Politicians who are Landlords

I agree, we have no accountability for the vast property portfolio of SF. We don't know if they have interests in keeping commercial rents high, or if their consistent opposition to development is driven by protection of their own property interests. Transparency and accountability are key.

At least with Troy we have the register of interests and we can hold him to that. Nothing similar exists for political parties.

A single politician has far less influence than a political party who can instruct TDs to all vote a certain way without even telling them why.

Not at all, we have no evidence of any influence that Troy has used or attempted to use, yet we know that SF, as a political party, has stymied development in a large number of places. The inference that that is being done to protect the value of its property portfolio will be hanging out there until the party transparently comes clean on that portfolio.

Sinn Fein have voted against 6,000 homes across different developments in Dublin. Did they do so to protect the value of their significant property portfolio? We don't know, because it is a secret portfolio. Were they successful in delaying and stopping a number of these projects? Yes.

Certainly, SF have been a lot more successful in protecting their alleged interests than Troy has been.

Could you clarify how and why this is the case?

The number of SF's properties has come up before. I believe that they house party hq and constituency offices. If you know otherwise, feel free to provide the information you have at your disposal. We'll all be better informed as a result, and better able to judge for ourselves in the light of that knowledge.

Otherwise, SF are in the same position as any home owner - house prices keep going up, but we are not better off because of it as we need a place to live so we can't actually cash in our chips and neither can SF, unless we decide to head off to sunnier, or at least cheaper, climes. The same goes for FF, FG and Labour. As long as those parties continue to exist they need their premises in Mount St or wherever. I don't see them housing their offices in a tent on the banks of the Grand Canal - do you?

According to this SF appear to be well able to manage their finances.

Investing in a network of offices throughout the country was probably a wise investment.

Quite the opposite.

SF have a large property portfolio, full details hidden and sources of finance hidden.

Hidden from who?

If there is a problem here don't we have agencies of the state who should be doing something about it?

More detail required here, is there a state agency who has said this is something illegal and why have they not taken action?

If somebody is hiding their property from 'everyone' then the implication is that they are doing something illegal.

Have they property that is hidden?

Can you back this up please?

P.S. Not declaring your interests is against the regulations laid down by the state.

No, that is your job if you want to equate this to politicians avoiding regulations laid down by the state.

If SF are doing something against regulations, point it out.

Again, I never said that they are avoiding regulations laid down by the state, those are words you put into my mouth. Quite astounding how you have constructed this strawman argument. You are the one who has mentioned regulations being broken, so tell us what regulations you are referring to.

The fact is that SF have a very significant property portfolio that has been repeatedly reported on, yet the details are hidden from the public eye. Do you believe that is a good thing?

Wrong, the issue is conflict of interest. The complaints all through the thread relate to politicians who own investment property making policies on property. Same issue with SF, except that all their interests are hidden from the public.

So just because there is no law against it, SF are allowed to have any amount of conflicts of interest and we should just turn a blind eye?

SF have been playing fast and loose with political financing rules through taking advantage of different laws in different jurisdictions and now that they have built up a huge portfolio of property we don't need to worry about them opposing property taxes because of it? Yet it is a major scandal if an individual misdeclared a property?

Why would it bother you when you have glossed over other TD's being called 'top class' and 'great legislators' (or whatever phrase it was MM used)?

They oppose property tax and have lowered LPT in a number of council areas where they might own properties.

That is the third time you have tried to shut down discussion, last I checked title of thread is "politicians who are landlords". Now, if you want to be pedantic and claim that political parties are not synonymous with politicians, or that having a huge property portfolio isn't relevant to the issue, go right ahead.