Do NIMBY's have a right to complain about housing crisis?

AndrewJRenko

Government buildings wrote: »

To defend the social housing policy, Andrew says everyone pays tax every time they go into a shop!

That's a brilliant point, Andrew. How could I have missed it!

This entitles them to a house similar to others who have made massive mortgage commitments.

Goodnight.

Sorry if facts get in the way. Goodnight.

You do know how social housing works, right? The long, long waiting lists of 5-10 years? The very limited options that are made available? The dreadfully poor quality of some housing units, particularly the traditional city flat complexes?

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Yes. A few small patches of it.

Green spaces that take up one third of the estate are not required and should be infilled. Ironically such swathes of green space are far, far more common in "deprived" areas, I can't think of any privately built, affluent estates I know of that have them to the extent of most council estates I can think of.

Isn't quite a fair deal though. Can Irish travellers decamp to Bucharest and have the state provide them with a 3 bed semi in a middle class estate, as happens here all the time?

Anybody who rants about a lack of facilities in an urban community is not anybody worth listening to.

Take a walk around Avondale in Mulhuddart, or Mac Uilliam in Tallaght. Or George Nkencho's 330K odd semi detached home far away from the council estates.

Or how about Syrians getting a home within 90 days of arrival?

There's lots of green spaces around the private estates of south Dublin. But why don't you come up with some specific examples - point out a couple of the green spaces in Crumlin or Cabra that you think should be built on?

It's a fair deal in that Irish people can go to Warsaw and Bucharest and get the same supports available there. That's how fairness works. It also means that Irish businesses can export to Warsaw and Bucharest - free trade and free movement and all that stuff that the Brits have walked away from.

Again, you claimed that being non-Irish was an allocation priority. Can you please be specific about what Councils give priority to non-Irish people and provide evidence of this? Anecdotal claims of people being housed is not evidence that supports this claim, as you have no information about the housing priority of those people.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No-one 'pays nothing'. Everyone pays tax, every time they go into a shop. Everyone pays for housing, including social housing tenants.

Net tax then.

No home owner controls who lives beside them. Any property can change hands at any stage, and could have new owners or new tenants, so I wouldn't put too much store in knowing who you live beside.

Nonsense. The older richer areas have total control of who lives there. Even if a problem tenant gets into a leafy suburb, he will be kicked out. If a high level criminal moves to a rich area, and some do, they tend to keep quiet in that area.

It's not about stigma. It's about whether you want to paying for all the social costs that result from ghettos like Ballymun for decades afterwards or not.

The social costs might ampllify if criminality is distributed around. The only people this "integrated" social policy will affect is people buying new builds who are by no means the richest in Irish society. Try build social housing housing in the richer areas, and see if it sticks. The bourgeoisie get lawyered up real quick.

Strumms

end of the road wrote: »

the government don't stand up for mortgage payers?
come on, the whole system in place is about trying to protect us.
what more do you want? for them to subsidize us?
we made a choice based on affordability and we will own our houses, people in social housing or being housed wherever by the council will never do so, so quite frankly we are in a much, much luckier position then they will ever be.




well yeah, they will get the same housing, the days of barely throwing together places like ronan point and other such "constructions" are gone and quite rightly so.
your claim of the social housing list getting longer because of the standard of housing is not based in reality, we know this because it's increasing even though we aren't building.
it's because of the lack of building that houses in private estates will end up out of one's price range.

People in social housing may never own a house, true. But neither will they have to engage in the responsibility or hard work and sacrifice that comes with acquiring and owning property...

Asylum, what is it....? It is supposed to be offered when a person persecuted by one's own country or in one’s own country may be ‘protected’ by another sovereign authority..PROTECTION...

That’s been amended in practice to... “anybody arriving here, not having a great time in X country will be in receipt of per person of xx thousands in benefits and xxx thousand in accommodation and XX thousands in healthcare. Paid for by Irish taxpayers..

In 20 years, direct provision alone has cost the Irish taxpayers over 1.3 billion...

And hospitals fundraising through staff doing... STAFF...doing a cycle from Malin to Mizen head...to work to try and get funding to help Irish taxpayers in need.

markodaly

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

You haven’t a notion, you’d like to ban one off housing, people opposing developments are in the wrong, you’re full of fashionable opinions that anyone who has spent enough time working on residential development knows are horse****. You’ve no real world experience, you can’t have, but you’re able to read and have an internet connection.

