Social Housing

That’s not what the policy does. What it would do is create a more sustainable supply of social and affordable housing and reduce future ghettoisation. Currently disadvantaged areas would still need to be addressed. Remember this would only be a tiny proportion of the overall housing stock as well as it would only be new houses, not existing ones.

It’s more a long term approach though and more easily achievable than the ones you mentioned. Which should obviously be taken too.

I know. I was replying to the last line of Tabby’s quote.

Gotcha. The thing is, people tend to take issue with certain measures as point out other options as alternatives. In reality, none of these measures will work in isolation, what’s needed is a broad range of complementary measures. The 20% rule was certainly a very progressive and positive measure.

Eat what you kill. We have also forgotten about families duty to look after family members and everything is outsourced to the government for “free”. teenage girl gets pregnant in a middle class area - she lives at home - teenage girl gets pregnant in a socially deprived area - she moves into her own place

The generous social welfare/minimum wage system in this country means lots of jobs are not done because the social welfare system/minimum wage makes them too expensive

Without levels of social welfare/minimum wage we have anybody on decent bread could afford a gardener, cook, cleaner to work in their house regularly.

I accept that as a consequence of living in a western democracy that espouses universal welfare of a sort.

I don’t accept that system should mean

1.that somebody who works thinks about having a third child as their house isn’t big enough, costs too much whereas somebody who doesn’t work clocks in extra benefits by having that third/fourth/fifth child;

  1. bloke who works buying a house has to pay more for it because the builder has to provide 20% at below market rate to social housing so to preserve profits charges the private buyer more

  2. person in low paid job is competing for an apartment with somebody who doesn’t work who gets it for free

Did the government not subsidise the difference between the cost of a social/affordable unit vs the market value for that unit?

planning condition meant you had to transfer land at “existing use” value

argument was that planning enhanced value of land and in effect that was how developer was paid for land

most developers just built “off site” houses to satisfy the condition - they readjusted prices to factor in what they saw as their cost - that cost like all costs ends up being paid by ultimate private buyer

The lads in this conversation are the lads I’d have a pint with.

[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972329, member: 2272”]Eat what you kill. We have also forgotten about families duty to look after family members and everything is outsourced to the government for “free”. teenage girl gets pregnant in a middle class area - she lives at home - teenage girl gets pregnant in a socially deprived area - she moves into her own place

The generous social welfare/minimum wage system in this country means lots of jobs are not done because the social welfare system/minimum wage makes them too expensive

Without levels of social welfare/minimum wage we have anybody on decent bread could afford a gardener, cook, cleaner to work in their house regularly.

I accept that as a consequence of living in a western democracy that espouses universal welfare of a sort.

I don’t accept that system should mean

1.that somebody who works thinks about having a third child as their house isn’t big enough, costs too much whereas somebody who doesn’t work clocks in extra benefits by having that third/fourth/fifth child;

  1. bloke who works buying a house has to pay more for it because the builder has to provide 20% at below market rate to social housing so to preserve profits charges the private buyer more

  2. person in low paid job is competing for an apartment with somebody who doesn’t work who gets it for free[/QUOTE]
    What jobs are not done? You sound like you want an army of gardeners, cleaners and cooks to work for a pittance for you in your price-not-affected-by social-housing mansion. A veritable utopia! You fucking space cadet :smiley:

Affluent people, or your average middle class type IMO is a fairly liberal beast in this day and age. I don’t think they are so much concerned with who paid what for where, or how much they earn. They just want to live with like minded people, who treat the neighbourhood as they would themselves. This is where the problem lies. Like it or not, social housing folk often are conditioned to behave differently. I’m not saying that one is right and the other wrong, just different, and if someone has hocked themselves to the bank for twenty or thirty years to live in an area of like minded people, anyone can see why they would take issue. This is a fact of modern life. There is no solution. People don’t like to feel threatened, and threat is all perception.

[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972329, member: 2272”]Eat what you kill. We have also forgotten about families duty to look after family members and everything is outsourced to the government for “free”. teenage girl gets pregnant in a middle class area - she lives at home - teenage girl gets pregnant in a socially deprived area - she moves into her own place

The generous social welfare/minimum wage system in this country means lots of jobs are not done because the social welfare system/minimum wage makes them too expensive

Without levels of social welfare/minimum wage we have anybody on decent bread could afford a gardener, cook, cleaner to work in their house regularly.

I accept that as a consequence of living in a western democracy that espouses universal welfare of a sort.

I don’t accept that system should mean

1.that somebody who works thinks about having a third child as their house isn’t big enough, costs too much whereas somebody who doesn’t work clocks in extra benefits by having that third/fourth/fifth child;

2. bloke who works buying a house has to pay more for it because the builder has to provide 20% at below market rate to social housing so to preserve profits charges the private buyer more

  1. person in low paid job is competing for an apartment with somebody who doesn’t work who gets it for free[/QUOTE]

I disagree with this completely. A builder preserving profit in this way is profiteering. The notion that he has to, or should be entitled to is wrong. I believe that housing provision should be extremely tightly regulated, and that there should be a cap on profit allowable based on a percentage and on the average value of homes in that area. (I understand this will never happen).
More importantly, i think the concept of people compensating for the less affluent is completely right. Even, if you take away all moral sides of the argument, the cumulative cost of ‘poor’ people to the state is huge. A higher unemployment rate, higher education costs, higher health costs, higher prison costs etc., are all hugely increased by ghettoisation. That is what that policy(as it should have been implemented) was devised to combat. The lack of implementation was down to sheer greed on the part of developers and the government of the time. Sadly, it’s reinstatement now will have a much smaller effect, given the amount of housing built during the time when developers could buy their way out.

