Is the idea here that, once the land has been 'up-zoned' by street votes, it is subsequently immune to local objections? If not, that seems to imply the overwhelming binding constraint on supply is zoning and not planning permission, which is not obvious to me
Thanks, Sam, it's a great question. I like to think of street votes as being a democratic process not a bureaucratic one. We wouldn't expect democratic elections to be subject to an objection process afterwards.
The point of these community processes is that the high majority threshold required means that objections have to be heard and addressed before approval is possible - and the rules make sure that no-one can be made worse off by a street vote. That way local concerns get addressed up front rather than evolving into long-running legal disputes.
Would this be a fair summary: let's use a short process, that's legally binding, meets the usual democratic criteria (notification period, stakeholders vote, minority stakeholders can present their grievances, "damages" can be estimated and compensated, and it's sufficiently unbiased), so courts only have to be involved to check that the process was followed, which is basically wholly procedural, and therefore can be done very quickly; and to facilitate this it makes sense to adopt narratives and concepts from other countries where these were successful?
Thanks, Pas, for your question. Yes, I agree, the key is to get something that can be done easily without huge amounts of cost, delay and uncertainty. I think the key is to design systems that incorporate a set of up-front rules and limits (height, no overshadowing, protection for tenants, and the like) that mean that no-one will be damaged.
For example, that is how the California and Houston reforms have worked. If the rules ensure that there can be no damage, that lets the process be simpler. I don’t envisage any need for court involvement, in much the same way we don’t have such oversight for local or national elections.
As you say, I think it makes sense to look at what has worked internationally, adapt it to an Irish context and then try it here. Feel free to send further questions to me at tolanro [at] tcd.ie if you like.
The English have tried that a few times, Cromwell and The Famine come to mind, but it didn't seem to have popular backing. Perhaps bogwood you'd like to move things along by volunteering?
The UK Policy Exchange think tank published an excellent, comprehensive and analytical report on this topic in 2021 under the name "Strong Suburbs". But, to the best of my knowledge, decentralised planning would still face a 'hold out' problem whereby one resident would seek to hold the others to ransom to capture an unreasonable share of the profits from converting a street of housing to a street of apartment blocks. Cathal
Cathal, thanks very much for your analysis. As you’ve probably realised, ‘Strong Suburbs’ is one of the inspirations for this proposal.
The idea of allowing decisions if there is a two-thirds majority is that single-person holdouts can be avoided. I agree it would be possible for a larger group to hold out – but street votes are designed to incentivize support through the value for each homeowner from getting the planning permission. I don't expect side payments to be a regular feature – I'm not aware of them having been a feature in the other schemes I mention. I think a group could face some stigma for trying to hold out for a payment.
I'd love to hear your further thoughts offline if you have a chance? I'm tolanro [at] tcd.ie.
Congrats on this piece, Robert. Do street votes risk being appealed, or is that not allowed?
Also, is there some kind of template for residents to somehow share in the value of the new unit? - it would be interesting to read a specific example, including how financing works.
Ronan, thanks very much for your words and your thoughtful questions.
I like to think of street votes as being a democratic process not a bureaucratic one. We wouldn't expect democratic elections to be subject to appeals afterwards, although of course each street vote proposal will have to be checked for compliance with the rules on height limits and to protect others. But those are bright-line rules where appeals should not be relevant - the proposal either complies or it doesn't.
On financing, the best example may be in California where there are different options to fund new Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). People can fund them with a loan, or there are financing and partnership options available from the manufacturers of the modular units. Or here, people could just sell their house with the benefit of the permission to a small builder who needs sites.
I'd be keen to have a brief chat offline to get any further input if you might have time? My email is tolanro [at] tcd.ie.
