Register to Comment
Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 320
Like Tree192Likes
  1. #21
    Roll_On Roll_On is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    18,652

    I wonder what can be done to ban the likes of An Taisce, David Norris, the Irish Georgian society etc. from delaying homes being built. Also we need to ban Dublin and Cork City councils from using height as an excuse to block development. Forget about underground parking, we have more than enough cars in City Centres as is.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    Hitchcock Hitchcock is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    8,871

    Quote Originally Posted by The Nal View Post
    We have a free market here. You can't go around taking peoples properties away. We live in the free west baby.
    Wasn't so free when the begging bowl came out in 2008 was it?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    twokidsmanybruises twokidsmanybruises is offline
    twokidsmanybruises's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5,984

    Quote Originally Posted by Roll_On View Post
    Or we could just build an adequate stock of social units, stop selling them to tenants, and remove silly planning red tape from people who actually want to build apartments. It'd be perfectly reasonable to construct 10 storey blocks of mixed size apartments in Dublin with no underground car park and people would be happy to rent them/buy them, but DCC insists that the only homes have to be luxury homes with dual aspect, it's own laundry room and an underground car park
    I'd agree with you about everything expect the carpark. People have cars. No car park means more on street parking, that wouldn't be good. But it's true that many of the apartments built simply aren't suitable to the needs of those looking for rental properties. Mixed sized apartment buildings do work well, the mix of ages and generations of tenants fosters community in a building, whereas boxes built for "young professional singles" creates building with at atmosphere akin to a budget hotel.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    The Nal The Nal is offline
    The Nal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,999

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitchcock View Post
    Wasn't so free when the begging bowl came out in 2008 was it?
    Its not 2008 anymore though.

    Taking peoples properties away without compensation. This website has finally gone full retard.

    Literally the most stupid thread in the history of p.ie, which is an amazing thing.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    Roll_On Roll_On is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    18,652

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitchcock View Post
    Planning policy and construction guidelines should not be subject to the dictates of private developers and global equity funds whose sole interest is profit making.
    100% agree at the minute having no new homes benefits clobal equity funds only at our expense. Policy needs to be set to meet the needs of the citizens, and the citizens need affordable places to live and cannot afford luxury pads(the only type of development currently allowed)
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    hammer hammer is offline
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    67,798

    Just an aside

    The REITs possibly reclaimed Vat on the purchase of all these new homes.

    13.5%

    I wonder can anyone get a monthly invoice from a REIT property to see if Vat is being charged on rent ?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    hammer hammer is offline
    hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    67,798

    Quote Originally Posted by The Nal View Post
    Its not 2008 anymore though.

    Taking peoples properties away without compensation. This website has finally gone full retard.

    Literally the most stupid thread in the history of p.ie, which is an amazing thing.
    He is a teacher
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    mr_anderson mr_anderson is offline
    mr_anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    11,311

    Quote Originally Posted by hammer View Post
    There was a segment on Morning Ireland.

    Lady renting from REIT in Hansfield out past Blanchardstown.

    3 bed for 2,200 per month

    HAP was 1920

    What a ************************ ing joke.


    ( Brughahahahahahaha wants all Buy to Lets owned by REITs - What a pillock )
    Taking HAP at 1,920pm
    That's 23,040pa.
    So a higher-rate taxpayer would have to earn well over 40,000 gross just to pay the rent alone.
    That's the real scandal - taxpayers are paying for themselves to be priced out of the rental market.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    gerhard dengler gerhard dengler is offline
    gerhard dengler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    48,323

    Quote Originally Posted by Gin Soaked View Post
    Aside from the communist leanings of the OP, there is a very valid point here on how much HAP we waste on private landlords.
    No asset is created. Massive sustainability issue.
    True.

    What is also true is that no one should be entitled to occupy a property unless they own the property.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    Roll_On Roll_On is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    18,652

    Quote Originally Posted by twokidsmanybruises View Post
    I'd agree with you about everything expect the carpark. People have cars. No car park means more on street parking, that wouldn't be good. But it's true that many of the apartments built simply aren't suitable to the needs of those looking for rental properties. Mixed sized apartment buildings do work well, the mix of ages and generations of tenants fosters community in a building, whereas boxes built for "young professional singles" creates building with at atmosphere akin to a budget hotel.
    The vast majority of households in Dublin's docklands are carless households. In my own block the underground car park has, at most 10 cars in 100 spaces.

    Underground car parking is the most costly part of building new apartments.

    I'm not proposing banning developers from building new apartments with underground parking, I propose not making it compulsory. There's still a market for people to buy or rent an apartment with a space if they want but the vast majority of households shouldn't be FORCED to be homeless or pay extortionate prices simply because they cant afford a parking space that they neither want or need.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 32 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment