in Dublin

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean by mythical-based opinion.

Firstly, you don't have a clue yourself as to what proportion of tenancies are owned by vulture funds. All of your opinions on the subject are immediately discredited if you don't have any knowledge of the facts. Glad you admitted that you don't know.

So I called you bluff and honestly asked a question, now that's somehow proof I'm wrong, because I asked? Good one

blanch152 wrote: »

Secondly, you don't realise that this question had already been answered on the thread - see below.

Nice state, not related. Same as your citing one figure for one thing and drawing a conclusion on something else.

blanch152 wrote: »

Thirdly, in an effort to cover up the absence of factual information from your opinion you resort firstly to the default of FG apologists (what happened to your normal usage of shill to describe any opinions different to yours?), secondly to blaming Noonan/Kenny/Varadkar/Murphy/O'Donohoe (delete as appropriate) and finally to shutting down the discussion to hide your embarrassment.

Nope, quoting news articles and giving links would be the factual information there Blanch.
I squarely blame FG et. al. are you just reading my comments now?

All you do here is whinge about my opinion.

blanch152 wrote: »

As for the various links re UN and others, let's just go back to where Colonel Claptrap got his figures - the Department of Finance:

https://assets.gov.ie/6348/140219142846-5a166a1ec85f4237935fb5c21dd666cb.pdf

"Ownership of rental properties by large scale landlords – those that own more than 100 rental units — is similarly minimal in the context of the wider market. Such firms hold 4.6 per cent of all tenancies nationally"

So less of the hysterical newspaper articles, less of the lobby group bull**** and more of the actual hard facts.

Yep last time the UN was cited on child poverty in Ireland it was dismissed and asked for CSO figures and upon them being produced and backing up the UN, the quote was 'so what?'. That said, you here today are merely choosing to use slurs to play down a very big issue for Irish society.
I genuinely don't know why you can't just post opinions instead of defending failed and flawed government policy. It would make these threads more palatable.

Vulture funds are an issue and the state/LA's are their best customers of late. Stock they likely bought off the state too, makes great value for the tax payer to be funding it's own housing crisis.
You've no interest in genuine discussion IMO.

lawred2

Sweet.Science wrote: »

It wont affect public transport . The people who are given these wont be working

Edgy

James Brown

Dytalus wrote: »

Lord I hope you're not including me as an FG apologist - I completely agree they've ballsed up the housing problem. And if they are offering low tax rates to REITs for rental (lower than the regualr rate anyway) then it only proves they're in the pockets of businesses and not taxpayers.

My point is only that, inherently there's nothing wrong with REITS. I'd prefer if they were Irish-owned but whatever.

The landlords and REITs of Ireland get away with offering sky-high rents because it's a seller's market atm. Other countries have REITs too - they're a fundamental part of pensions plans - but ours charge high rents because renters have no choice. Anything short of at-cost (ie, social) renting is going to be equally sky high because of course private enterprises (and I'm including individual landlords in this) look to make as big an ROI as possible.

Hating on "vulture funds" is a distraction at best. The Government needs to build more, it really is that simple. Every report I can find says the same - we're building maybe two-thirds of what we need every year, which only means that next year the necessary amount jumps higher. We need 34,000 or so every year for the next 5 years. We're building I think about 18,000. Which means next year instead of 34k, we need over 50k to make up the backlog.

Should REITs own all the rental property? Probably not. Should they own all of it on the private market? That I have nothing against. What I am against is FG's over reliance on the private market for construction, and supply is the foundation on which every other problem with our markets (high rent, high sales cost, homelessness).

I will never not hold FG accountable for that. They may not have started the problem, but their useless policies have definitely not even started to fix it. Please don't call me an apologist for not letting myself take the easy route of blaming private industry for doing what is in its own interest. It's not private industry's job to look out for people, it is our Governments.

And in that they've failed.

Wasn't boss.
My issue is low taxation on property speculation during a crisis exacerbated by property speculation.
During a disaster people who raise pricing on necessities are charged with profiteering off the misery of others, 5 dollars for a bottle of water and the like. This is the same except we charge them low tax rates.

