Andrew Montague

7.2K posts

Andrew Montague

Andrew Montague

@MayorMontague

Husband, father, former Mayor of Dublin. Community planner, research into crime and drugs. Interested in climate change, biodiversity and energy efficiency

Ballymun, Dublin Katılım Ağustos 2011
566 Takip Edilen2.2K Takipçiler
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Seán O'Neill McPartlin
Seán O'Neill McPartlin@o_mcpartlin·
I think it is worth explaining why license agreements make the most sense for seomraí With this policy, the options are: 1. The status quo: No one gets to live in one of these. 2. Only family members get to live in them (ie., they can't be rented out once a family member leaves) 3. Anyone gets to live in one, but under normal tenancy rules 4. Anyone gets to live in one, but under a license agreement (the same agreements that currently govern renting rooms out in your home) Each option has some benefits and some downsides. Ultimately, I think the government's proposed rules get the balance right. 1. The status quo would be the safest option for the government, if they wanted to avoid criticism. But it would have the downside that people wouldn't be able to use their land to provide housing to their loved ones and maybe also to anyone else. This option wouldn't be good for anyone stuck in unsuitable accommodation right now. It would just tell them that they have to wait until the "right kind" of options become available. 2. The "only family members" option would give families the legal option to build something for their loved ones. But it would only be available to wealthiest 25% of households. Without any prospect of income, few households could afford the financing costs. Here again I think this isn't good for people who are stuck at the moment. Fewer families would be able to afford to build one for their loved one. And fewer people would have the option to rent one out. 3. Anyone gets to live in one, but under RTB rules. This is the most tricky one. On the one hand, it legally allows people the "option" to rent out a seomra. But on the other, it would likely result in there being very few being built and thus only a very small or non-existent benefit to renters. The reason why very few would get built is that the RTB rules mean that tenancies are subject to the six year rule, meaning that short of gross violations of contract, there would be no way to terminate the agreement. But seomraí will be in people's homes, they won't be some distant investment. If RTB rules applied, any dispute would be occurring within the primary residence of the owner. This makes seomraí much more like a normal rent a room situation than a normal tenancy. People rent out rooms in their homes under license agreements. This has been a broadly successful policy. The same trade-off applies here but I have never encountered anyone complaining that the trade-off has been resolved in the wrong way. Most people acknowledge there is a balance and that the balance is being correctly struck for renting rooms in people's houses. This is a real trade-off. Politicians on all sides should acknowledge it, even if they differ in how to resolve it. But if you disagree with this policy, the onus is on you to explain why this is different than the normal lodging. (Or explain to thousands of households why we should take away the current system of lodging all together). 4. Finally, the government's proposal: anyone can live in one, under the rules of a license agreement. This is the best option for everyone involved. Homeowners retain control of their home. Retaining control enables them to rent out a room or seomra. If we allowed the RTB to govern people's primary homes, the vital rental options supplied through lodging and (hopefully) through seomraí would be cut-off. This would be a disaster for people. While tenants in this situation would have the same rights as they do while lodging and not as many as they do with a normal tenancy, they also would now have the option to live in a high quality seomra (something they currently cannot do). This is a trade-off. Anyone who does not want to live in one will be no worse off. Anyone who does want to live in a higher quality and more independent version of lodging will have that option. The people in the latter camp would be harmed by continuing the status quo or by making the policy unworkable through applying RTB rules.
Eoin Ó Broin@EOBroin

So the beds-in-sheds debacle gets even worse… The renters will be licensees not tenants with no rights & no recourse to the @RTBinfo @ThresholdIRE @CatuIreland

English
8
3
32
5.2K
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Sam Dumitriu
Sam Dumitriu@Sam_Dumitriu·
Why does the UK have such a bad fly-tipping problem? In the Guardian, George Monbiot blames deregulation and not enough spending on enforcement. To me, the cause is obvious. Britain has the highest landfill tax in Europe. The returns to flytipping are just higher here.
Sam Dumitriu tweet media
English
103
122
806
83.2K
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Daniel Hussey
Daniel Hussey@DanielHussey2·
Troy has a way with words man
English
67
272
5K
240.5K
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Sam Szmodics
Sam Szmodics@SamSzmodics·
Gutted the way it ended. Fans and boys immense all evening !! Appreciate everyone’s messages. And thank you to the medical staff who acted so quickly to help me. On the mend 🍀💚🤍 We go again COYBIG
English
217
223
8.6K
308.3K
Andrew Montague
Andrew Montague@MayorMontague·
Superb post from @Keyes. So many great ideas for housing and infrastructure development specifically for Ireland. Real depth of understanding
Seán Keyes 🖐️@Keyes

