Populist parties force reduction in number of social and affordable homes

Terrible article. The journalist doesn't go into why they supported scaling back the development. In the example of the Green Party Councillor he had 'No problem with the height'. It's hard to criticize without knowing the full facts.
 
Better to have a smaller development more appropriate to the location, welcomed by the community, than an over-development which isn't supported and is held up in planning and objections. Have seen this in multiple places.
 
ClubMan said:
Fine, but then they should quit moaning about people not being able to live in Dublin city centre because of lack of supply. Can't have it both ways. Although populist politicians like to make it seem like you can.
Click to expand...
Thankfully we don't have populist politicians in power but those who are ready and willing to make tough decisions that may not be popular but are the right thing to do. e.g. water charges, lock downs (meaningful Christmas) etc. .

Oh wait...
 
ClubMan said:
www.independent.ie

Not in my back yard: Green Minister for Community opposes public housing just yards from his own home

The Government minister in charge of community development is opposing public housing being built just 25 yards behind his own house.
www.independent.ie www.independent.ie
Click to expand...
This is a real example of rank hypocrisy in my opinion This TD wants a right to housing inserted into the construction but opposes any practical action to realise that right in practice by actually providing housing for people who can't afford to secure it on the market. He also wants more sustainable public transport and settlement patterns but opposes action to densify land use adjacent to the train station in Skerries.

I consider myself left wing politically, think there is an urgent need for more social housing and have usually voted Labour. However I have come to the conclusion that many politicians on the left don't really want any actual social housing provided (or indeed any housing) because they oppose every single development because it has some shortcoming. Every housing proposal must be prefect it seems and the perfect is the enemy of the good.
 
I couldn't follow the map in that article, but it does seem to me that such a widely used area with people accessing the beach should not have housing developed on it.

Just because someone objects to housing in a specific area does not mean that they are hypocrites. I would object if Dublin City Council decided to build social housing on St. Stephen's Green.

Brendan
 
This is just my opinion from political experience and knowledge. Hopefully this doesn't constitute me being banned from the site.

Sinn Fein are actively trying to make the housing crisis worse for their own benefit. They object to developments all over the country. Their leader Mary Louise objects in Dublin. Eoin objects as well. Cllrs object routinely to developments around the country. All this slows down or blocks development be it private housing, private rental, social, affordable, cost rental etc. This makes a bad problem, worse.

Now, in all speeches SF refer to what they WOULD do if in government. They would freeze rents. They'd prevent landlords taking back vacant possession if they needed their house or apartment for themselves, their family or if they needed to sell it. What does this do? It spooks current landlords and brings uncertainly into people's minds. SF are likely to be in government no later than summer of 2025. So these landlords start selling up (this is happening right now). So less properties for rent, rents go higher, and it makes a bad problem or situation worse again.

SF are actually making the rental and housing crisis worse and they are becoming more popular as a result.

Again, I'd stress, this is my reading of it. We actually need SF in power so people can see what they are like. I just hope that SF don't do any long term damage with some of their hair brain proposals.
 
Last edited:
In theory, communism is great - the problem is that it doesn't work in practise
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Just because someone objects to housing in a specific area does not mean that they are hypocrites. I would object if Dublin City Council decided to build social housing on St. Stephen's Green.
Click to expand...

As I said before, all housing developments are not appropriate, even if we are in a housing crisis.

The Cabra development was refused permission by both the local authority and An Bord Pleanála.

It is perfectly valid to campaign for more housing and to object to specific developments.

Or is it implied that someone who campaigns for more housing can never object to any house development?

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
As I said before, all housing developments are not appropriate, even if we are in a housing crisis.
Click to expand...
I think you're right Brendan. It's a very easy "gotcha" by the media.


To my mind this is an issue of degeee, not of absolutes.

If a TD is objecting to 80% of large-scale developments then it's fair to criticise them as being anti-development. If it's 20% then it's more likely that there are specific concerns.

I've never seen a news article that contextualises this very well.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
As I said before, all housing developments are not appropriate, even if we are in a housing crisis.

The Cabra development was refused permission by both the local authority and An Bord Pleanála.

It is perfectly valid to campaign for more housing and to object to specific developments.

Or is it implied that someone who campaigns for more housing can never object to any house development?

Brendan
Click to expand...
She objected because they were build to rent. That's an ideological objection, not a planning suitability one. I know the area well. There's no reason not to build there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top