I appreciate you wanting to discuss it.

wakka12

marieholmfan wrote: »

We need to CPO single storey cottages in Drumcondra and build these there.
Not build wherever a Maple 10 developer acquires the land.
Gerry Gannon is Maple 10.

And who will buy these single cottages? the answer is nobody will, ever. Becaue it would be extortionately expensive as that is what the tenants will charge for being uprooted . If those little cottages on the highly prized land exist beside the vast wealth of the google docklands then there is no chance of this practice occurring anywhere else in the country. And youd need to buy an unfeasibly large number of houses to make a plot big enough to build apartments like whats planned in clongriffin.

It is just a complete fantasy, that is why clongriffin is happening, its the only viable alternative means of providing housing. Anyway I dont see the issue with the victorian houses in drumcondra for instance, they are dense with very modest living space, in well planned grid patterns , with tiny amounts of parking and the areas usually have quite a lot of character. WHat I'd much rather see wiped off the map are the acres of disgusting soulless incoherently planned semi d sprawl across south dublin with enormously over sized gardens and waste of space front gardens and big **** off driveways, ugh.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So I called you bluff and honestly asked a question, now that's somehow proof I'm wrong, because I asked? Good one



Nice state, not related. Same as your citing one figure for one thing and drawing a conclusion on something else.



Nope, quoting news articles and giving links would be the factual information there Blanch.
I squarely blame FG et. al. are you just reading my comments now?

All you do here is whinge about my opinion.



Yep last time the UN was cited on child poverty in Ireland it was dismissed and asked for CSO figures and upon them being produced and backing up the UN, the quote was 'so what?'. That said, you here today are merely choosing to use slurs to play down a very big issue for Irish society.
I genuinely don't know why you can't just post opinions instead of defending failed and flawed government policy. It would make these threads more palatable.

Vulture funds are an issue and the state/LA's are their best customers of late. Stock they likely bought off the state too, makes great value for the tax payer to be funding it's own housing crisis.
You've no interest in genuine discussion IMO.

You haven't rebutted a single thing in my post.

Do you accept as fact that only 4.6% of all tenancies are held by large-scale landlords?

If we can agree on the facts, we can at least have a chance of progressing the discussion. If you remain intent on believing in unicorns and rainbows, the discussion will go nowhere.

wakka12

marieholmfan wrote: »

They'd get better homes.


CPO the huge houses at Sydney Parade then.

I wonder how you'd feel if somebody knocked on your door telling you to get out, were giving you a new home with dozens of other people living on top of you now, also you wont have a garden or a driveway .Just a few years disruption, please go live somewhere else while we do it in the meantime. Many people are happy with the homes they have, even if there are 'better ' out there, they dont care. It is a totally pointless discussion really, never going to happen, theres a reason it hasnt happened yet in any way shape or form

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You haven't rebutted a single thing in my post.

Do you accept as fact that only 4.6% of all tenancies are held by large-scale landlords?

If we can agree on the facts, we can at least have a chance of progressing the discussion. If you remain intent on believing in unicorns and rainbows, the discussion will go nowhere.

Your logic is wrong. You give figures for one thing and draw conclusions on something else. I asked for clarity.

Are you saying one third of the house holds in Ireland are tenancies? If so what percentage of that is owned by vulture funds?

All I got was a slagging for asking. Nice debate Blanch.

The facts are the UN and myself think the states/LA's relationship with vulture funds is a problem. You are more interested in dismissing it as any great problem favouring rent arrears and throwing around crap like 'unicorns and rainbows'. What level of debate do you except that to bring? So how about you speak on housing, for yourself instead of jumping on opinions that are critical of FG policy?
Even if you win your game and show vulture funds aren't as big a deal as thought, so what, where do we go, leave them as is and start going on about Margret Cash? It seems the housing crisis is more to do with the victims than the policy makers, I'd disagree.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your logic is wrong. You give figures for one thing and draw conclusions on something else. I asked for clarity.