If these ideas are wrong, we're wrong. I sometimes find myself talking past people. The topic at hand might be rent controls or housing funding models. But the discussion will fail because my interlocutor and I disagree on some foundational idea, four steps prior. We can’t fruitfully discuss funding models for housing because we don’t even agree on whether its desirable to build housing for profit. Progress Ireland’s newsletters often skip a lot of context. It’s assumed the reader understands what we want (cheaper, nicer, better located housing for ordinary people; world class Irish science and commerce). And it’s assumed the reader understands the pillars of our worldview. But the pillars matter, and we shouldn’t always skip them over. If they’re not right, the whole edifice tumbles. When it comes to housing, there are seven of them. We think policies that take these ideas into account have the greatest chance of success. Housing 1. Building more houses drives down house prices. How much? By somewhere between 1 and 2.5 per cent per 1 per cent increase in the housing stock, per most studies. This applies to any type of new housing construction — market rate housing as well as subsidised housing. 2. Building market rate housing makes all housing cheaper. Studies by Evan Mast in the US and Cristina Bratu in Finland find new market rate housing begins a chain reaction that lowers housing costs for the entire system, including low-income tenants. 3. Housing supply is constrained by the planning system. This is obviously true to some extent, because the purpose of planning law is to control building. But we believe the effect size is big. We think, for example, that exempting seomraí from planning would result in lots more seomraí than a world where they must first get planning permission. A US metric called the Wharton Residential Land Use Regulatory Index (WRLURI) hints at the impact of planning law on housing supply. It’s an independent measure of how restrictive planning rules are in individual US cities. The following scatterplot shows the relationship between house prices and the strictness of planning rules. Places with less restrictive planning rules build more housing and as a result, house prices are lower. 4. Ambiguity around planning rules reduces housing supply over and above the restrictiveness of the rules. Ireland’s planning regime is discretionary and ambiguous, which adds extra risk to construction and reduces supply. Ireland’s system is modelled on the UK. By contrast, planning law in the rest of the developed world tends to be more specific (housing must be X distance from path, y ratio of walls to doors, z distance from neighbour…). 5. Planning law is downstream of local politics, and any enduring solution needs to take locals into account. As the experience of New Zealand under PM Ardern showed, it’s possible to railroad people into looser planning rules. But the rules won’t endure if the public hates them. Ardern was thrown out and her reforms didn’t last. Lasting solutions take the views of locals into account because they effectively have a veto – whether we like it or not. 6. High construction costs are a big drag on Irish housing supply. Irish construction costs for apartments are about a third higher than those in European peer cities on a like for like basis. This is a separate problem from Irish planning law, and has similar effects on housing supply and prices. 7. Development can’t be directed around the country by government policy. This is the conceit at the heart of Ireland’s regional development policy. The policy intentionally limits growth in Dublin, as a means of encouraging growth in the West and South. We believe these efforts make Dublin poorer and more expensive with almost no compensatory benefit elsewhere. Housing policy reforms we are inspired by: Washington DC, Sydney, Minneapolis and Austin’s city-wide upzoning (aka increasing the number of homes permitted per plot) which reduced housing costs relative to peer cities; a flurry of pro housing bills introduced in California in 2022; Houston’s use of “opt-out” mechanisms to win broad support for city wide upzoning; the UK’s street plans scheme (through parliament but not yet finalised) which lets local areas decide on their own housing rules; the recent proliferation of accessory dwelling units across the USA; Israeli reforms that gave homeowners an incentive to favour more housing; Japan’s implementation of “laddered zoning” which allows housing to built on almost any type of zoned land; and New Zealand’s plans to incentivise local authorities to