Dublin Bay South By-Election

Sam Russell

Blut2 wrote: »

Its unlikely. The Housing Minister himself, who you would expect to be optimistic for political reasons alone, is forecasting the 12-14,000 range:




https://extra.ie/2021/05/04/business/property/housing-minister-homes

Rule 1: The only way to actually combat the shortage of houses is to build more houses.

Rule 2: If the private sector cannot build houses fast enough or cheap enough the the Gov/Local Authority/Housing Associations should build them. If they cannot build them through lack of expertise, they should get that expertise.

Rule 3: If the houses cost too much then give VAT relief - can you believe houses pay 13% VAT. Maybe give relief only on houses below a price people can afford.

Rule 4: If people are getting evicted from rental properties for no fault of their own, then prohibit such activity - if necessary by law, and if that is considered unconstitutional - then change the constitution. Why property rights of owners trumps tenants who pay rent I fail to understand. Surely, if you have a lease, then you have ownership rights within the terms of that lease while that lease is in force.

Rule 5: Approximately 30% of the population cannot (and never will be) afford to purchase their own home. Social housing is there to cover these people, as is unemployment benefit there to shelter those that cannot work.

So, to solve the shortage of houses see rule 1 - build houses - lots of them. How difficult can it be?

Topgear on Dave

Sam Russell wrote: »

So, to solve the shortage of houses see rule 1 - build houses - lots of them. How difficult can it be?

I agree entirely.

Grand, but....
- dont build budget houses, they should all be a rated.
- don't build skyscrapers (anything over 3 stories in ireland)
- don't build apartments, "its houses people want"
- dont use the hated developers
- don't let big funds buy them
- don't let small landlords buy them
- dont have social housing beside me
- dont gentrify an area by building anything but social
- don't build rentals for professional, its also gentrification
- dont build anything overlooking my house
- dont build anything in a green area
- don't knock any old factories for housing, the council will make them listed, for being "architecturally significant"
- the traffic is too much already and the schools are filled to capacity
- build thousands of social houses but don't you DARE raise taxes

Etc etc etc etc


I'm glad I'm not in politics :pac:

Sam Russell

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I agree entirely.

Grand, but....
- dont build budget houses, they should all be a rated.
- don't build skyscrapers (anything over 3 stories in ireland)
- don't build apartments, "its houses people want"
- dont use the hated developers
- don't let big funds buy them
- don't let small landlords buy them
- dont have social housing beside me
- dont gentrify an area by building anything but social
- don't build rentals for professional, its also gentrification
- dont build anything overlooking my house
- dont build anything in a green area
- don't knock any old factories for housing, the council will make them listed, for being "architecturally significant"
- the traffic is too much already and the schools are filled to capacity
- build thousands of social houses but don't you DARE raise taxes

Etc etc etc etc


I'm glad I'm not in politics :pac:

You cannot solve the pandemic because :-

The people would have to self isolate in their homes.
Older people would have to remain at home - for maybe a year.
The tourist business would have to be shutdown.
Construction industry would have to shut down.
Non essential business would have to shut down.
People would have to work from home.
The pubs would have to shut down.
We would have to pay people out of work a lot more than dole.
We would have to let businesses off their rates.
We would have to bail out most businesses with grants and soft loans.
People would have to keep to within 5 km of for exercise.
We would have to ban unnecessary travel.
We would have to bring in compulsory quarantine for some arrivals.

Now how can we deal with a pandemic without doing all these things?

Answer: We cannot so we will do them anyway. We will survive, at least until we vaccinate everyone. [At least we had a meaningful Christmas!]


How can we build houses for the homeless?

Answer: By building houses - lots of them. Subsidise them for those that cannot afford them, or rent them at subsidised rents (you know like council houses used to be) or reduce the taxes collected when building them. Otherwise, change the laws if that is what it takes. Change the constitution if that is what it takes.

Or buy loads of tents and pitch them in St Steven's Green and the Phoenix Park. If you are a politician, be the first to take up residence in one of the tents.

[Do not hold your breath over that last one!]

Blut2

Its crazy to me that we have yet to introduce some sort of property tax to encourage the better use of the property we do have (and scare off cuckoo funds, now that the public is baying for it). A 1-2% a year property tax on any property, with an exemption for your primary personal residence (ie where you live) would be extremely popular with the public, with raise lots of tax revenue, and would ensure very few housing units in the country are left empty.

Thats something that could have a very immediate effect on the property market, in a way that the long term plans to build X tens of thousands of units doesn't.