All I got was a slagging for asking. Nice debate Blanch.

The facts are the UN and myself think the states/LA's relationship with vulture funds is a problem. You are more interested in dismissing it as any great problem favouring rent arrears and throwing around crap like 'unicorns and rainbows'. What level of debate do you except that to bring? So how about you speak on housing, for yourself instead of jumping on opinions that are critical of FG policy?
Even if you win your game and show vulture funds aren't as big a deal as thought, so what, where do we go, leave them as is and start going on about Margret Cash? It seems the housing crisis is more to do with the victims than the policy makers, I'd disagree.

Well, if 4.6% of all tenancies are owned by large-scale landlords (as shown by the statistics from the Department of Finance), the percentage of tenancies owned by vulture funds, which is a sub-set of large-scale landlords has to be equal to or more likely lower than 4.6%.

I thought this was so obvious that I didn't even bother to point it out.

There is no point having a discussion if people are reliant on hysteria and nonsense as the basis for the discussion. All discussions have to start from the position of establishing the facts.

The state needs money to build social housing. In every normal country, this money comes from local household property taxes and collecting rents from existing social housing. We don't do either of these in Ireland. Therefore, to behave like a normal country and fix our housing problem, we have to increase LPT or bring back household rates and we have to start collecting rent from social housing tenants.

Now, that is a clear pathway to fixing the social housing mess. You don't like it because it doesn't rely on taxing unicorns and rainbows, but it is the only sensible sustainable way that we can fix the social housing problem in the longer term.

I will continue to point out the inherent flaws in any illogical policy proposal built on hysteria and nonsense, while putting forward my alternative as has been explained as above many times. It is not a game to show that vulture funds aren't as big a deal as you thought - it is an effort to establish the facts.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, if 4.6% of all tenancies are owned by large-scale landlords (as shown by the statistics from the Department of Finance), the percentage of tenancies owned by vulture funds, which is a sub-set of large-scale landlords has to be equal to or more likely lower than 4.6%.

I thought this was so obvious that I didn't even bother to point it out.

There is no point having a discussion if people are reliant on hysteria and nonsense as the basis for the discussion. All discussions have to start from the position of establishing the facts.

The state needs money to build social housing. In every normal country, this money comes from local household property taxes and collecting rents from existing social housing. We don't do either of these in Ireland. Therefore, to behave like a normal country and fix our housing problem, we have to increase LPT or bring back household rates and we have to start collecting rent from social housing tenants.

Now, that is a clear pathway to fixing the social housing mess. You don't like it because it doesn't rely on taxing unicorns and rainbows, but it is the only sensible sustainable way that we can fix the social housing problem in the longer term.

I will continue to point out the inherent flaws in any illogical policy proposal built on hysteria and nonsense, while putting forward my alternative as has been explained as above many times. It is not a game to show that vulture funds aren't as big a deal as you thought - it is an effort to establish the facts.

You slander opinions that go against failed policy. Have a nice day.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You slander opinions that go against failed policy. Have a nice day.

I deconstruct opinions that aren't based on factual information.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I deconstruct opinions that aren't based on factual information.

I gave links to support my opinion. You just don't like it. Instead of having a discussion you went on the attack as per. Now for the love of God let it lie. I will be. You go have the last word, I'm cool with it.

Colonel Claptrap

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Vulture funds are an issue and the state/LA's are their best customers of late. Stock they likely bought off the state too, makes great value for the tax payer to be funding it's own housing crisis.

What about stock bought privately?

Are you outraged at stock bought privately by institutional investors?

Or only stock bought from the state is deplorable?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I gave links to support my opinion. You just don't like it. Instead of having a discussion you went on the attack as per. Now for the love of God let it lie. I will be. You go have the last word, I'm cool with it.

You gave links to other opinions, such as the opinion of an NGO, the opinion of the Irish Times and the opinion of a part of the UN, all of whom share a particular slanted view of the issue, you did not link to any facts. Those opinions support your opinions, but they do not factually support your opinion.

