Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
HUNDREDS HAVE GATHERED in Dublin city centre to watch a ceremony marking 108 years since the 1916 Rising.
President Michael D Higgins and Taoiseach Leo Varadkar led the annual State commemoration, as Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said that the proclamation still resonates over a century later.
Army personnel and the brass and pipe bands lined up outside the GPO building on O’Connell Street for the ceremony, which involved an army flyover and the president laying a wreath honouring those who died.
The 1916 proclamation was read out in full by Captain Paul Murphy, who learned it off by heart.
“(There were) a lot of trips to work reciting it in the car, a lot of moments brushing my teeth in the mirror learning it,” he told the media afterwards.
“It’s a very important day in Irish history and I wanted to give it the deference and the weight it deserved,” he said.
He added: “108 years on from it I’m sure the men that day would be more than privileged to know that it’s still a seminal day in Irish history.
“The proclamation itself, it’s still very relevant, the whole aim of the proclamation is inclusion. The very first line is ‘Irish men and Irish women’.
“For back then, in that time in the world, to point straight to that, and it talks about equal rights for everybody, equal opportunities.
“So the values it stands for are still true today and are still things we’re trying to get to today all around the world.
“For those men to write that and for it still to be as relevant today as it was then is a fair statement.”
President Higgins laid a wreath to commemorate those who died in the 1916 Rising and stood as a minute’s silence was held.
At the end of the ceremony, the flag was raised to full mast, the national anthem was played, and the Air Corps flew overhead.
Among those in attendance were Fine Gael leader and Further Education minister Simon Harris, First Minister of Northern Ireland Michelle O’Neill and Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald.
Harris was seen speaking to former Irish president Mary McAleese and O’Neill.
McDonald and O’Neill greeted members of the public and posed for photos after the ceremony ended.
“I think Easter is a time of remembrance but it’s also a time of huge hope for people,” she said, adding that she felt “an appetite for change” on days like today.
“On a day like this we remember the brilliant, brave, courageous things that Irish people can do when they have their mind to it and I think that’s the sense of optimism that I’m picking up today.”
Harris, who said when he put this year’s 1916 Easter Rising commemoration in his diary he didn’t expect to be attending it as Fine Gael leader, said it was a “really important” day.
“I remember when the whole decade of centenaries started, there was a lot of debate in Ireland as to how Ireland would handle commemoration – would we do them well? And I must say, I’m really proud,” he told reporters.
Tánaiste Micheal Martin, Transport minister Eamon Ryan, Enterprise minister Simon Coveney and Housing minister Darragh O’Brien were also in attendance.
Ryan said the ceremony was “very moving” and “beautiful”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Because the put their own philosophy and belief ahead of the housing needs of the people.
Now instead of a nice development for up to 4,000 people to call home, the land will lie idle for years to come and continue to be a anti social magnet for the people of Kilmore.
A house is a house and every one built of any nature reduces the supply pressure and rental market demand.
@Nioe: a 2 bedroom box for €300,000 is meeting a housing need! The only thing that is meeting is the greed of the developers and the banks eagerly standing by for more unearned profit from their mortgage schemes. No a house that puts ordinary people in obscene debt to facilitate the insidious greed of banks and developers is not justifiable on any level and it’s about time we stop pretending it is. Do people seriously not see how absurdly corrupt this whole system is!
@LD: I work in Dublin live an hour away 300k would get a 4bed detached house what is the need to live in the city.
@Colin Mcgahon: the “need” is to reduce commuting. To have people living and working IN Dublin.
@LD: and if more houses are built, prices come down for rent etc.
People have a right to make a reasonable profit if they build a house surely !
We can’t wait for left wing utopia where everyone gets a free house where they want and nobody pays. We just need quality houses built and fast.
@Nioe: I imagine what you believe to be ‘reasonable’ profit would be on a much different scale to me. There are certain things in this world I believe should not be utilised for profit. Housing and healthcare are 2 of them. That is why I have no tolerance for the housing racket and I think we have reached a point where people need to stop excusing and supporting it. A radical change of direction will not come without some hardship but that does not mean we should maintain a pseudo-comfortable arrangement just to avoid any disruption.
@Nioe: a developer been gifted prime land by council to build 50% private 20% socail and 30% affordable… Affordable starting at 280k for one bedroom, this land is worth a fortune it is about 7/8 minutes from motorway 15 min from city centre hospital 5 mins away so can you imagine the cost of private houses if want €280k for a one bedroom, yet again the vultures would be swooping down again and as land is between kilmore/coolock and santry so let’s guess which it would be called to up prices, the developers bought this country to the gutter last time and we are all still paying price to banks that helped them so why the hell should they now be given land to make them millions
@Nioe: you miss the point entirely.