One off developments is one of the reasons why we have much of our problems in the first place. It is why it's so hard to provide things like Broadband or Public Transport to rural Ireland, when we have houses dotted along every road, up every hill and floodplain. I guess you are OK with them?

You say you worked abroad, but then you must know that in the UK and in Europe, such developments are not allowed. I wonder why?

Much better off developing existing towns and villages, in clusters

On a more serious note, I see Jim O'Callaghan from FF suggest that we need to amend article 43 of the constitution to stop land speculation, whereby the government can buy land at agricultural prices and then rezone it for development.
THIS is would welcome, as the price of land is the keystone for reducing property prices.
I guess you wouldn't like that either! :pac:

Effects

Deleted User wrote: »

Nonsense. The older richer areas have total control of who lives there. Even if a problem tenant gets into a leafy suburb, he will be kicked out.

Nah, that's not true at all. Clontarf would probably slot into your older/rich category. Plenty of roads that have issues with government subsidised tenants.

I know of one road where a slumlord is trying to double the emergency accommodation he provides to the 'homeless', and the residents can't stop him.
Tenants that include someone who has done time for manslaughter, and another for serious sexual assault.

NickNickleby

Effects wrote: »

Nah, that's not true at all. Clontarf would probably slot into your older/rich category. Plenty of roads that have issues with government subsidised tenants.

I know of one road where a slumlord is trying to double the emergency accommodation he provides to the 'homeless', and the residents can't stop him.
Tenants that include someone who has done time for manslaughter, and another for serious sexual assault.

I think there are people who will pay a premium to live in a particular area, happy in the knowledge that the 'lower orders' will never: a)get the funds to buy there, or b)wouldn't see value in lumbering themselves with a sky high mortgage to live there. Nice, they think, we can all live quietly and comfortably in our middle class bubble.

Then the rules change, and said 'lower orders' can now access a nice spot next door with no scrimping. All courtesy of the taxpayer. Understandably, in my opinion, the 'toffs' are now kicking up.

couple of personal anecdotes....

I remember when the council gave people a fortune to release their council houses, and using that money many chose to 'better themselves' by buying in a more expensive area. These people, those that I know, were delighted with this opportunity and they said it was a relief to know their children's peer groups were a darn sight safer than those they had left behind - with higher aspirations.

Now the other side of the coin. I now someone whose daughter and chap saved and saved to buy in a still new development in D9. Most of their neighbours were professional types, and it was your typical middle class bubble - trying not to wear that phrase out - the perfect place to start your family.

Lo and behold, a family from a troubled local authority housing area won the lotto (way back when 80k was HUGE money) and they bought one of these houses cash. With lots left over. Enough to fund noisy cars and week night parties, inviting all their old buddies to join in. Anyway, this went on long enough that their nearest neighbours moved out. I know that the daughter in question was alarmed, but I never found out the outcome as the guy I know (her father) moved jobs. But I know they were all at their wits end for months on end. Perhaps this family finally acclimatised and all their children are now solicitors.

Mixed housing is a great idea if you get the people from my first story.

Mixed housing where you get a family like those in my second story, well you have to think that'll be a nightmare.

end of the road

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Actually I am when I'm paying out that amount of money which is why I made sure I knew exactly who my neighbours were before the deal was done.

No travellers and no dole lifers in my area, and its no surprise we have no anti social behaviour to deal with either.

actually you aren't.
you can certainly choose where to live, but you aren't entitled to stop others who aren't similar to you from living there.

NickNickleby wrote: »

I think there are people who will pay a premium to live in a particular area, happy in the knowledge that the 'lower orders' will never: a)get the funds to buy there, or b)wouldn't see value in lumbering themselves with a sky high mortgage to live there. Nice, they think, we can all live quietly and comfortably in our middle class bubble.

Then the rules change, and said 'lower orders' can now access a nice spot next door with no scrimping. All courtesy of the taxpayer. Understandably, in my opinion, the 'toffs' are now kicking up.

couple of personal anecdotes....

I remember when the council gave people a fortune to release their council houses, and using that money many chose to 'better themselves' by buying in a more expensive area. These people, those that I know, were delighted with this opportunity and they said it was a relief to know their children's peer groups were a darn sight safer than those they had left behind - with higher aspirations.