Sam Russell

Blut2 wrote: »

Its crazy to me that we have yet to introduce some sort of property tax to encourage the better use of the property we do have (and scare off cuckoo funds, now that the public is baying for it). A 1-2% a year property tax on any property, with an exemption for your primary personal residence (ie where you live) would be extremely popular with the public, with raise lots of tax revenue, and would ensure very few housing units in the country are left empty.

Thats something that could have a very immediate effect on the property market, in a way that the long term plans to build X tens of thousands of units doesn't.

Security of tenure first - end no-fault evictions. If you pay your rent, and are not anti-social, and are not breaking the place up - then you cannot be evicted. If the landlord wants to sell - the 'tenant not affected'. If the property needs to be upgraded, then landlord provides equivalent or better at current rent - with tenants acceptance - or it is left as is. [Repairs must be carried out anyway].

Prevent rent rises is the second action.

Good loser

Sam Russell wrote: »

Security of tenure first - end no-fault evictions. If you pay your rent, and are not anti-social, and are not breaking the place up - then you cannot be evicted. If the landlord wants to sell - the 'tenant not affected'. If the property needs to be upgraded, then landlord provides equivalent or better at current rent - with tenants acceptance - or it is left as is. [Repairs must be carried out anyway].

Prevent rent rises is the second action.

Your suggestions make no sense whatsoever.

Effectively the tenant gets permanent occupation of the house as soon as he /she rents it. (Takes a lease).
Why then would anyone buy a house? when you can lease one and have open ended possession.
Equally why would anyone rent out a house and lose control/ownership rights by doing so.

The more the State provides houses and the cheaper, the less incentive there is for people to go out and buy their own houses in the market

Sam Russell

Good loser wrote: »

Your suggestions make no sense whatsoever.

Effectively the tenant gets permanent occupation of the house as soon as he /she rents it. (Takes a lease).
Why then would anyone buy a house? when you can lease one and have open ended possession.
Equally why would anyone rent out a house and lose control/ownership rights by doing so.

The more the State provides houses and the cheaper, the less incentive there is for people to go out and buy their own houses in the market

Leases have an end date - as do commercial leases.

Lease can have a rent review clause - as do commercial leases.

When a lease is agreed, the lessee gets the property rights as long as the lease terms are respected including the term.

About 30% of people will never be wealthy enough to own their own house - for lots reasons. They need to be housed. Currently renting is less affordable than buying. A lot of people are homeless because of this.

Good loser

Sam Russell wrote: »

Rule 1: The only way to actually combat the shortage of houses is to build more houses.

Rule 2: If the private sector cannot build houses fast enough or cheap enough the the Gov/Local Authority/Housing Associations should build them. If they cannot build them through lack of expertise, they should get that expertise.

Rule 3: If the houses cost too much then give VAT relief - can you believe houses pay 13% VAT. Maybe give relief only on houses below a price people can afford.

Rule 4: If people are getting evicted from rental properties for no fault of their own, then prohibit such activity - if necessary by law, and if that is considered unconstitutional - then change the constitution. Why property rights of owners trumps tenants who pay rent I fail to understand. Surely, if you have a lease, then you have ownership rights within the terms of that lease while that lease is in force.

Rule 5: Approximately 30% of the population cannot (and never will be) afford to purchase their own home. Social housing is there to cover these people, as is unemployment benefit there to shelter those that cannot work.

So, to solve the shortage of houses see rule 1 - build houses - lots of them. How difficult can it be?

The answer to your last question - extremely difficult; if it was easy the State would oblige. If houses cost €5,000 a pop or €20,000 like a car, providing them would be no problem but they cost €350 K each so €1 million for three.

It's tiresome to hear those who trot out what they call the 'O Cuallan Model' as an example of how houses could be built for 175 K or 200 K. And they propose this model be replicated country wide. As far as I know there was no site cost (expect 25% of total), devel. charges were waived and there was no builder's profit.
Anybody with cop-on, experience of building, business know how or even common sense (that excludes SF and their fellow travellers) knows that houses can/should only be budgeted on the basis of current construction and development costs. Effectively the prices houses are selling for in the open market.
There are no short cuts to solving our housing crisis - it will cost billions and billions and billions.

Good loser

Sam Russell wrote: »

Leases have an end date - as do commercial leases.

Lease can have a rent review clause - as do commercial leases.

When a lease is agreed, the lessee gets the property rights as long as the lease terms are respected including the term.

