Comments on: Greens Oppose Affordable Housing Scheme.

By: Dan Sullivan

Dan Sullivan — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:34:34 +0000

Simon, I was talking about the more general press coverage of the issue than your particular post. I should have made that clearer. Still, I like the analogy I’ve made up and might use it again!

By: Ryano

Ryano — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:48:26 +0000

It so happens that the Green Party are holding a public meeting on affordability and availability of housing in Dublin this coming Tuesday. It's at 8pm on Tuesday 23rd January in the Cultivate Centre in Temple Bar. Full details are available on John Gormley's site here: A home of your own? - public meeting on housing.

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:17:14 +0000

Where did I say that the greens are against affordable housing Dan please point out that part of my piece and not just pointing out what you think you see.

If a man refused an offer of sex it would not make him gay but it would mean.

“Man refuses Sex Offer”
would be a valid headline.

By: Dan Sullivan

Dan Sullivan — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:20:50 +0000

Fact is that a man refusing an offer of sex from a woman does not make him gay, any more than opposing a housing development in area X with an affordable component means that you are against all affordable housing.

By: joemomma

joemomma — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:15:57 +0000

Ah no, fair enough, I see what you were trying to do there.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:05:15 +0000

No doubt the print media will do the same, but I thought we were supposed to be above that

That was supposed to be the point of the beginning of the post. I was toying with “What will be in the papers tomorrow”. But that was to long.

By: joemomma

joemomma — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:25:05 +0000

Nice to see you acknowledge the context but went with the sensationalist headline anyway. No doubt the print media will do the same, but I thought we were supposed to be above that

Another point Gogarty makes in the press release is that the developer will make his profit on this scheme regardless of the 70% allocation for affordable housing. I don’t know a great deal about this case, but it seems the developer is quite cleverly engineering a old school west Dublin rezoning windfall, except in this case the “bribe” is the affordable housing. He’ll make a massive profit because the price he paid for the land reflected its agricultural zoning. The Council will have to cover the cost of building the affordable units (including the land cost), so he won’t lose a penny there, and he’ll make a fortune on the “non-affordable” portion of the development. And the best thing is that anyone who objects is “putting trees before people”!

If nobody is allowed to object to developments on sustainability grounds because they provide affordable housing, then you can expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future.