I linked to statistics from the Department of Finance, I did not reference their or anyone else’s opinion of those factual statistics, I presented them as the facts. If you truly believe that vulture funds who own something less than 4.6% of tenancies are the main problem with housing, explain the mechanism how this is so.

Colonel Claptrap

Matt, what is a vulture fund?

Thelonious Monk

wakka12 wrote: »

I wonder how you'd feel if somebody knocked on your door telling you to get out, were giving you a new home with dozens of other people living on top of you now, also you wont have a garden or a driveway .Just a few years disruption, please go live somewhere else while we do it in the meantime. Many people are happy with the homes they have, even if there are 'better ' out there, they dont care. It is a totally pointless discussion really, never going to happen, theres a reason it hasnt happened yet in any way shape or form

What about all the social housing in the city centre? There are riverside houses opposite the IFSC, what genius ever thought that was a good idea.
I know it will never happen, but those people should be moved elsewhere and apartment blocks should be built for private rentals.

blanch152

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Matt, what is a vulture fund?

A private company set up to benefit Michael Noonan, Denis O'Brien and some other FG chums, he has outlined his definition many times.

Idbatterim

Wow a seventeen floor building ! Do you need survival breathing apparatus at that height ?! You populate houses or apartments with scum , you’ll have problems. Is the twenty three floor capital dock experiencing anti social problems? Is it fcuk !

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

A private company set up to benefit Michael Noonan, Denis O'Brien and some other FG chums, he has outlined his definition many times.

Noonan, inappropriate bevhaviour with Vulture funds.
Noonan, siteserv deal under investigation
Noonan neglected to pay a certain tax on behalf of FG for 9 years
Denis O'Brien, shady deal with Lowry. Deal with Noonan under investigation. Gets mobile contract, metering contract, broadband contract.

So don't try play conspiracy theory when talking FG. They supply enough material in reality.

When you run out of road get childish...

Vulture fund adviser: Ireland is the gift that keeps giving
Link Group, which manages thousands of distressed mortgages for Cerberus Capital Management and other so-called vulture funds, has described Ireland as “the gift that keeps giving” and predicts that banks here could be forced to offload as many as eight more loan books over the next 18 months.

In a presentation for investors last week, the Australian-owned outsourcing specialist said Irish lenders had lined up three loan portfolios with par values of €4.5bn-€5bn each for sale before the end of this year.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vulture-fund-adviser-ireland-is-the-gift-that-keeps-giving-jdxjhcvj0

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

Wow a seventeen floor building ! Do you need survival breathing apparatus at that height ?! You populate houses or apartments with scum , you’ll have problems. Is the twenty three floor capital dock experiencing anti social problems? Is it fcuk !

I doubt any TD's will be tenants.

Eric Cartman

Idbatterim wrote: »

Wow a seventeen floor building ! Do you need survival breathing apparatus at that height ?! You populate houses or apartments with scum , you’ll have problems. Is the twenty three floor capital dock experiencing anti social problems? Is it fcuk !

I love this thread, we need social housing and heres a decent offer of it in an area already pretty dense with social housing and everyone loses their minds.

Some serious amount of excuses in here

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Noonan, inappropriate bevhaviour with Vulture funds.
Noonan, siteserv deal under investigation
Noonan neglected to pay a certain tax on behalf of FG for 9 years
Denis O'Brien, shady deal with Lowry. Deal with Noonan under investigation. Gets mobile contract, metering contract, broadband contract.

So don't try play conspiracy theory when talking FG. They supply enough material in reality.

When you run out of road get childish...

Answer the question, we have been waiting and waiting, all threads you get involved in turn to tumbleweed once the hard questions are asked of you, we were just having a bit of fun before you decided to come back, hoping that we had forgotten the questions you were asked. Well, sorry but.....

Once again,

(1) what is a vulture fund?
(2) do you accept as fact that only 4.6% of all tenancies are held by large-scale landlords?
(3) do you accept that vulture funds, however you define them (and we are waiting for your definition) are a subset of 4.6%?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Answer the question, we have been waiting and waiting, all threads you get involved in turn to tumbleweed once the hard questions are asked of you, we were just having a bit of fun before you decided to come back, hoping that we had forgotten the questions you were asked. Well, sorry but.....

