Purple Line Issue

at

From top: Soc Dem Dublin City Councillor Gary Gannon (left) leaving last Monday’s council meeting under Garda protection; resolution from Soc Dem students.

Last night.

Context.

Via DCU Soc Dems

Ronan Emmet writes:

‘I won’t be supporting any Soc Dem candidates after this disappointing vote. So much promise as a party, but it’s all optics it seems. The electorate are coming for you and you underestimate the damage this has done your party. You won’t have any new TDs elected in Dublin…’

Fight!

Yesterday: Passed Under Garda Protection

23 thoughts on “Purple Line Issue

  1. Dr.Fart

    ah their hands were tied. gary gannon explained it on twitter. no point rounding on them, keep focused on the real baddies, FF/FG

  2. Trouble

    A choice between 50% or 0% and a promise of further punishment to come maybe organising a protest outside Murphy’s office would do more than rounding on your own councillors

  3. curmudgeon

    The socdem councillors were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. This is literally all FGs fault, hell it’s their policy. Profit is not a dirty word but collusion is and colluding with property developers is exactly what happened here. The council were left with some crap options as FG would not fund them to build independently. If the writers and signatures of this letter want to publicly disavov support then they better have replacement candidates lined up with enough votes otherwise FG and FF will aim to take those seats as soon as they smell blood. The first thing to learn about joining a political party is that you give bollickings in private, if you want the party to have any chance at all. It’s too small to split itself now and won’t survive a schism.

  4. Qwerty123

    It is an awful decision, that site should be 100% social, run by the council. 100% of the private sales will be to landlords who will let them back to council via HAP anyway.

    What a country.

    1. Stephen

      In fairness when it was 100% social before it was one of the biggest kips in the city and continues to have legacy impacting on the wider area. 100% social again would be stupid. Nothing wrong with a social mix in my opinion.

      1. Qwerty123

        Yes, putting people who have to get up early and work next to people who don’t and up all night doing eff all, living in identical houses one of which will be kept well and another wont, cant see any resentment and issues there at all. Go to any housing estate with a “social mix” and you will see what I am on about.

        Dublin at the mo seems to be run for the very rich and the very poor, people in the middle are effed.

        Also, why is 100% social such a bad idea? nobody asks this question, if these people are such hard working decent people, why doesn’t it work out?

        People who are hard working are expected to suffer the actions of these and the council washes their hands of their responsibility (i know not 100% their fault, but it suits them)

    2. Just Sayin

      100% social has been proven repeatedly to be a bad idea.
      If the Soc Dems are campaigning fore this then they should be rightly condemned as ‘loony left’

      There are only 2 questions

      1. What is the best social mix between private, social and affordable housing for that site?

      i.e. What should we build if not strapped for cash

      2. Given the commercial reality that we need a developer to build the housing and that they will be paid by keeping the cash from the sale/rental of the private housing, then what is the mix that pays the developer and gets closest to our desired mix.

      1. Donal

        on point 2:
        This is a reality created by governmental policy, not an actual real unchangeable fact.
        Why can DCC not build a development of their choosing (paying a builder to do the construction work), and then decide what portion to retain, to sell as affordable, to sell at full price?
        There is one answer to that question. FG policy

        1. Dr_Chimp

          No it’s not. Nearly everything the state touches takes twice as long and twice as costly to build. They don’t have the resources, financially and expertise to deliver these projects. Why on earth would you have a bunch of paper pushing bureaucrats design and build housing when there are professionals out here to do it? Just think of the public procurement process they’d have to go through for a project like this…we’ll all be dead by the time they break ground.

