Bringing down the cost of building houses through compulsory purchase of land

Purple said:
Have you been in the South of England recently? It’s thriving.
If you want a village to survive people have to live in it, not in some vulgar McMansion a mile away.
Click to expand...
South of England is thriving to a point, but it is a commuter belt with local people forced out because they can't afford to buy in the area they were born and raised in as 2nd home owners and commuters swoop up the houses. Try a village in Yorkshire or the Midlands and they are dying. Even those down the South West are dead outside of the holiday season
 
Peanuts20 said:
South of England is thriving to a point, but it is a commuter belt with local people forced out because they can't afford to buy in the area they were born and raised in
Click to expand...
The same thing applies to many cities. Why is it okay for urban dwellers have to move out of the areas they grew up in because they are priced out of the market by people moving into those areas but it's a big deal when it happens in rural areas?
 
Tipperary County Council has started to provide serviced sites on the edge of villages which can be purchased by people who want to build their own home. These sites are within walking distance to the village shop, school etc. Initiatives like this are the way to go I think, it will stop ribbon development, bring some life to the villages and also enable people who want to cut costs by self building to do so.
 
kinnjohn said:
Can you explain What you mean please,
Click to expand...
The majority of people born in relatively affluent areas of Dublin can't afford to live there. Where are the cries of unfairness for them? I haven't heard calls to a ban on culchies moving to Dublin.
 
joe sod said:
Surely with lack of housing, the lack of building, the lack of builders maybe the "planned population growth" needs to be slowed down. There are already 5 million people now , during the eighties it was around 3 million thats quite a hectic population growth. Looks like we can only handle 50,000 a year growth
Click to expand...
Are you proposing a "one-child" policy or is there a dog whistle being blown here? For our pensions to be paid for and for people to wash us in our nursing homes in 20 years time there needs to be population growth, it needs to be planned for as in providing houses in cities and towns.
 
dereko1969 said:
Are you proposing a "one-child" policy or is there a dog whistle being blown here? For our pensions to be paid for and for people to wash us in our nursing homes in 20 years time there needs to be population growth, it needs to be planned for as in providing houses in cities and towns.
Click to expand...
No of course not, you are just using that angle to shut down debate, can I ask a a question who washed us in our nursing homes and paid our pensions when we only had circa 3 million people for many decades. I'm not arguing against organic population growth but if the government is planning to grow the population they need to first sort out where are they all going to live. In any case all if this planned population increase will also need to be washed in nursing homes and pensions paid for so that's a false argument.
 
joe sod said:
No of course not, you are just using that angle to shut down debate, can I ask a a question who washed us in our nursing homes and paid our pensions when we only had circa 3 million people for many decades. I'm not arguing against organic population growth but if the government is planning to grow the population they need to first sort out where are they all going to live. In any case all if this planned population increase will also need to be washed in nursing homes and pensions paid for so that's a false argument.
Click to expand...
When there was only 3 million, the demographics were different. Ratio of young to old is changing as life expectancy increases.

I don't think the government 'plan' a population increase. They predict for one based on estimates and try to plan accordingly.
 
joe sod said:
No of course not, you are just using that angle to shut down debate, can I ask a a question who washed us in our nursing homes and paid our pensions when we only had circa 3 million people for many decades. I'm not arguing against organic population growth but if the government is planning to grow the population they need to first sort out where are they all going to live. In any case all if this planned population increase will also need to be washed in nursing homes and pensions paid for so that's a false argument.
Click to expand...
I'm not shutting down debate. As has been pointed out population growth is predicted and needs to be planned for, that planning needs to recognise that urban based population growth is key so that we're focussing our spend on much needed infrastructure in the right places, instead of providing poor infrastructure everywhere.
 
Purple said:
The majority of people born in relatively affluent areas of Dublin can't afford to live there. Where are the cries of unfairness for them? I haven't heard calls to a ban on culchies moving to Dublin,
Click to expand...
They could if their parents stopped objecting to more houses being Built in relatively affluent areas of Dublin, serves then right,



the only culchies welcome around affluent areas of Dublin is a culchie badger,;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top