Once again,

(1) what is a vulture fund?
(2) do you accept as fact that only 4.6% of all tenancies are held by large-scale landlords?
(3) do you accept that vulture funds, however you define them (and we are waiting for your definition) are a subset of 4.6%?

(1)For me a vulture fund is a company acting on behalf of investors either buying up mortgages and/or buying up properties to take advantage of the housing crisis. The behaviour of vultures. I do not care what your or FG's or Shakin' Stevens define it as. This is just more diversion. I've described them a number of times so I suspect it's more baloney to dismiss and take it all off road.
(2) on the national average, the government say so, so it must be true.
(3) On the national average, sure. Not anything I ever claimed otherwise.

None of this is relevant to my proven factual point regarding vulture funds making it difficult for people to buy, making the crisis worse. Your national average does not dispute this. Rural arrears en masse may not be a hot bed in the cut and trust of international investment funds, likely right. This would effect the national average, if that were my point.

You getting close to showing why you need expose the hypocrisy of people defending those who won't pay their fair due council rent? You must have loads of examples?

mickdw

Apartment living done properly works in cities.
Irish apartments tens to be suitable for singles and coupled without children.
Some great design work in other European cities, apartments well designed, with blocks featuring a huge variety of accommodation types and sizes with well designed public areas etc. The idea being that you get a great mix within the development of varying ages and wealth. The apartment complex then becomes a community / village as opposed to a building and young couple an move within that complex to a larger unit or whatever as needs arise.
I have not looked at what Gerry Gannon is doing but I fear it will become a hellhole if there are large numbers of HAP occupants.

James Brown

Hi-rise isn't ideal for young families with kids unless they have green spaces near by or youth facilities. As I say there have been mistakes but there's enough research and history to be aware and plan for such things.

Jinglejangle69

Why is it every country in the world can do high rise but Ireland can’t?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

(1)For me a vulture fund is a company acting on behalf of investors either buying up mortgages and/or buying up properties to take advantage of the housing crisis. The behaviour of vultures. I do not care what your or FG's or Shakin' Stevens define it as. This is just more diversion. I've described them a number of times so I suspect it's more baloney to dismiss and take it all off road.
(2) on the national average, the government say so, so it must be true.
(3) On the national average, sure. Not anything I ever claimed otherwise.

None of this is relevant to my proven factual point regarding vulture funds making it difficult for people to buy, making the crisis worse. Your national average does not dispute this. Rural arrears en masse may not be a hot bed in the cut and trust of international investment funds, likely right. This would effect the national average, if that were my point.

You getting close to showing why you need expose the hypocrisy of people defending those who won't pay their fair due council rent? You must have loads of examples?

Except that it isn’t a proven factual point that vulture funds make it more difficult to buy, it is one opinion, that is all, one theory. There are other opinions, other theories, including one that suggests that the housing market would never have got going again if it wasn’t for investment funds, that we would still be running at the level of 8-9,000 builds instead of 20,000, if they had not entered the market. If that theory is correct, and it has some plausible arguments, then vulture funds have made it easier to buy, not harder.

P.S., your definition of vulture fund is wrong.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Hi-rise isn't ideal for young families with kids unless they have green spaces near by or youth facilities. As I say there have been mistakes but there's enough research and history to be aware and plan for such things.

It works everywhere else in Europe for families and in many American cities, on what factual basis do you claim it isn’t ideal for young families

I was watching Reeling in the Years last night. 1966 - The country is gripped by a housing crisis. The government quickly builds loads of social housing in... Ballymun.

Back then an affordable home cost 1-2000 pounds.

Kermit.de.frog

The view from O'Connell Bridge in 2 years time apparently.




Dublin is changing and going up!

sydthebeat

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The view from O'Connell Bridge in 2 years time apparently.




Dublin is changing and going up!

Still a pitifully low level skyline for the center of nationals capital.