Mr. Michael O'Flynn:

One must first say what is the benefit. Of course Dr. Casey is an expert in this area but the blunt reality is we need more housing. We do not need housing to be available to those who have the ability and means to litigate and access to courts. We need housing for all our citizens and not a selective way to get housing. Having access to court to individually compensate people who take that step is not going to fix the housing crisis. We need to resolve housing. It is a basic right for all. I am interested in housing being resolved for all our citizens, not for a small number of people or for people to think that because this is in the Constitution, it will be a silver bullet. It will not solve the housing crisis or the shortage of housing. I heard in the earlier statement about homelessness. Homelessness is an awful situation but people sometimes confuse homelessness with a housing shortage. There are two very different situations. I am against both but am interested in policies and change that will resolve the housing issue, not the perception that this constitutional amendment is going to change anything. It will not make the difference. It will cost money, to answer the Deputy's question directly. I would prefer that money to be spent on providing a wider range of housing than individually compensating people with the means to go to court. I want to solve housing for everyone, not just individuals.