[QUOTE=“Juhniallio, post: 972875, member: 53”]I disagree with this completely. A builder preserving profit in this way is profiteering. The notion that he has to, or should be entitled to is wrong. I believe that housing provision should be extremely tightly regulated, and that there should be a cap on profit allowable based on a percentage and on the average value of homes in that area. (I understand this will never happen).
More importantly, i think the concept of people compensating for the less affluent is completely right. Even, if you take away all moral sides of the argument, the cumulative cost of ‘poor’ people to the state is huge. A higher unemployment rate, higher education costs, higher health costs, higher prison costs etc., are all hugely increased by ghettoisation. That is what that policy(as it should have been implemented) was devised to combat. The lack of implementation was down to sheer greed on the part of developers and the government of the time. Sadly, it’s reinstatement now will have a much smaller effect, given the amount of housing built during the time when developers could buy their way out.[/QUOTE]
Letting the government anywhere near the housing market spells fucking disaster. They tinker and don’t see the unintended consequences.

If you want to go back to first principles one of the reasons for a lot of our issues is the planning permission system which stops people building what they want on land they own. Once you have a pp system you instantly limit supply and create artificial values around land.

Not an army. But all jobs that could be outsourced and would be outsourced by most working people in a different economic environment. Happens in the twi light area of au pairs where they work for “accommodation”.

[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972883, member: 2272”]Letting the government anywhere near the housing market spells fucking disaster. They tinker and don’t see the unintended consequences.

If you want to go back to first principles one of the reasons for a lot of our issues is the planning permission system which stops people building what they want on land they own. Once you have a pp system you instantly limit supply and create artificial values around land.[/QUOTE]

Planning needs to be more tightly enforced not less.

We need to build upwards in our cities not sprawl out into the countryside

[QUOTE=“Julio Geordio, post: 972892, member: 332”]Planning needs to be more tightly enforced not less.

We need to build upwards in our cities not sprawl out into the countryside[/QUOTE]
Planning is what stops you building upwards. Would Manhattan have been built with our planning laws that we borrowed from post war Britain. A tiny fraction of Ireland is built upon.

Would it be fair to say you are a progressive?

[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972883, member: 2272”]Letting the government anywhere near the housing market spells fucking disaster. They tinker and don’t see the unintended consequences.

If you want to go back to first principles one of the reasons for a lot of our issues is the planning permission system which stops people building what they want on land they own. Once you have a pp system you instantly limit supply and create artificial values around land.[/QUOTE]

Not regulating development spells fucking disaster. People who own their own land and want to build on it is a miniscule and inconsequential part of development and is mostly rural based. Our big problem is a lack of new affordable developments for middle age/younger types. Ghettoising them is not the answer.

[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 972883, member: 2272”]Letting the government anywhere near the housing market spells fucking disaster. They tinker and don’t see the unintended consequences.

If you want to go back to first principles one of the reasons for a lot of our issues is the planning permission system which stops people building what they want on land they own. Once you have a pp system you instantly limit supply and create artificial values around land.[/QUOTE]
You are a libertarian lunatic.

[QUOTE=“Juhniallio, post: 972875, member: 53”]I disagree with this completely. A builder preserving profit in this way is profiteering. The notion that he has to, or should be entitled to is wrong. I believe that housing provision should be extremely tightly regulated, and that there should be a cap on profit allowable based on a percentage and on the average value of homes in that area. (I understand this will never happen).
More importantly, i think the concept of people compensating for the less affluent is completely right. Even, if you take away all moral sides of the argument, the cumulative cost of ‘poor’ people to the state is huge. A higher unemployment rate, higher education costs, higher health costs, higher prison costs etc., are all hugely increased by ghettoisation. That is what that policy(as it should have been implemented) was devised to combat. The lack of implementation was down to sheer greed on the part of developers and the government of the time. Sadly, it’s reinstatement now will have a much smaller effect, given the amount of housing built during the time when developers could buy their way out.[/QUOTE]

What a load of sanctimonious bollocks.

I am not really but our planning laws are overly restrictive. Two quick examples

  1. Restriction of height of buildings in Dublin City centre seems completely arbitrary. Preserve skyline for who? Yet Google’s new building was allowed higher and is now looked at as a landmark/flagship building.

  2. Shell Corrib Gas field and onshore pipeline delays due to planning

I reckon we would struggle to electrify Ireland now if the roll out had to happen under these planning laws.

If you link back to current housing shortage planning was so hard to get that apartments were more profitable.

People who lived in houses with gardens who make planning decisions made statements to say the next generation should have no expectation of living in a semi d with a garden as they were just not sustainable. Every other country has high rise in cities where young people live and then suburbs with houses where said young people move to when they have kids. No shortage of land in Ireland but a real desire for a command economy and a clientele constituent.