Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Media sympathetic coverage/agenda with evictions

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Riverireland wrote: »
    That is correct, you were not out out on the street at 7.30am otherwise you would have been on the street in your pyjamas.
    Actually, I was in work by that time.
    Riverireland wrote: »
    And yes it does reflect on you as a person that you call an elderly couple clowns because they got evicted from their home.
    It reflects badly on the clowns to call the eviction illegal when they knew it was coming. And I know they knew it was coming, because they had organised the protestors to be there.
    rawn wrote: »
    If they set their sights outside their ideal area there are plenty of options that they seem to be refusing to even consider.
    They were offered a house in Meath. They didn't take it.

    =-=

    They're helping increase the shortage of houses by not vacating a house that could have had a family living in it by now.


  • Options
    #93
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    the_syco wrote: »
    Actually, I was in work by that time.


    It reflects badly on the clowns to call the eviction illegal when they knew it was coming. And I know they knew it was coming, because they had organised the protestors to be there.


    They were offered a house in Meath. They didn't take it.

    =-=

    They're helping increase the shortage of houses by not vacating a house that could have had a family living in it by now.

    The house they were offered in Meath was uninhabitable according to the journal, look it up. I pay 2-3k tax per month. Not happy about this but would prefer my UNIVERSAL SOCIAL CHARGE went to help people like these rather than bail out bond holders. Anyway we are heading for boom number 2, let the games begin.


  • Options
    #94
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    Riverireland wrote: »
    The house they were offered in Meath was uninhabitable according to the journal, look it up. I pay 2-3k tax per month. Not happy about this but would prefer my UNIVERSAL SOCIAL CHARGE went to help people like these rather than bail out bond holders. Anyway we are heading for boom number 2, let the games begin.

    Who cares if the house they were offered in Meath was uninhabitable. They could have down sized to a one bed or a house in a less expensive area. How can you argue with that?

    People like these - i.e. failed developers. They gambled on building a shoddy bungalow and marketed it for 1mio in 2007 and it backfired on them.

    Im sorry, but you really need to open your eyes and look at the facts.


  • Options
    #95
    cpoh1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,605 ✭✭✭cpoh1


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Anyway we are heading for boom number 2, let the games begin.

    The only games being played are your obvious trolling comments, off you go my furry friend.


  • Options
    #96
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    cpoh1 wrote: »
    The only games being played are your obvious trolling comments, off you go my furry friend.

    I'm not trolling. I'm not furry either! But I am somewhat shocked at the lack of humanity towards people who clearly are not in a good situation by anyone's standards.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    They were waaay "over accommodated" (that's the term used by local authorities) in a semi-d. Their actual housing need as a married couple with no dependents is a 1 bed apartment. That isn't good enough for them though. As I said before, beggars can't be choosers.


  • Options
    #98
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    murphaph wrote: »
    They were waaay "over accommodated" (that's the term used by local authorities) in a semi-d. Their actual housing need as a married couple with no dependents is a 1 bed apartment. That isn't good enough for them though. As I said before, beggars can't be choosers.

    Michael d is very much over accommodated then by your standards? At the tax payers expense!


  • Options
    #99
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Michael d is very much over accommodated then by your standards? At the tax payers expense!

    And the award for most ridiculous analogy goes to.....


  • Options
    #100
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Michael d is very much over accommodated then by your standards? At the tax payers expense!
    Not my standards. They were over accommodated according to any local authority you care to choose. Do you believe that the taxpayer should pay for a married couple with no dependents to live in a 3 or 4 bed property rather than a 1 bed?


  • Options
    #101
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    Locked pending review


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    The_Morrigan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭The_Morrigan


    Right folks, more infractions handed out further to the initial mod warnings from Victor.
    If you can't play nice we will lock up the thread completely - I want no more calling out of trolls, no more personalised posts, no more squabbling and can we try not resort to name calling with regards to the Coynes.


  • Options
    #103
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    I'm looking forward to the day when folk see through these sensationalist media pieces. This pair thought they could pull a stunt with the pjs and the loonie leftie TD who seems to know nothing about anything. It backfired. They lost.


  • Options
    #104
    jay0109
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭jay0109


    Riverireland wrote: »
    The house they were offered in Meath was uninhabitable according to the journal, look it up. I pay 2-3k tax per month. Not happy about this but would prefer my UNIVERSAL SOCIAL CHARGE went to help people like these rather than bail out bond holders. Anyway we are heading for boom number 2, let the games begin.