About 30% of people will never be wealthy enough to own their own house - for lots reasons. They need to be housed. Currently renting is less affordable than buying. A lot of people are homeless because of this.

In the post I replied to you made no reference to leases; I assumed naturally that you meant possession alone gave you all those rights.
Personally I think leases should preferably be left to the open market as much as possible with the tenant and landlord freely negotiating the terms.
This is not the case in Ireland at the moment.

I have no issues with your last paragraph.

Sam Russell

Good loser wrote: »

In the post I replied to you made no reference to leases; I assumed naturally that you meant possession alone gave you all those rights.
Personally I think leases should preferably be left to the open market as much as possible with the tenant and landlord freely negotiating the terms.
This is not the case in Ireland at the moment.

I have no issues with your last paragraph.

Leases should be of a standard is clearly laid out s both sides know what is involved. This is so for purchasing or a mortgage - no funny clauses or sneaky get outs. Pay the rent and respect the property and neighbours then the tenant is secure. Whatever the landlord wishes to do, the tenant was secure.

Rent should be secure for three years at a minimum, none of this yearly jack up the rent every year.

blanch152

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I agree entirely.

Grand, but....
- dont build budget houses, they should all be a rated.
- don't build skyscrapers (anything over 3 stories in ireland)
- don't build apartments, "its houses people want"
- dont use the hated developers
- don't let big funds buy them
- don't let small landlords buy them
- dont have social housing beside me
- dont gentrify an area by building anything but social
- don't build rentals for professional, its also gentrification
- dont build anything overlooking my house
- dont build anything in a green area
- don't knock any old factories for housing, the council will make them listed, for being "architecturally significant"
- the traffic is too much already and the schools are filled to capacity
- build thousands of social houses but don't you DARE raise taxes

Etc etc etc etc


I'm glad I'm not in politics :pac:

You couldn't have summed up the problem more effectively and highlighted the politicians who constantly speak out of both sides of their mouths on this issue.

We cannot solve the problem of housing without high-rise, high-density provision within the canals of Dublin, yet you won't get a single politician who will both say this and follow through with action.

blackwhite

On the actual thread topic

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-gambles-on-fine-gael-prodigal-son-who-returned-from-renua-exile-40411266.html

Before candidates started being announced I would have had FG as the firm favourites to take this seat, but I think that Geoghegen might be a candidate that could cost them.

Given his short-lived defection to Renua he'll have the whiff of anti-choice, etc. off of him - whether or not those are actually his views or not. A very easy stick for opponents to beat him with, especially in such a liberal-minded constituency.

Latest PP Odds - still showing some fairly speculative candidates also.

Geoghegan 1/3
Boylan 6/1
Bacik 7/1
Chu 10/1
Byrne 16/1
Conroy 16/1
McDowell 20/1
O'Connor 33/1
Creighton 40/1
McHugh 100/1


EDIT
Also fairly obvious from the Indo's coverage over past few days that KoC has been getting her side of the story across quite strongly. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see her express support for Bacik or Chu closer to the election.

Brussels Sprout

blackwhite wrote: »

Also fairly obvious from the Indo's coverage over past few days that KoC has been getting her side of the story across quite strongly. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see her express support for Bacik or Chu closer to the election.

I'd be very surprised if she did that as that'd be the end of any potential FG comeback. Listening to her on the radio last week and reading in between the lines it sounds like she's going to try and wait until Varadkar is gone before giving things another shot.

People in FG will forgive her for falling out with Varadkar but they'd never forgive her for backing a candidate from a different party.

Oymyakon

blackwhite wrote: »

Latest PP Odds - still showing some fairly speculative candidates also.

Geoghegan 1/3
Boylan 6/1
Bacik 7/1
Chu 10/1
Byrne 16/1
Conroy 16/1
McDowell 20/1
O'Connor 33/1
Creighton 40/1
McHugh 100/1

Would be interested to see how the bookies price the Green candidate after they've been confirmed, my guess would be about 5/1, perhaps slightly shorter if it's Chu.

[Deleted User]

Larbre34 wrote: »

For what? The damn thing won't be held until November.

The Government are not stupid enough to ignore the kind of vaccine bounce that Boris got in Hartlepool today. They'll wait to hold it until the day before a big rugby game in a full Aviva this Autumn with ads saying "Say thank you Meehole and Leo"

Election to be held in early July

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/byelection-in-dublin-bay-south-expected-to-take-place-in-early-july-1.4567262%3fmode=amp

JPup

I'm surprised FG are such short odds. Whoever emerges as the leader among the green/labour/soc dem candidates will hoover up preferences from all around including SF and PPP*.