The councillers want the entire scheme to be available to the housing list, & prevent a large tranche becoming buy to let, requiring HAP to house families.
You need to take on board how much of these new developments drift into the control of REITS, most of them offshored.
And DCC, along with most local authorities need to get back to basic priorities, like housing the citizenry, & redirect their resources from bow tie international book prizes & stag party paddling pools in the IFSC.
It was done in the 50′s & 60′s, in tougher economic times, so let them live up to that objective, or pack up.
@William Kelly: and dont forget that this is publicly owned serviced land which should not be used for any private housing. Developers are in this for profit, private interest finance is in it for profit ,the banks are screwing mortgagees with exhorbitant interest for profit, so what possible justification can there be to sign over this land for that sustem.
Public land banks need to remain for 100% public housing, let the private speculators & financiers acquire their own sites on the open market.
And the Minister needs to forcefully enforce that on lazy ,misled, local authorities.
DCC in particular is bursting with whizz bang cultural & leisure schemes which dont rate any priority whatever, so they just need to reset their priority agenda.
Look after the needs of the Dubs first .
@Alan Kelly: The need is to build homes not boxes to build communities. Thats not what happens with these estates
€250,000-€300,000 is nowhere near affordable for a 2 bed in Coolock/Santry.
DCC have a v bad track record of building houses.
The idea that they will get 900 odd units built here in the next 2-3 years is not credible
@DonnchaoE: Our housing needs were met very well in the past by Dublin Corporation, it was a move to public Private Partnership and privatisation of public services that has the system at near collapse
Next time any of them mention homelessness they need to be reminded that they’ve just said no to 253 social houses.
@Anto Curran: there’s a bigger picture here. They want 100% of the houses to be social housing. The delay is exasperating to say the least but hopefully a positive will come from it.
@Jen: that type of development has gone well in past ???
@Jen: bigger picture such as 428 new homes and 172 for affordable ones now off the market too for the forgotten about group of people that are able to buy their own homes that will remain taking up rental accommodation? 853 families are now stuck in the system thanks to this vote that was based on ideology not real life.
@Jen: You mean another Ballymun a no go area which they would have to knock down in 40/ 50yrs. The mix was correct they are a disgrace.
@DeWitt: the development in Shanganagh seems to be the way to go. Why can’t the same happen for Oscar Traynor? We can learn from the mistakes of the past, surely.
@Joe Johnson: Ballymun was not knocked down the towers were. Get it right
Because they miss having a few large, local authority ghettos.
Another old Ballymun would be good.
@John Mulligan: It’s a disgrace SF, Greens, Labour should be ashamed of themselves. It will another decade wasted all talk no action. All political.
@John Mulligan: No one is suggesting a return to the days when houses, local authority houses in particular, where built with very few amenities. The mixed housing development is the way to go but the 50/50 balance proposed here is very heavily in favour of the private sector. Ie the developer.
The brown envelopes weren’t large enough?
@Jim Buckley Barrett: Incoherent. They are refusing them. How about those who voted for 50% unaffordable?
So Local councils had mass housing contruction everywhere when we were a poor country, but now because we live in such a wonderfully ‘developed’ country, we can only build houses with the input of parasites like Glenveagh. This is the true face of economic ‘progress’. At least this one was stopped but don’t expect much movement to have the council develop it minus all the greed, especially if that pig O’Brien has anything to do with it.
@LD: that’s the attitude that results in nothing happening, the preferred outcome for the looney fringe among councillors.
@LD: yes and the council sold off these houses to occupiers for next to nothing, who in turn sold them off for a huge profit. Look at Marino, built in 1920s by the state, how many of these 1500 are still council owned???
@Bleurgh: Good I have no problem that ordinary people were able to buy those homes for a modest price and be able to sell them and make some profit. However, if we had an equitable approach to land ownership and state built housing then nobody would be able to make any unfair profits out of any housing. Do you have any issue with the disgusting profits that the developers and banks make from this housing racket?
@LD: whats the difference? people profited out of houses built by the council. our housing stock was lessened which is part of the reason we are where we are. the greedy developers stuff is just getting boring at this stage. this site will sit idle now for some time.
@Niall Brew: I’m glad you have the luxury to think it’s boring that swathes of the population cannot even consider the prospect of having a home for a fair cost because the system is skewed to ensure that banks and developers get their pockets lined.
@LD: there are three major factors at play here I think. The mass sell off of local authority service provision to private business since the 90s which covers many things from bin collections to house building. There is also the effect of market demand on house prices. This takes the cost of home ownership outside the affordable range of many people be they individuals, couples or families. The new presence of investment groups in the rental market i.e. vulture funds among others, and the inability due to job loses etc of mortgagees to meet their repayments also has an effect I would say.