Is the idea here that, once the land has been 'up-zoned' by street votes, it is subsequently immune to local objections? If not, that seems to imply the overwhelming binding constraint on supply is zoning and not planning permission, which is not obvious to me
Thanks, Sam, it's a great question. I like to think of street votes as being a democratic process not a bureaucratic one. We wouldn't expect democratic elections to be subject to an objection process afterwards.
The point of these community processes is that the high majority threshold required means that objections have to be heard and addressed before approval is possible - and the rules make sure that no-one can be made worse off by a street vote. That way local concerns get addressed up front rather than evolving into long-running legal disputes.
Would this be a fair summary: let's use a short process, that's legally binding, meets the usual democratic criteria (notification period, stakeholders vote, minority stakeholders can present their grievances, "damages" can be estimated and compensated, and it's sufficiently unbiased), so courts only have to be involved to check that the process was followed, which is basically wholly procedural, and therefore can be done very quickly; and to facilitate this it makes sense to adopt narratives and concepts from other countries where these were successful?
Thanks, Pas, for your question. Yes, I agree, the key is to get something that can be done easily without huge amounts of cost, delay and uncertainty. I think the key is to design systems that incorporate a set of up-front rules and limits (height, no overshadowing, protection for tenants, and the like) that mean that no-one will be damaged.
For example, that is how the California and Houston reforms have worked. If the rules ensure that there can be no damage, that lets the process be simpler. I don’t envisage any need for court involvement, in much the same way we don’t have such oversight for local or national elections.
As you say, I think it makes sense to look at what has worked internationally, adapt it to an Irish context and then try it here. Feel free to send further questions to me at tolanro [at] tcd.ie if you like.
Fewer people would help. A population level sustainable without fossil fuels. Maybe cut by about half?
And just who gets to decide which half gets to live and which half gets murdered?
The English have tried that a few times, Cromwell and The Famine come to mind, but it didn't seem to have popular backing. Perhaps bogwood you'd like to move things along by volunteering?
anti human clown
The UK Policy Exchange think tank published an excellent, comprehensive and analytical report on this topic in 2021 under the name "Strong Suburbs". But, to the best of my knowledge, decentralised planning would still face a 'hold out' problem whereby one resident would seek to hold the others to ransom to capture an unreasonable share of the profits from converting a street of housing to a street of apartment blocks. Cathal
Cathal, thanks very much for your analysis. As you’ve probably realised, ‘Strong Suburbs’ is one of the inspirations for this proposal.
The idea of allowing decisions if there is a two-thirds majority is that single-person holdouts can be avoided. I agree it would be possible for a larger group to hold out – but street votes are designed to incentivize support through the value for each homeowner from getting the planning permission. I don't expect side payments to be a regular feature – I'm not aware of them having been a feature in the other schemes I mention. I think a group could face some stigma for trying to hold out for a payment.
I'd love to hear your further thoughts offline if you have a chance? I'm tolanro [at] tcd.ie.
Robert
Congrats on this piece, Robert. Do street votes risk being appealed, or is that not allowed?
Also, is there some kind of template for residents to somehow share in the value of the new unit? - it would be interesting to read a specific example, including how financing works.
Ronan, thanks very much for your words and your thoughtful questions.
I like to think of street votes as being a democratic process not a bureaucratic one. We wouldn't expect democratic elections to be subject to appeals afterwards, although of course each street vote proposal will have to be checked for compliance with the rules on height limits and to protect others. But those are bright-line rules where appeals should not be relevant - the proposal either complies or it doesn't.
On financing, the best example may be in California where there are different options to fund new Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). People can fund them with a loan, or there are financing and partnership options available from the manufacturers of the modular units. Or here, people could just sell their house with the benefit of the permission to a small builder who needs sites.
I'd be keen to have a brief chat offline to get any further input if you might have time? My email is tolanro [at] tcd.ie.
Robert
The real reason there is a housing shortage in Ireland is due to the migrant crisis, and we all know it.
You've got it exactly backwards. The only reason anyone could consider it a "crisis" is because of a shortage of housing.