Sounds like a stupid idea.
Why? How many refusals should a person get? Obviously someone whose life is in Dublin doesn’t want to be housed in Kerry but nor should they have the right to demand a 3 bed in their own area. Plenty of normal people move far away for price reasons. Balancing the fine line between someone getting a gaff off the state and taking the piss is a very difficult job but there have to be some rules.
1 Like
great input pal
Good answer, that would be my answer too.
In fairness, what do you want, offer everyone a house in Leitrim and if they don’t accept it they’re off the housing list?
Currently if you refuse your second offer you get suspended off the list for a year and lose any priority you may have had.
1 Like
no, there’s clearly not enough housing stock in leitrim. randomise it all: you could get leitrim, louth or even glorious wexford.
Christ above.
thought you were agnostic
Really? I’d no idea that was the rule now. Is that countrywide?
Yeah. Been like that for a while.
This is your area, this is an honest answer to what the situation is but some lads are utterly committed to the ‘listen, just DO BETTER’ line of thought. The SF magic money tree will grow houses instead of apples will it? Imagine the snails pace that building would take if builders were on the government dime. Not to mention quality issues. Would a government housing agency or whatever offer more competitive wages than the private sector? If not, who would work for them. If so is it not a money pit.
I’m reminded of the following line from an IT article about the Covid re-opening
“In recent weeks, the Government has also made it clear that it could accept an argument from the National Public Health Emergency Team (Nphet) that the situation remained sufficiently grave that extensive restrictions were needed; or it could accept the view of the National Immunisation Advisory Committee (Niac) that the situation was not sufficiently grave to set aside the “abundance of caution” approach that restricted the use of some vaccines. But it could not accept both simultaneously.”
Something similar applies in my view to the housing crisis and in particular to the raft of political opposition to new developments, private and public.
Either it is an emergency, in which case all that matters is acting quickly and bringing supply on line asap or it is not an emergency and time can be taken, maybe many years, for every plan to be tinkered with, diluted or opposed because it either doesn’t meet an ideological purity test or mildly inconveniences some local residents. It can not be both simultaneously.
I think it is an emergency. All political parties would do well to accept that and the consequences that follow and not try and talk out of both sides of their mouth.
6 Likes
Why is that?
It is both simultaneously.
It’s an emergency for people struggling for years to get houses. It’s not at all for those who aren’t, in fact their emergency is the thought of their asset which it took huge effort to get devaluing by new housing built nearby. And there’s plenty of votes in the latter. As there’s no consensus don’t expect a seachange.
1 Like
You’re completely right but it’s an unfortunate by product of our political (and planning) system.
1 Like
the other aspect to that, say take the example above. People went to a local TD to go against a planning. If they do that and oppose a development in the area, they are likely to either hold or get votes. If they put forward the proposal and it gets built, they will lose the votes in that area and there is no loyalty to that TD from the incumbents to the new housing, so they wont gain any votes.
So the TDs weigh it up, what gets them votes. More often than not, opposing new housing will get them more votes and they are likely to lose votes by supporting it. Which is all manners of wrong.
2 Likes
Correct as all that matters to them in the golden two term pension and sure when they get used to the lifestyle sure why give that up. Your SF example is very pointed, they are not worse than anyone else, but they are definitely talking out both sides for political reasons. But then they are taking care of their own skin rather than what’s in the countries best interests, which is all the electorate is also doing by objecting etc.
So it’s not a national emergency for all, just for some, so what’s the answer? How do you inventise building but profit (or at least claw back) from what’s built?
Let’s all band together for the collective good comrade doesn’t tally with human nature, certainly not in Ireland where long term planning seems toxic.
@Gman Is there another dynamic there in that example you put up,I think most of that area would be old council houses?..
Genuinely have no idea. I just happened to see on twitter about it and saw reports detailing why it was being opposed as there was a lack of green areas as a result of the development. I just looked it up on google maps then to see how much green area they were losing, and not only was it fuck all, but its just a part of wasteland grass that isnt used for anything and looks most likely to be a hang out spot for lads up to no good rather than a meaningful use of community space.
But that in itself is also a point. Lets create a spurious reason that sounds good to oppose a development because it means more houses around me. Even though it will have a negligible effect to the area
2 Likes