          1. Donal

            Public bodies arrange for the development of all sorts of major construction projects all the time, and some do have cost overruns.
            It cannot be beyond the ability of the relevant section of a council to tender for a construction company to build a scheme that has either been designed in house or has been designed by a contracted architect.
            The council already owns the land, why is granting profit to an external developer the only option. Money has never been as cheap, the council should be allowed borrow to fund development, or be funded from the exchequer. Whatever builder wins the construction tender will obviously be building at a cost that offers them a profit, there will be the same levels of employment created during the build no matter who builds etc

          2. Dr_Chimp

            That should really say “most have cost over runs” and even then, it’s not even benchmarked against what the private market would deliver. I have seen plenty of government tenders for projects and you’d want to see the level of bureaucracy and nonsense you have to go through…and this all gets added into the price. I know it’s mad but it genuinely is, in most cases, well beyond the means of a council to do all of it. For a start, the best architects, quantity surveyors, engineers, finance professionals etc do not go and work for the state. They can’t afford them. Why is granting profit to a developer a bad thing? The developer is the one taking the risk and financing the project so they need to make money, like everyone else.

            Money may never have been so cheap but unfortunately we’re up to our eyeballs in debt as it is so adding to that to build something that doesn’t generate enough return to pay for it doesn’t seem like a wise thing to do.

          3. Donal

            @dr chimp there are huge layers of bureaucracy in the system but these are layers at the departmental level, these are things that DCC have imposed on them. The minister could make amendments to these if he saw fit.
            Granting profit to a developer is a bad thing because it is part of a policy that ensures that the council do not end up with control of large numbers of social housing, and ensures that private companies end up with large amounts of taxpayers money via HAP. We can well afford to borrow for capital spending where we own an asset at the end, rather than not spending and paying to rent from a developer for years and years to come

            @Cian DCC can and do do similar to that in Kildare, look at current development on North King Street. But the layers of bureaucracy have meant that though planning was granted in July 2016 construction only started a few months back. When will Kildare cc actually be able to have a builder on site? Also, the layers of bureaucracy are greater the higher the costs, so I imagine there may be different checks for a small development in Kildare v 800 units in Dublin.

          4. Cian

            @Donal, I don’t know how long Kildare CoCo will have to wait, but if you look at etenders there are hundreds of tenders for small (3-30) developments by a slew of Councils.
            https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders – search for “social housing” and include expired RTFs

            so DCC could have increased property tax (or not dropped it by the maximum 15%) last year, raised their own money (independent of the Department), and tendered for the building of some houses (in small parcels of land) on DCC land (independent of the Department), kept ownership of said houses and housed a load of families.

            But they didn’t.

          5. V

            @Dr_Chimp

            We do have the resources, expertise and the finance to build Social Housing on a massive scale
            Likewise to manage same

            DoE/ The Housing Agency don’t permit the Local Authorities to run solo and get it done, despite the fact that they are more equipped and ready to manage housing needs in their particular jurisdictions.

            The National policy is to privatise Social Housing, and admittedly this Government inherited that position, but they are very happy and content to stick by it, and even accelerate it.

          6. Donal

            @Cian Yes DCC (the elected body) voted in a way that DCC (the administrative executive) did not like, and perhaps the extra money raised could have been used for smaller scale housing projects. That does not answer the question as to why O’Devaney can only be redeveloped in the manner being discussed.
            Furthermore, what will happen in the future? There are plans to begin to rezone some older industrial estates that are no longer close to the citys outskirts, some of these are on council owned land. Will a similar style of development only be allowed in these cases too?
            There will always be a need for social housing. The state used to build loads. Then they decided to allow the residents of these to buy them. But they haven’t replaced the purchased ones with new ones. Instead they have decided to pay rents to private owners to put social tenants in the properties. Why not build loads more new state owned houses? (and i’m not suggesting 100% social occupancy, just using state owned land to build loads of properties and then divide them up in a own/sell mix that makes sense)

          7. Dr_Chimp

            @Donal the council should never have sold off it’s stock of social housing. Times have changed and it is now not viable. Why would you borrow to fund an asset that will never be able to pay back the loan?? You’d hardly be able to sell the assets to pay back money if we got in trouble again. It would be nice if we could but don’t think it’s feasible with our debt to revenue at 2.5x. HAP is also a mistake. It totally distorts the rental market and essentially sets a rental floor for landlords. One solution is to rezone large underutilized areas within/close to the city and allow high density (And I mean proper high density) apartment building and maybe even increase the Part V requirement or do deals with developers for more units through PPP. But councils do not live in the here and now, they’re forever playing catch up

            @V we clearly don’t have the expertise or resources since it’s not being used if it is there. The councils aren’t able to go solo because the money they would spend on housing comes from central government.