Now the other side of the coin. I now someone whose daughter and chap saved and saved to buy in a still new development in D9. Most of their neighbours were professional types, and it was your typical middle class bubble - trying not to wear that phrase out - the perfect place to start your family.

Lo and behold, a family from a troubled local authority housing area won the lotto (way back when 80k was HUGE money) and they bought one of these houses cash. With lots left over. Enough to fund noisy cars and week night parties, inviting all their old buddies to join in. Anyway, this went on long enough that their nearest neighbours moved out. I know that the daughter in question was alarmed, but I never found out the outcome as the guy I know (her father) moved jobs. But I know they were all at their wits end for months on end. Perhaps this family finally acclimatised and all their children are now solicitors.

Mixed housing is a great idea if you get the people from my first story.

Mixed housing where you get a family like those in my second story, well you have to think that'll be a nightmare.

thankfully there are these things called laws that can deal with the people in your second story and their parties and noisy cars.
they require enforcement and the manpower and resources to do it granted, which the main 2 political parties seem to have an issue with providing.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

actually you aren't.
you can certainly choose where to live, but you aren't entitled to stop others who aren't similar to you from living there.

Funny, you decry entitlement in those who have worked for theirs, and who would see it preserved, but have no issue with diminishing their enjoyment by providing accommodation for those who have neither worked nor earned.
You're perfectly within your rights to object.

end of the road wrote: »

thankfully there are these things called laws that can deal with the people in your second story and their parties and noisy cars.
they require enforcement and the manpower and resources to do it granted, which the main 2 political parties seem to have an issue with providing.

To rely on future enforcement to resolve an anticipated planning and development matter is rather naive. Enforcement is for when things deviate from the norm.

Furthermore, noise is a civil matter, the resolution requires you to take a district court case. And sure by the time you get any satisfaction, if at all, you might not have a window to wash, or a car to drive, and your kids afraid to play outside.

end of the road

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Funny, you decry entitlement in those who have worked for theirs, and who would see it preserved, but have no issue with diminishing their enjoyment by providing accommodation for those who have neither worked nor earned.
You're perfectly within your rights to object.



To rely on future enforcement to resolve an anticipated planning and development matter is rather naive. Enforcement is for when things deviate from the norm.

Furthermore, noise is a civil matter, the resolution requires you to take a district court case. And sure by the time you get any satisfaction, if at all, you might not have a window to wash, or a car to drive, and your kids afraid to play outside.

you have a right to object to certain things based on certain criteria.
i don't like wellfare recipients and i don't want them living beside me cause is not a valid objection and quite rightly for the most part is never listened to.
how is relying on the law being enforced as it should be naive? you agree with law and order do you not?
civil law is still law, it's just not criminal law.

Idbatterim

Andrew, please keep up the comedy, I need some on a Monday. Paying tax with the free money they get? LOL! you have the working poor hit with a fifty percent marginal rate, to keep farce afloat here and you actually talk about everyone paying taxes? you're watching too much rte! What would be "progressive" enough for you? 80% over a pittance? sorry 35k?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

you have a right to object to certain things based on certain criteria.
i don't like wellfare recipients and i don't want them living beside me cause is not a valid objection and quite rightly for the most part is never listened to.
how is relying on the law being enforced as it should be naive? you agree with law and order do you not?
civil law is still law, it's just not criminal law.

"Sure I won't lock my bike, the gardai can bring the robber to court..." type argument.

Notwithstanding the strawman and deafening woosh noise, knowingly doing something with a very high probability of an adverse effect on an existing environment/locale, and relying on the courts to mitigate your decision, and fix it, is not only (i was being generous) naive, it is foolish and reckless. And thankfully, its not the way the country is ran, nor how development proceeds.
Its called sustainable planning.

"Not liking welfare recipients" is not a reason to object to a development. Unsustainable developement, significantly out of character with existing is, especially if contrary to local development plan. The reason wont be "because social welfare" , it'll be "massing" or "out of charachter" or "unsympathetic" to existing development.
Part5 was an attempt to dilute the effect and avoid ghettoization of social tenants, had its advantages and disadvantages. And workarounds to ensure potential property value wasn't impacted.

Again its back to planning. If locals don't give a proverbial, they're unlikely to be involved in the planning process, and unable to influence it. Active citizens frequently have a higher regard for existing, having invested more of their own resources, and thus more engaged.
NIMBYS/NOTES etc. to some.