We need an urgent and integrated revision of housing policy countrywide with mortgages being easier to get and a cap on certain house prices and an end to fast track development applications.
They have discussed using that land for at least 35 years. The area already has a huge amount of social housing around it but the council sold it to residents. You don’t sell social housing because then you have none to offer people after the families are raised. So the end up having to pay grants to upgrade the property for the elderly residents anyway.
Based on traffic increase and lack of a good transport system to cope with the extra demand, I think it’s the right decision. I also think the government should be looking at other countries who quite literally built new cities. Too many people commute in and out of Dublin, there is a serious need to stop the country being so Dublin centric, the city is too old and too small to cope with demands as it is
@Garreth mc mahon: also never mind the fact that the schools in the area won’t cope with the extra demand
@Garreth mc mahon: one of the local girls schools closed because they didn’t have enough students. When an area fills up with older people you find the schools struggling to find students. They really should be providing housing for elderly people to stay in the area while freeing up the family homes that have only 1 person or a couple living in them. On my mother’s road 10 houses have 12 people living in them when there used to be 45. Huge areas in Dublin have very low occupancy rates
@Craic_a_tower: says more about the school, you are right about keeping older people in the area, you don’t see many old folk flats anymore. I know a good few where build in Cabra at the church a few years back, but they aren’t a common sight, some might want to life in smaller accommodation but the facility isn’t available
An absolutely disgraceful decision, and one which shows that unrealistic political ideologies and posturing takes precedence over building houses.
The argument for rejecting the proposal was that public land should be used exclusively for public housing.
1) Dublin City Council cannot afford to build exclusively public housing.
2) Parties like SF and PBP are suggesting that the City Council should build the houses themselves. So the council should hire plumbers, engineers, painters etc to build the houses? Do we take them on permanently, pay them the same rates as private developers do, what do we do if we have too many of one skill after a period of time?
Meanwhile there are thousands of young couples looking to start a family and who pay tax who aren’t able to buy a house in the city where they want to live and work. The people whose income tax pays for social housing. The people who want to purchase their own home, but now are faced with a situation where the council is buying up new housing stock and pricing them out of the market, while rejecting any attempt to build more to ease pressure on supply.
The left are the enemy of the real working class. A disgraceful decision, and one that everyone who aspires to owning a home, raising a decent family, and having a nice life shouldn’t forget.
Repugnant and morally bankrupt decision by losers who have a fetish for Marx and revolution. They are tearing down the fabric of society just so they can be ideologically pure. Gross.
@Ahya: that nonsense. Since the foundation of the state every government built social GJ oases directly. Marino w a s mentioned earlier which was a good model. Are you suggesting that there was anything remotely left-wing about Cumann na nGaedhael?
The ideology that has us in this pickle is a right-wing one ; free market capitalism which thinks it is reasonable for a government and County and City Councils to sell off their assets to private businesses with links to the governing parties.
@Brendan Greene: We didn’t have almost full employment, some of the most generous social welfare rates in the world, hundreds of pages of building regulations, free 2nd level education, or a whole host of other things.
The reality is the local councils don’t have the money to build estates that are exclusively social housing. Where are the loopers suggesting the money for this is going to come from? Would they cut the healthcare, education, social welfare budgets? Would they still expect people to take out a mortgage to pay for them? Would they use private developers to build them on their behalf, or would they employ the tradespeople directly? Would then pay those tradespeople the same market rates as private developers, and, if not, how would the address a skills shortage?
I’m not seeing what the realistic alternatives are here. Meanwhile, the real victims in all this are the vast majority of young couples and families who aspire to own a home. As I said, the left are the real enemy of the working class. They’ve abandoned them yet again so they can be ideologically pure and get likes from cranks on Twitter.
This is all going to end in tears.
@Ahya: take headcount of behind no one is suggesting all socail housing if council built them themselves they could sell at least 59% as affordable housing for people who cannot get a mortgage at moment did you check what private developers call affordable housing on this site starting at €280k for a one bedroom nearly €400k for a 3 bedroom so if that’s what they cá affordable can you imagine the price of the 50% private, what young family can afford these prices.. So only ones buying them would be vture funds who would then rent for €2k a month meaning a lot would be on hap and who do you think pays that.
@Ahya: of course you think that as a fully fledged fg member..