support more housing. Infrastructure The three legs of the stool of efficient infrastructure delivery are: lots of skilled contractors; a competent client; and clear, fair and speedy planning regulation. Our first policy is focused on the need for better state clients. We believe the state, as the owner of infrastructure projects, has an obligation to understand projects, manage partners and bear risks. We believe this role matters more in more complex projects. We believe a state that lacks this technical capacity won’t be able to deliver complex infrastructure quickly or cost efficiently. European governments’ projects are more often managed by in-house experts. In English speaking countries, the projects are usually managed by generalist civil servants. In the top seven or so European countries, complex infrastructure projects like metros cost 20-30 per cent those of English-speaking countries. Experts in metro construction costs attribute the difference, first and foremost, to a lack of client-side expertise in English-speaking countries. The next step of our infrastructure research will be focused on how to attract the best international partners to Irish projects. We believe a deep market for contractors will result in cheaper, faster projects. We believe the best way to attract partners is to de-risk infrastructure projects as much as possible. This can be done by for example, providing a clear and certain pipeline of projects; minimising planning risk; paying bid costs for major projects; breaking large contracts down into smaller ones. The following step will be focused on new funding models for infrastructure. We believe infrastructure construction should work hand-in-glove with property development. In the countries that are most proficient at building transport infrastructure — for example, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia and Denmark — profits from property development pay for infrastructure, in a virtuous cycle. Infrastructure policies we’re inspired by: the Metropolitano Milanese (MM), a state-owned company that built Milan’s world class metro system cheaply and now exports its skills around the world; the Sinema, an entity brought together to deliver Madrid’s metro and then dissolved; Australia’s Infrastructure Commission which developed a clear pipeline of work and made Australian financiers and P3s world leaders in infrastructure; Tokyo’s and Hong Kong’s development rights auctions which funded metro expansion; Crossrail’s itemised contracts to minimise and expedite change orders; Milan’s long term infrastructure planning agency which works hand in glove with the MM; Copenhagen’s cheap-and-cheerful metro design; Turin’s cut-and-cover metro construction method; the MTB in Hong Kong for whom operating a rail network is a loss leader for their retail and property development business. Innovation The goal of our innovation policy is for Irish companies to be as innovative and productive as the leading European countries. Say Denmark. This takes in everything from basic research at Irish universities to the details of taxation of equity options. We believe scientific research could be much more productive. New approaches to research promise to improve matters. The core idea is to “turn the scientific method on itself”. Just as researchers experiment in the lab, metascience involves studying science itself with trials and measurements. A US National Science Foundation pilot offering top scientists greater stability and flexibility has increased productivity. In New Zealand and Switzerland, lotteries have mitigated funding bias. Meanwhile, the UK is developing metrics for research novelty. This will ensure funding is allocated to genuinely groundbreaking work. We believe Ireland’s failure to cultivate world-class domestic technology and pharmaceutical firms is a blunder. There should be a conveyor belt of talent leaving multinationals, starting businesses, selling businesses, and funding the next generation of entrepreneurs. Bored mid-career engineers and scientists at multinationals are an untapped strategic asset. We need to make it worth their while to leave their stable careers and try big things.Innovation policies we’re inspired by: the Arc Institute, built from the ground up on metascience principles, the use of ARPAs to fund specific mission-based research; the US tax treatment of equity options; US bankruptcy laws; EU Inc (the proposal not the version that has emerged from the Commission) the use of open science principles; an EU common market for digital services, Denmark’s flexicurity laws.