You'll have some evidence to support your contention that objections to having social tenants is never listened to....

Government buildings

The government doesn't stand up for mortgage payers. We pay well over other countries because of government policies.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Net tax then.

Net tax would be an interesting approach. Can we take the costs of all the public services consumed into account in the calculation - all the kids in primary or secondary schools, or ECCE creches? All the health services with free GP care, minimal hospital costs, public health nurses? All the roads and beaches and parks used?

Be careful what you wish for with those calculations.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Andrew, please keep up the comedy, I need some on a Monday. Paying tax with the free money they get? LOL! you have the working poor hit with a fifty percent marginal rate, to keep farce afloat here and you actually talk about everyone paying taxes? you're watching too much rte! What would be "progressive" enough for you? 80% over a pittance? sorry 35k?

Jeez, my heart bleeds. You might want to broaden your horizons beyond thinking just about income tax for a start.

Government buildings wrote: »

The government doesn't stand up for mortgage payers.

Why would it? Why should the Government favour or subsidise housing choices for better off people?

Government buildings

The government doesn't stand up for mortgage payers because they allow non payers of rent or mortgage to remain in their property for years.

Thus high interest rates for the compliant mortgage payer, who is also the high rate taxpayer, funding the building of the social houses and the rent for the social houses.

Great little country altogether.

end of the road

Government buildings wrote: »

The government doesn't stand up for mortgage payers because they allow non payers of rent or mortgage to remain in their property for years.

because it's cheaper for the tax payer.
and the whole system is very much operated in favour of property ownership and proverty owners, hence the government stand up for mortgage payers.

Thus high interest rates for the compliant mortgage payer, who is also the high rate taxpayer, funding the building of the social houses and the rent for the social houses.

Great little country altogether.[/QUOTE]


if it wasn't that it would be something else.
interest rates will be high regardless because we don't really do bank regulation.

Effects

end of the road wrote: »

thankfully there are these things called laws that can deal with the people in your second story and their parties and noisy cars.

Try living beside these kinds of people and you'll find that the law is useless.

Geuze

end of the road wrote: »

if it wasn't that it would be something else.
interest rates will be high regardless because we don't really do bank regulation.

Mortgage rates are high due to bank regulation.

We regulate how much capital banks must hold.

Irish banks must hold a lot of capital against their mortgages.

https://assets.gov.ie/6836/664f5174ebd34f7e938aea654bed6757.pdf


The reason they must hold more capital is because of bad debts and the repossession regime.


So an Irish bank may charge higher mortgage rates than a German bank, and yet make less profits, as they have to hold more capital.


The solution is obvious, but not politically palatable.

end of the road

Effects wrote: »

Try living beside these kinds of people and you'll find that the law is useless.

because it's not enforced due to not enough numbers in the gardai.
we don't have enough numbers in the gardai because people keep voting for those who do not want to invest in providing those resources.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

because it's not enforced due to not enough numbers in the gardai.
we don't have enough numbers in the gardai because people keep voting for those who do not want to invest in providing those resources.

As previously advised, the Gardai don't enforce noise nuisance from neighbours.
You're on your own.

Kermit.de.frog

This country desperately needs a Thatcher or someone with zero ***** given to sort it out in my opinion.

We never elect leaders who get this stuff done regardless.

Dr. Bre

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This country desperately needs a Thatcher or someone with zero ***** given to sort it out in my opinion.

We never elect leaders who get this stuff done regardless.

Maybe a trump?

end of the road

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This country desperately needs a Thatcher or someone with zero ***** given to sort it out in my opinion.

We never elect leaders who get this stuff done regardless.

this would be the same thatcher who used the forces of law and order to do her own personal bidding which often involved breaking the law she pretended to be oh so in favour of when it suited?
the same thatcher who ultimately created the uk version of the breakdown in parts of society?
thanks but no thanks.

markodaly

end of the road wrote: »

this would be the same thatcher who used the forces of law and order to do her own personal bidding which often involved breaking the law she pretended to be oh so in favour of when it suited?
the same thatcher who ultimately created the uk version of the breakdown in parts of society?
thanks but no thanks.

You said, if someone next door was causing hastle just to ring the Gardai, now yo are complaining about a Law and Order politician.