          8. Donal

            @dr chimp You make my arguments for me there, thanks!

            Perhaps the council shouldn’t have sold off the housing that they did, but again that was governmental policy. And yes the council is always playing catch up, because being unable to build on any scale themselves means that they can never bridge the gap between need and what the private sector want to build. And yes, HAP is awful as a policy. And as you say to V, the councils aren’t able to go solo.
            The bis problem is that FG policy is being implemented in the housing system, it requires the removal of the public sector from the system, it imagines that the private sector can provide all housing need and at an affordable rent to most and for those who can’t HAP will fill in the gap. But this is pie in the sky thinking underpinned by ideological belief

          9. V

            Sorry Dr Chimp
            We actually do have the resources employed to manage a wholesome Social Housing Regime

            And we have means. I’m not tolerating any crap about no money
            Billions, 3 alone in 2018 apparently were allocated to Brexit. Yet it’s not spent
            13 Bill in Apple tax, sitting there
            LPT in Dublin ffs. C’mon
            Then the selling off of Army locations – what an absurd decision
            And so is any further top ups to RTÉ

            Anyway all neither here nor there

            one thing for sure Privatising Social Housing cannot address or will ever be able to provide
            Is the need for supports beyond a roof over the head of the Social Housing Tenant; ie mobility and other disability needs, literacy issues and mental health supports, family supports and intervention where needed

            HAP doesn’t supply any of these

            This country needs to rebuild our Social Housing Infrastructure
            Not sub it out

            And it needs to develop infrastructure that will outlive all of us

  5. V

    Ah would ye stop
    It’s hardly their Dublin Councillors fault that DCC weren’t able to retain and re-develope the O’Devaney Gardens site

    It was in the hands of a policy that predates the party itself by a good 20 years
    If they had chops at all, their three founders would have managed to influence Social Housing Policy at the level where the decisions are made, particularly Roisin Shorthall

    They blew their opportunity to make an impact as a Political Party on a National Level; and Donnelly knew it before his then party did.

    They tried to grab hold of the runaway train that is our National Accommodation and Housing Crisis by showboating on Gender by leading their inaugural Danielle Carroll Summer School as an anti McGill in your face launch – with a public boycott n’ all.

    And we know how that ended.

    For those that are unaware or don’t remember, the first one was held here in Dublin South Central – a constituency where three of the four seats are filled by women, and all elected without the need of any party gender quota dig out.

    None of whom were invited to participate and two in particular, Bríd Smith and Joan Collins would have had plenty to offer on Social Housing in Dublin City.

    I hate to say it because I would have a political bias towards them, but they have made a hames of their own party structure with dysfunctional squabbling and weak vetting.

    Their Council results this year prove that they have made eff all impact with their own potential grassroots

    Bloody 19 seats out of 949 that were all up for grabs. We should swimming in a Purple Wave FFS.

    They are not a political party that is recognised by the voter as being of any use to them.
    It is merely a name and a colour associated with a few household names, namely Roisin Shorthall and Catherine Murphy nationally, and Gary Gannon in Dublin and of course in this vicinity, Anne Marie McNally, who herself made a huge political misstep by not contesting the locals.
    I am comfortable saying this because Anne Marie and her party knew a by-election was inevitable in DMW.

    I really don’t know what to make of them anymore
    And that’s very disappointing for this particular Voter

Comments are closed.