Brussels Sprout

https://twitter.com/NextIrishGE/status/1394234902908899338


That makes things very interesting. I guess the government parties are banking on their key demographics to have all been vaccinated by then.

RandomViewer

JPup wrote: »

I'm surprised FG are such short odds. Whoever emerges as the leader among the green/labour/soc dem candidates will hoover up preferences from all around including SF and PPP*.

Green will be hoping for FG votes, nothing else will be going their way, political equivalent of Bothar at this stage

L1011

Geoghegan is claiming he doesn't support the policies of the party he co-founded (Renua on abortion, which was their only real policy anyway so an extremely odd claim) or the party he represents (FG on housing)

awec

Was Geoghegan the only show in town for FG here (outside of O'Connell) ?

Larbre34

No I doubt there was any another FG candidate in the frame. A parachute job in a by election would have caused all sorts of long term mess.

I did think they might consider Senator Barry Ward, but there was never so much as a whisper about it so I was wrong there.

Brussels Sprout

L1011 wrote: »

Geoghegan is claiming he doesn't support the policies of the party he co-founded (Renua on abortion, which was their only real policy anyway so an extremely odd claim) or the party he represents (FG on housing)

Renua didn't have an official stance on abortion when Creighton was leader. Instead they said they would give any elected TDs a free vote on "votes of conscious". Eddie Hobbs, was their President and said that he was pro-choice himself.

Basically they were afraid that if they went fully pro-life it would put a ceiling on their potential electorate. Of course that ended up happening anyway since most people assumed that they were pro-life since all of their sitting TDs had left FG due to their pro-life stance.

After they lost all their seats in 2016 and Creighton left, the next leader, John Leahy, changed the official party position to make them a pro-life party. When he himself left in turn they went full on nativist, right-wing catholic and teamed up with the Nationalist Party and the IFP at the last election. It really was a fascinating descent in the space of a single election cycle.

PommieBast

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Basically they were afraid that if they went fully pro-life it would put a ceiling on their potential electorate. Of course that ended up happening anyway since most people assumed that they were pro-life since all of their sitting TDs had left FG due to their pro-life stance.

I remember back in 2016 making a serious effort to read all the parties' manifestos and even though I was pig-ignorant on Renua's anti-abortion background they still came across as a socially conservative dustbin for which their economic policies were second fiddle.

Blut2

Geoghegan when asked about the Renua issue these days says he joined for the economic reasons, that he saw them as becoming a second coming of the PDs.

But I'd really wonder about that. The social conservatism was so core to Renua, I doubt anyone would have joined without being at least somewhat in agreement with them on that.

expectationlost

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Renua didn't have an official stance on abortion when Creighton was leader. Instead they said they would give any elected TDs a free vote on "votes of conscious". Eddie Hobbs, was their President and said that he was pro-choice himself.

Basically they were afraid that if they went fully pro-life it would put a ceiling on their potential electorate. Of course that ended up happening anyway since most people assumed that they were pro-life since all of their sitting TDs had left FG due to their pro-life stance.

After they lost all their seats in 2016 and Creighton left, the next leader, John Leahy, changed the official party position to make them a pro-life party. When he himself left in turn they went full on nativist, right-wing catholic and teamed up with the Nationalist Party and the IFP at the last election. It really was a fascinating descent in the space of a single election cycle.

and Geoghegan and Creighton left hundreds of thousands in state funding to that lot

Brussels Sprout

expectationlost wrote: »

and Geoghegan and Creighton left hundreds of thousands in state funding to that lot

To be fair the absolute loons only took over in 2019. John Leahy acted as a sort of fire-break between Creighton and the "bring back the latin mass and public executions" crowd

Sam Russell

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

To be fair the absolute loons only took over in 2019. John Leahy acted as a sort of fire-break between Creighton and the "bring back the latin mass and public executions" crowd

I thought they were pro life. Possibly only some of them - or possibly only some lives.

timmyntc

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought they were pro life. Possibly only some of them - or possibly only some lives.

Pro life that may one day grow up to vote for them.
Criminals would never vote for Renua though, so they had to make sure they couldnt vote for someone else!

Brussels Sprout

just for the record I was joking about the public executions. I couldn't actually find their 2020 manifesto.

Sam Russell

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

just for the record I was joking about the public executions. I couldn't actually find their 2020 manifesto.

That is OK, so was I.