@Ahya: Mark in the council chamber are you having a laugh
Their more interested in putting taxpayers money into winter/Christmas lights than putting the money into housing the homeless has to be wrong
@liam ward60: According to the Irish Tax Institute, someone on 18,000 per year pays 510 euros in tax in Ireland, whereas someone in Germany pays 4,770. So if we want German-style social programmes we need to expand our tax base (and also increase it on existing middle-class taxpayers). As a middle-income earner I’m actually open to this, but it will be a tough sell, especially when the same people who opposed the current development in Coolock also oppose water charges. They need to be honest and outline not only what Nordic or German-style social programmes could look like in Ireland, but what that will mean for all taxpayers – a large tax increase for everyone, not just on middle-income earners.
@Floodzie: the tax exemption for lower incomes is wrong. a small number of people paying taxes but a large number expects worldclass social sevices for free. Once there is more housing supply the tax system should be changed. Money needs to come from somewhere and why not alsofrom the 1/3 of workers who pay no income taxes at all.
@Soeren Kuehling: Income tax, meaning a income a living wage, our pensions are below the living wage.People who paid tax all their lives are now living below the poverty line a lot of them
i think once there are delays the opportunity slowly disappears. this was a shared development, these left wing Politian’s don’t care about the working young couples who want to own a home. We all own this land and it should be reserved just for social houses. the houses would be built and at little cost to the taxpayer. and the developer would make a profit. now…. remember there will be very little taxpayer money to go around once we start having to repay all the Covid loans.
The Dubs should move down the country. Lots of empty houses here in Carlow.
Shows that the ‘Housing Crisis” is a complete farce.
According to the Irish Tax Institute, someone on 18,000 per year pays 510 euros in tax in Ireland, whereas someone in Germany pays 4,770. So if we want German-style social programmes we need to expand our tax base (and also increase it on existing middle-class taxpayers). As a middle-income earner I’m actually open to this, but it will be a tough sell, especially when the same people who opposed the current development in Coolock also oppose water charges. They need to be honest and outline not only what Nordic or German-style social programmes could look like in Ireland, but what that will mean for all taxpayers – a hefty tax increase for everyone, not just on middle-income earners.
@Floodzie: maybe check facts if they pay that tax they pay small amounts for social housing here you pay neay €2k a month rent, people I’m sure would pay €4k tax if knew rent was affordable
@Floodzie: Another check for you to do. In Germany, what services are provided for that tax take? Taxation or small tax rises are never an issue in elections in Germany or Scandinavian countries because the citizens know what they are getting for their tax money. Proper free healthcare with ease of access, refuse, water, free education and excellent road and transport networks to name a few. Affordable state rents for sustainable apartments or houses where families can be raised and generations can live is another benefit of their taxation system. It’s disingenuous at the very least to try to use a bald figure to prove a point when doing so is like comparing oranges and apples.
@Kevin Lonergan: not sure if you understood my comment… I am advocating increasing taxes on everyone to Nordic levels in order to get Nordic (or German) levels of services… that would also mean much lower rents via social housing. Everyone should pay more tax, but then have cheaper rents – and also no need to pay for private health insurance.
@Kevin Lonergan: I think the parties that want better services need to be honest that more people need to be taxed, and those that are currently taxed need to be taxed more. It’s a tough sell, and an about-turn after their lack of support for water charges, but not impossible. Honesty is needed.
@Floodzie: We already [pay for our water in income tax but you chose to ignore that
More posturing and ‘ideological purity’ from our friends on the left ……
Four legs (social housing tenants, SF/PBP voters) good, two legs (taxpayers and the private sector) bad.
The net result being that more than 800 badly needed housing units will not be delivered.
Utterly depressing nonsense from a cohort of elected officials who’ve never quite graduated from the Students Union.
@The Final Furlong: Private sector involved inn public sector bad for people good for profit.
More issues at play here. Latest plans ignored fundamental agreements reached with local residents a few years back. They also failed to conduct a realistic traffic study for the Oscar Traynor road which is already heavily congested. Access and egress from the development needs to be revisited as well as reinstating the design changes previously agreed with residents but ignored when the developer was appointed.
there are already a number of developments being built in santry. one was where the swiss cottage used to be. more developments will lead to more traffic jams.
Wrong coloured envelope?
How many houses and appartments are used by Airbnb, Staycity and Property Managment companies? The supply issue is only one part of the problem, there is a resorce allocation issue.
2% tax on second homes and a 10 % tax on vacant properties would free up thousands of homes, appartment and development land. We all know a couple of empty run down houses in our area. The politicans and developers have always been in each others pockets. Once the proverbial hits the fan, its the people who clean it up.
The Vienna method of housing development works, very well. Very well. check it out and realise that is what we should be doing
Since when did affordable housing cost €250,000-€300,000…… my older kids will be at home for ever at this rate, even though they both have reasonable salary.. our adult children are left in limbo, if they don’t want to pay scandalous rents to these greedy builders
have your say