Should societal needs trump individual rights?

Housing is top of the list because it excites so much public debate and generates opportunities for opposition politicians to criticise government actions and inactions. Most of us agree that we need to build more houses than are currently being constructed. Whether that figure is 40,000 houses annually or 20,000 more than that figure, is another cause of debate and controversy. Governments do not build houses. Neither, for the most part, do local authorities. What both bodies should do is facilitate ease of housing development to the greatest extent possible. While we have seen efforts to streamline the slow-moving planning process, very few agree that the system is now fully fit for purpose. 

More people, more housing? 

Population increase is set to continue, bar some new economic upheaval. Such economic crises have happened before, as lately as the 2008 crash, but one can only plan on the basis of current knowledge and foresight. That being the case, what, if anything, else can be done to improve housing availability and necessary ancillary services? Quite a lot – though whether our political decision-makers have the bottle to make critical decisions in a crisis is uncertain. Financial incentives galore are in place to support buyers. Some of them are contradictory, driving up prices in a housing deficit market. The residential zoned land tax (RZLT) is an effort to ensure that all zoned development land is available for use, as distinct from being retained in the hope of further capital appreciation. Some farmers have been caught up in this tax, even though they may have no interest in changing their land’s agricultural use to housing development. Unfortunately, there are instances where farmers will find that time and urbanisation have caught up on them and their land will be subsumed into development. There is no avoiding that trauma. For other landowners, it is becoming increasingly obvious that decisions will have to be made. Either they retain development status, in many instances imposed by planning bodies, and pay the three per cent annual development-value land tax, or they must seek to have the land de-zoned. Having it both ways is not an option. 

Political will

In most parts of the country, including many parts of Dublin, there is ample zoned development land available to build as many houses as are required, or at least as many houses as can practically be built with the labour, capital and infrastructure resources currently available. That brings us back to commitment. Are all developers committed to maximising their housebuilding capabilities or are they committed to maximising profit on the houses they build? A huge surge in housing output would inevitably impact price as the law of supply and demand kicks in. No bad thing for buyers, not so clear cut for developers. Leaving that question aside, our Government could decide that the housing crisis should be treated as such. The Covid-19 crisis proved that personal rights can be set aside for the common good. Is a time-constrained suspension of planning laws, with a clear diktat to the relevant authorities to facilitate the delivery of all necessary developments at speed – as advocated in a recent Sunday Times article authored by Cormac Lucey – worthy of debate? Or are we more tied up in the rights of the individual rather than the efficient delivery of broader societal needs? We vest extraordinary CPO powers to overcome landowner opposition to electricity and road infrastructure. Is the political will there again to repeat the exercise for housing, water, transport and other vital infrastructure for the future good of Irish society.