    They could have used all that rent allowance they had built up which the Receiver refused to accept (they did'nt take rent since October13 as they wanted them out) to make the house a bit more habitable surely?
    Quiet a war chest in the bank account unless they've given it all back to the Govt which I haven't heard mention of anywhere


  • Options
    #105
    iguana
    Registered Users Posts: 12,916 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Tbh, I do have some sympathy for them. It must be absolutely awful to lose the home you love whatever the circumstances. And for this couple the circumstances were completely out of their control as the ultimate reason for their eviction was that their landlord did not pay his debts. That's got to be a damn hard pill to swallow. But........... the simple fact is that in the system we have, if forced sales/repossessions don't happen far more people are going to suffer the consequences and for many those consequences will actually be worse than being evicted. So while I do have sympathy, I also recognise that they had to move somewhere else and if (due to the Coynes' unwillingness to accept the end of their tenancy) eviction was the only way for that to happen, then that's what had to happen. And that as sad, angry and frustrated as the Coynes must surely be, the theatrics of leaving the house in their pyjamas was childish and their demands are selfish.


  • Options
    #106
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Barely There wrote: »
    It demonstrates nothing of the sort.

    No conclusions should be drawn, other than the fact that some people believe the world should revolve around their wants.

    Agreed. It may be naivety or poor advice but their "homelessness" is actually a consequence of their own choices. They had options to avoid going homeless but didn't avail of them.


  • Options
    #107
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Why are there so many homeless people if there there is plenty of accommodation out there who accept rent allowance? I personally know a lot of professional people who can not find rented accommodation despite being young professionals whit good incomes. This couple have no chance realistically. Seriously cheeky, and I am being kind, to call a couple in their 60's whom I presume you don't know, clowns. Reflects badly on you as a person.

    For actual genuinely homeless people, there are usually other factors involved. Mental illness would be one.


  • Options
    #108
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    Riverireland wrote: »
    The house they were offered in Meath was uninhabitable according to the journal, look it up. I pay 2-3k tax per month. Not happy about this but would prefer my UNIVERSAL SOCIAL CHARGE went to help people like these rather than bail out bond holders. Anyway we are heading for boom number 2, let the games begin.

    We only have their word on that. They could however have found other accommodation within their means but not in Dublin.


  • Options
    #109
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    Riverireland wrote: »
    The house they were offered in Meath was uninhabitable

    I wonder was it really.

    For a property to meet the criteria of 'uninhabitable' it would have no water or power connections and a hole in the roof.


  • Options
    #110
    jay0109
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭jay0109


    gaius c wrote: »
    We only have their word on that. They could however have found other accommodation within their means but not in Dublin.

    Apparently they looked as far away as Cavan and couldn't find anthing:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #111
    rawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭rawn


    jay0109 wrote: »
    Apparently they looked as far away as Cavan and couldn't find anthing:rolleyes:

    But didn't they say they only called 15 landlords? Surely there's more than 15 between Dublin and Cavan :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    rawn wrote: »
    But didn't they say they only called 15 landlords? Surely there's more than 15 between Dublin and Cavan :rolleyes:
    I'd wonder if they called the only 15 landlords in Dublin who had a 3 bed house and also accepted RA?

    As the cheapest 3 bed in Dublin is €900 (excluding the flats, as I doubt this couple whould share, as if they did, they would already have a one bed by now), they probably could haggled it down to within their RA limit it if they used the RA they have been getting but not giving it to KPMG as a deposit (considering they haven't spent it already), I'm sure they would have gotten it.

    But meh. They've dug their hole. They had ample time to look for a one bed, but decided to "fight the man". Unfortunately, they had no link to the house whatsoever, so they have rights at all.

    I'm thinking someone may have filled their head full of the rights a homeowner had, but this doesn't come into play for them.

    They claimed they worked their entire life, but somehow never planned on supporting themselves when they retired?

    I feel sorry for the crap the bailiffs had to put up with on the day of eviction.

    They say they were failed by the state? How???

    And it gets better. Anti-Austerity TD Ruth Coppinger
    [URL=http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/evicted-couple-bailiffs-turfed-out-4119837]IrishMirror.ie[/URL] wrote:
    There’s a housing emergency. Banks should not be allowed to repossess houses and turf people onto the streets.
    Ehhhhhh. Epic face palm? So she admits there's a "housing emergency", but her idea to solve it is to not let the banks repossess houses that are not being paid for? The mind boggles!

    She also said
    [URL=http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/evicted-couple-bailiffs-turfed-out-4119837]IrishMirror.ie[/URL] wrote:
    We need affordable houses and social houses to be built.
    Any social houses will be built north of Swords, west of Adamstown, or South of Tallaght in high-density apartments, probably in typical Irish style lacking any facilities.