I guess you are not arguing in good faith on this matter.
If one is lumped with a bad neighbour, there is very little one can do, that is just the truth of the matter, so they object in the first instance.
It may not be right or hurt your sensibilities but, I guess you never found yourself in that situation.

AndrewJRenko

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This country desperately needs a Thatcher or someone with zero ***** given to sort it out in my opinion.

We never elect leaders who get this stuff done regardless.

Based on electoral performances over the past 30 years, the chances of this happening are slim to none. It's the last thing most Irish people would want from their Government.

Richard Hillman

https://twitter.com/bridsmithTD/status/1358891110022541312?s=19


The proposed building is in the replies. It's 5 storeys. PBP are absolutely reprehensible. All to drive up house/rent prices to help them get elected

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This country desperately needs a Thatcher or someone with zero ***** given to sort it out in my opinion.

We never elect leaders who get this stuff done regardless.

The last thing any country needs is a Thatcher.


FDR on the other hand...he got things done. Dragged the US out of the Great Depression with innovative thinking and said '**** you' to anyone that attempted to block the progress. He kickstarted the most prosperous era in US history.

Such was his success, and popularity across the political spectrum, the US introduced the Twenty-second Amendment due to his unprecedented four terms.

Kermit.de.frog

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/bridsmithTD/status/1358891110022541312?s=19


The proposed building is in the replies. It's 5 storeys. PBP are absolutely reprehensible. All to drive up house/rent prices to help them get elected

Bio

Socialist, feminist and trade union activist.

Christ, imagine being five minutes around this one

The_Kew_Tour

Thank God we were lucky to build our own home and have no mortgage to pay.

I dread to think what's its like especially for next generation and the prices they will pay.

At least we could do travelling and see bit of world. The next generation won't be able to **** without paying for it.

The housing crisis will never be solved in my lifetime. With extra million people by 2040 that's practically building 3/4 of a Dublin city in Ireland in that time? Good luck with that.

doublejobbing 2

Richard Hillman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/bridsmithTD/status/1358891110022541312?s=19


The proposed building is in the replies. It's 5 storeys. PBP are absolutely reprehensible. All to drive up house/rent prices to help them get elected

Strange. High rise was all the rage in their beloved USSR, in fact to my knowledge it is what the vast majority lived in.

As to my knowledge, the USSR didn't give free welfare to wasters, they forced them to work.

ATMK- As to my knowledge......

ATMK, the USSR participated in colonial wars in Afghanistan and financially backed proxy wars in Africa a la America in Vietnam and Central America/ Africa.

ATMK the USSR was a cold house for gay people and engaged in virus denialism (regarding AIDS)

ATMK a man who identified as a woman in 80's USSR would likely have ended up in a mental home.

ATMK the USSR had some of the world's most restrictive immigration policies.

ATMK the USSR waged a war on religion. While Brid might welcome this if it was only against Christianity, USSR was Islamophobic before the word existed, deporting thousands of Chechens to Asia.

ATMK the USSR treated the homeless, particularly those with alcohol addiction, as a societal menace that made the streets of Moscow in particular look unkempt, and routinely mass arrested them, in particular in the run up to events where they could embarrass visitors such as the Moscow Olympics.

ATMK the USSR claimed drug addiction was a Western vice and let heroin abuse, and the associated AIDS crisis, wreak havoc from the 80's into the 90's

ATMK, while cervical check was a disgrace, hoping Chernobyl would disappear of its own accord was probably a bigger disgrace

ATMK Soviet households often shared with parents or even other families before getting their own flat

In short, FG FF Ireland are a fair bit better than the USSR beloved by loons like Brid ever was.

And I despise FG FF.

doublejobbing 2

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Thank God we were lucky to build our own home and have no mortgage to pay.

I dread to think what's its like especially for next generation and the prices they will pay.

At least we could do travelling and see bit of world. The next generation won't be able to **** without paying for it.

The housing crisis will never be solved in my lifetime. With extra million people by 2040 that's practically building 3/4 of a Dublin city in Ireland in that time? Good luck with that.

We keep hearing that "the young can't afford a house" but this clearly isn't entirely true.

Plenty of young must be able. Otherwise houses wouldn't be sold.

Down the country most young people can afford a house. The cheapest 3 bed in Mullingar, which is basically a Dublin commuter town, is 118K. A couple on minimum wage can buy that with an 11K deposit. The rest of the country is even much cheaper.

It's mainly a Dublin problem.