That point is so unarguable that you merely insult my intelligence by falsely implying that I was arguing to the contrary.
The point is very simple - the investment back then in public housing infrastructure was at the cost of underinvestment in health and education.
A return to similar levels of investment in public housing infrastructure will inevitably entail opportunity costs elsewhere.
There is no magic money tree.
The original cost, based on the design that was signed off on, was €650 million.So where did you pull that five-fold increase in 3 years from?
Surely the "costs" clock should start running from the date when the contract was signed? That was in mid-2017 when Simon Harris said that it would cost €1.07bn to build.
I in no way insulted your intelligence. The fact that you perhaps didn't express yourself clearly enough is no judgement on your level of intelligence.That point is so unarguable that you merely insult my intelligence by falsely implying that I was arguing to the contrary.
I in no way insulted your intelligence. The fact that you perhaps didn't express yourself clearly enough is no judgement on your level of intelligence.
I'm lost. Sorry.Hilarious! I correctly stated that a particular comment was a red herring to the topic of this thread. That you were incapable of understanding that isn't a reflection on your intelligence either!
What comment was that?I correctly stated that a particular comment was a red herring to the topic of this thread.
No, my point was to illustrate exactly that the "golden age" was highly selective about "who" was accommodated and who was excluded. And the children (& at least one parent) of "undesirable" families were fenced off from participation in society as a whole (including housing). Which means yes - nostalgia for that golden age doesn't consider that allocation of the housing that was produced was not only selective, but exclusionary. We had a policy that largely preferred large traditional nuclear families and housed them to the exclusion of everyone else. It was then no surprise that housing allocation itself became highly politicised in later generations (to this day I still hear stories of "X got us our house" from friends). We ended up with a scenario where social housing became political currency to be spent for the benefit of council and Dail election candidates.Only if you directly associate those 20th century public housing projects with the issues mentioned in the red herring comment. In which case the logical conclusion is that if those social housing projects hadn't existed, then the other things wouldn't have occurred!
And yet it is exactly what Prof Michelle Norris, in her many papers on the "golden age" of social housing has repeatedly pointed out: social housing was allocated in lieu of european style social welfare (start here https://people.ucd.ie/michelle.norris/publications, in particular this paper https://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201901.pdf)That point is so unarguable that you merely insult my intelligence by falsely implying that I was arguing to the contrary.
Bingo!The point is that the widespread nostalgia for mid-20th century public housing projects may be a tad selective.
I listened to a lecture she gave a few years ago. She's very good.And yet it is exactly what Prof Michelle Norris, in her many papers on the "golden age" of social housing has repeatedly pointed out: social housing was allocated in lieu of european style social welfare (start here https://people.ucd.ie/michelle.norris/publications, in particular this paper https://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201901.pdf)
She is THE QUEENI listened to a lecture she gave a few years ago. She's very good.
We had a policy that largely preferred large traditional nuclear families and housed them to the exclusion of everyone else.
Maybe we should revisit that approach and re-allocate budget accordingly ... social housing is social welfare...And yet it is exactly what Prof Michelle Norris, in her many papers on the "golden age" of social housing has repeatedly pointed out: social housing was allocated in lieu of european style social welfare (start here https://people.ucd.ie/michelle.norris/publications, in particular this paper https://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201901.pdf)
So cut Job Seekers, Pensions and carers allowances etc. We'd also have to cut our health budget significantly. The up side is that we'd wreck the economy and have mass emigration again so that would lead to a big reduction in housing costs.Maybe we should revisit that approach and re-allocate budget accordingly ... social housing is social welfare...
Where's the revisionist whataboutery?And was this social policy in any way controversial at the time? (And, as we appear to be revelling in a bout of revisionist whataboutery on this thread - which, for those with short memories, is about Dublin rent costs and the shortage of rental properties - let's not forget, for example of what happened to Noel Browne's Mother and Child proposals during that era.)
There are a lot of threads of this site about how generous our welfare rates are v our peers and spending per capita on health. I reject the premise a rebalancing of spending would mean a time machine to the 70s. The only delusion I see is you arguing with an idea no one has said, making all kinds of assumptions without foundation about what necessarily follows from the course of action.So cut Job Seekers, Pensions and carers allowances etc. We'd also have to cut our health budget significantly. The up side is that we'd wreck the economy and have mass emigration again so that would lead to a big reduction in housing costs.
I was born in the 1970's. Does anyone remember what an utterly poxy country this place was back then? By any reasonable metric it was worse in the 50's.
It takes a special kind of selectivist wilful delusion to pluck one aspect of social policy from the past and hold it up as something we should emulate while totally ignoring the appalling opportunity cost of such a policy. The very last thing we should do is readopt the public housing policies of the 1930's to the 1950's.
What we spend on HAPS would build around 1500 houses a year. We'd need to spend well in excess of €7.5 billion a year to get to the stage where 50% of our houses were delivered by the State. We currently have a short term bonanza of taxes from MNC's. That won't last. Where to you suggest we find the money?There are a lot of threads of this site about how generous our welfare rates are v our peers and spending per capita on health. I reject the premise a rebalancing of spending would mean a time machine to the 70s. The only delusion I see is you arguing with an idea no one has said, making all kinds of assumptions without foundation about what necessarily follows from the course of action.
Why would the economy be wrecked?
Why would there be mass migration?
At the moment the government is spending more and more money on HAP... is that really housing spending or welfare spending? Is it sustainable? As more people reach retirement age still dependent on it?
I agree that many people in arrears could pay their rent and don't. I'd make those people homeless, as in out on the street. If they have children then take them into care. Then give the house that the State is providing to someone who will pay their rent.Our welfare system is too generous. I too grew up in the 80's and my family did not have a pot to p*ss in. You did not get any welfare until you actually worked and earned your "stamps".
As a country we had nothing and anything we did have we worked for. We did not have a culture of "I'm entitled to this or that".
If you look at for example at the sdcc link below. 59% of all tenancies are in arrears. I appreciate that some of these arrears might only be a couple of euro that's fair enough. But the arrears are increasing rather than decreasing based on a Google search.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.dub...usands-rent-arrears-south-dublin-24889377.amp
I firmly believe we are in for a big bang and people are in for hard times. My fear is that some of these people won't be able to cope because they don't know how too.
Growing up in the 80's you learned how to cope.
Interest rates were high, inflation was high.