English
1
1
10
2.3K
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Pat Montague
Pat Montague@patmontague·
@rtenews Not surprising. For commuting into and out of the city - for people living in Dublin - cycling is the quickest and most reliable transport Now if could provide much more widespread safe cycling infrastructure - like that on the Royal Canal Greenway - it would be less stressfull
English
2
1
18
3.3K
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Jarrett Walker
Jarrett Walker@humantransit·
This critique of bike sharing is the same nonsense that we hear about “empty seats on buses”. There is not much marginal cost to the surplus capacity, and the capacity means we can handle surges. The low cost of surplus capacity is what makes these modes resilient.
Sam E. Antar@SamAntar

On average Citibikes are idle 98% of the time and even when used they can only transport one person at the time. This is what the cult calls “mass transportation.”

English
22
35
498
119.9K
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Jarrett Walker
Jarrett Walker@humantransit·
An emotional topic I know. But I'm watching transit agencies cutting service so that they can do more about security. And that leads us to other bad places. Like everything, security is a trade-off and we need to encourage adult conversations about it. 10/10
English
7
1
52
4.9K
Andrew Montague retweetledi
urbanist slop hq
urbanist slop hq@SlopHq·
the thing that gets people on transit isn’t free fares it’s not having to check a schedule. a bus that costs $2 and comes every 6 minutes will outperform a free bus that comes every 30 minutes every single time. frequency is the product. the fare is a rounding error
English
124
1.6K
23.9K
398K
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Wolfgang Ischinger
Wolfgang Ischinger@ischinger·
A reasonable European reply would be a resolute”yes but”: - Yes, we are willing to contribute - but only if the US supports UKR and demands immediate ceasefire by Russia in UKR - and only if decisions on UKR and the Middle East will be made via a transatlantic Contact Group
Moritz Schularick@MSchularick

Trump will auf einmal Hilfe der Partner, die er vorher nicht eingebunden hat. Die Frage ist, was Europa im Gegenzug für mehr Unterstützung von Trump einfordern könnte? Ein Kurswechsel in der Ukraine-Politik ist eine Option, wo wir bisher keine echten Einflussmöglichkeiten hatten.

English
59
48
191
25K
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Howard Luks MD
Howard Luks MD@hjluks·
I’ve been an orthopedic surgeon for nearly 30 years, and a few patterns have become impossible to ignore. One is that many musculoskeletal problems in adults aren’t sudden injuries. They’re the moment when declining capacity and awful metabolic health finally reveals itself. Over the decades your strength fades, muscle mass declines, as your aerobic capacity tanks. Tendons and connective tissues lose substance, stiffness, and resilience. For years the body compensated... quietly. Then one day a knee hurts during a run to get the train, or shoulder aches reaching overhead, or a back tightens lifting something simple. At that point the story usually becomes more about structural damage. An MRI gets ordered. Welcome to high-tech, low-medicine. And the MRI almost always finds something. A meniscus tear. A rotator cuff tear. A disc bulge. Why? Because by midlife these findings are extremely common — even in people with no pain at all. If you have a tear in one shoulder, image the other shoulder... you probably have the same tear there. But I digress. Once the scan appears, the narrative changes. The image becomes the diagnosis. Now the patient believes something is broken, and the focus often shifts to fixing what the MRI shows. What often gets lost in this is the reason the symptoms appeared in the first place. Many so-called “atraumatic” orthopedic complaints are not purely mechanical failures. They are the moment when reduced strength, declining tissue capacity, and sometimes broader metabolic health issues finally reach a tipping point. Our tissues change over the decades... get over it. In other words, the MRI didn’t create the problem. Well... it sort of did in this scenario. But all the MRI showed was something that was already there.... because of your age, lifestyle, health and so on. The real driver of symptoms is often loss of physiologic reserve. Less muscle. Less tendon or aerobic resilience. Less tolerance for load, etc. Once the MRI enters the picture, the risk becomes overtreatment. This is probably the number one reason people have surgery. When in many cases the most powerful intervention was never the scan or the procedure. It was rebuilding capacity. Strong muscles stabilize joints. Aerobic fitness improves metabolic health and tissue perfusion. Gradual loading restores tolerance. But people often don't take PT seriously prior to surgery. They often take PT very seriously afterwards. Therefore, PT is probably the reason you feel better, despite the surgery. The irony is that the treatment many people ultimately need is the same thing that might have prevented the problem in the first place. Staying strong. Staying active. Maintaining the reserve that protects our joints/tendons/muscles/abilities as we age.
English
103
279
1.8K
248.1K
Andrew Montague retweetledi
Tom Gleeson
Tom Gleeson@Rathmacan·
He has changed his mind on this, because as he said, a lot of users spoke to him. Contact your TD and let them know, maybe they can also see sense.
Respect Vapers@RespectVapers

Kudos to @davidcullinane for speaking up 👏 He is dead right, we need a balanced approach to flavours. They help people quit and change their lives for the better! respectvapers.ie

English
2
11
18
2.2K