  • Options
    #113
    Shakespeare's Sister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    I'm torn. On the one hand, it's pretty barbaric to evict someone. But why the **** did they let it get that way when they knew it could happen?
    And those who won't have a clue (i.e. lots in the media) will spin it that they got no notifications (when they would get several) and only full payment would be enough (not true).
    It's like when people just assume you'll get cut off if you can't afford to pay your electricity bill. Similarly, you get several notices over a prolonged period, and you are not expected to pay all in full if you can't afford it - just what you can (within reason) but it's up to you to keep on top of things and stay in touch with the company.
    The evil creditor and the poor waif-like victim at their mercy (as if it's 1840) makes for more of a story obviously though.


  • Options
    #114
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 794 ✭✭✭jackal


    Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »
    And those who won't have a clue (i.e. lots in the media) will spin it that they got no notifications (when they would get several) and only full payment would be enough (not true).
    It's like when people just assume you'll get cut off if you can't afford to pay your electricity bill. Similarly, you get several notices over a prolonged period, and you are not expected to pay all in full if you can't afford it - just what you can (within reason) but it's up to you to keep on top of things and stay in touch with the company.

    The mad thing about this is they were simply tenants renting the property. It was not theirs, they did not pay the mortgage, they did not have any rights beyond the regular rights tenants have about being given the obligatory notice period.

    One could say because of the situation with the banks, they enjoyed below-market rent for an extended period. They are reported as paying €800 per month when a similar property is asking €1500. http://www.daft.ie/lettings/43a-luttrellstown-grove-castleknock-dublin/1474054/

    What do the media and socialist TD's want to happen here exactly? Renters allowed to rent indefinitely if they "really really" like the place they are renting?


  • Options
    #115
    gaius c
    Registered Users Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭gaius c


    jackal wrote: »
    The mad thing about this is they were simply tenants renting the property. It was not theirs, they did not pay the mortgage, they did not have any rights beyond the regular rights tenants have about being given the obligatory notice period.

    One could say because of the situation with the banks, they enjoyed below-market rent for an extended period. They are reported as paying €800 per month when a similar property is asking €1500. http://www.daft.ie/lettings/43a-luttrellstown-grove-castleknock-dublin/1474054/

    What do the media and socialist TD's want to happen here exactly? Renters allowed to rent indefinitely if they "really really" like the place they are renting?

    Forgetting about the Coyne's for a moment, what do we want to happen if rents continue to rise at rates far in excess of renters' wages?


  • Options
    #116
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    gaius c wrote: »
    Forgetting about the Coyne's for a moment, what do we want to happen if rents continue to rise at rates far in excess of renters' wages?

    The market rate. If in willing to pay 1100 for a 1 bed on the docks and your willing to pay 1300, why should I get preferential treatment?
    Rents will only rise as long as the people who are renting are able to pay those rents from their wages. If no one who is working can pay the rent on property x from their wages, then property x will either stay vacant, or the cost to rent property x will fall to such a level that someone can afford and is willing to pay the rent.


  • Options
    #117
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    gaius c wrote: »
    Forgetting about the Coyne's for a moment, what do we want to happen if rents continue to rise at rates far in excess of renters' wages?

    If rents rise, then by definition there is a renter willing to pay that price.
    That's how the free-market works.

    Ironically, it is the lack of evictions and repossessions which is significantly contributing to the rise in rents. The market is not behaving as it should as people with unsustainable mortgages are being artificially protected and the available housing stock reduces correspondingly and drives up demand/prices.


  • Options
    #118
    JohnBee
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭JohnBee


    gaius c wrote: »
    Forgetting about the Coyne's for a moment, what do we want to happen if rents continue to rise at rates far in excess of renters' wages?

    In that case, economics will apply and rents will fall to ensure property is still occupied. This is actually a much more preferable situation to the current mortgage crisis. At least with rent, it CAN be flexible, unlike the banks.

    What we definitely don't want is the likes of socialists interfering.


  • Options
    #119
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    JohnBee wrote: »
    What we definitely don't want is the likes of socialists interfering.
    Yeah, the market has served us so well over the last decade, better not introduce any controls lest we have a crisis.


  • Options
    #120
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    drumswan wrote: »
    Yeah, the market has served us so well over the last decade, better not introduce any controls lest we have a crisis.

    you do realise how much government intervention there is in the market, between Nama and the states "no repossession policy".
    What you'd probably find with both of them is the price of property would be a lot lower:cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    JohnBee
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭JohnBee


    drumswan wrote: »
    Yeah, the market has served us so well over the last decade, better not introduce any controls lest we have a crisis.

    Thanks for agreeing with me. Because if you are suggesting that central bank regulation worked or that government pandering to unions, massively driving up wages, and thus costs, were both highly effective in Ireland then that would clearly just be crazy talk.


Advertisement