Occupy Nama: City property taken over to house homeless

mahoganygas

KyussBeeshop wrote:

Fair play to them - the value in what they are doing, is at least as much in raising political awareness, in order to create pressure for a proper solution, as it is in actually housing the homeless.

Welcome back KB

I don't think awareness is the problem. I've yet to meet a Dublin person who isn't aware of the homeless crisis on our streets.
Anyone who denies there is a crisis, is simply dogmatic, and you will never succeed in raising their 'awareness'.

Personally I suspect this is a stunt. I hope it's not.

topper75

Wanderer78 wrote: »

apologies thats what i meant, yup id say colm mccarthy is right, zoning is one of our issues here, along with a few other things. our governments are following the free market cookbook and are lost.

ive no knowledge of the issues in galway and ennis, maybe he and our politicians need to spend more time in these areas. what do you feel are the issues in these areas?

Sorry I was a bit glib. I should have elaborated on those particular urban centres and what went wrong.
Both have expanded outwards in a thoughtless manner from a small centre and congestion issues arose. Ennis was completely bypassed but it still gets choked. They also paid no heed to suitability of ground for residential zoning and flooding was the price paid (http://www.thejournal.ie/ennis-some-of-the-most-senseless-zoning-excesses-of-celtic-tiger-419025-Apr2012/).
Galway has a lovely medieval centre. The narrow streets charm tourists. But surrounding it are concentric layers of low-faciliity suburbia, a virtual Amazon of semi-ds. Doughiska and the Western Distributor Road are among their gravest monuments to stupidity. http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/51354/galway-county-council-gets-f-grade-for-bad-planning
My point is that Dublin cannot afford to try these mistakes by 'rezoning at the flick of a pen' just because there is land there surrounding the existing city.
I reckon Dublin needs to start going up, and not in a box bedroom way, but in a way that provides all, more even, quality of life that people seek in suburbs. But there seems to be considerable ideological opposition to that.

Wheeliebin30

Wait and see where this ends.

In a week something bad will happen in it and people will realise its not as simple as just putting these people in a building.

Guarantee it will end in a bad story.

Gatling

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Wait and see where this ends.

In a week something bad will happen in it and people will realise its not as simple as just putting these people in a building.

Guarantee it will end in a bad story.

Who ever owns the building will end up paying large sums of cash to the organisers who will then leave everyone else high and dry

Timberrrrrrrr

Interesting they claim

We are going to go in, turn on the electricity, turn on the water, turn on the heating and gather up as many homeless people as need a roof over their head. This has been very well planned and the building is safe.

How do they plan to do this? Will they illegally tamper with the utilities? Sounds like a death trap if they do.

TooObvious

Good luck getting the heating to work in Apollo House! Better engineers have tried but I don't think it ever worked right.

Still though, if any of you met some of those working in Shelbourne Developments at the time, you'd wish #HomeSweetHome all the best!

DEFTLEFTHAND

Oodoov wrote: »

One's vote is a vital resource in fighting for equality and justice for all our citizens. FF the political organisation that brought the country to ruin will most likely be voted back in at the next election as if like nothing ever happened. Nobody can defend that being anything but utter insanity.

We have equality and justice for all our citizens. We're not living in some sort of oppressive dictatorship.

People have the freedom to vote for whoever they wish to vote for, if that be FF next election then so be it. It's democracy in practice.

punisher5112

I done works in that building years ago and its a dump.

Its sad and all about homeless but there are many that have decided to live that way.

I still can't get how a family with a roof over their heads are classed as homeless as honestly that is an insult to those whom genuinely are.


Housing that was council built should never have been sold off for buttons and if the people in them got work and their life improved to the point they no longer needed it and could buy their own then this should have been policy.

Madness to see all these ex council houses selling for small fortunes when they never should have left the social housing pool.

Berserker

padd b1975 wrote: »

Reads like a who's who of insufferable gobsh1tes.

We could have guessed most of those names. Wonder how many of them are willing to put some actual money towards buying the property and donating it to charity. Bet most, if not all of them, wouldn't be as forthcoming if it came to that.

wakka12

Richard Hillman wrote: »

What these people fail the recognise is that so many of these people are homeless because of their own doing. Rent prices are not the reason why Boxcar Fred has been sleeping rough for the last 6 years. Give him a house and he'll still spend his money on booze or drugs and will get evicted for not paying rent.

Occupy what you like, it's not going to stop people being trainwrecks

So what if its their fault,it doesn't mean we cant or shouldn't help them. Everyone makes mistakes, even if most homeless people are alcoholics or junkies(not saying they are) it doesn't mean we shouldn't help them and stop them freezing to death on the streets. They are homeless, they are human beings, the circumstances of their homelessness shouldn't govern how we treat them or respect them. I always hear people make statements to the same effect as yours and it often comes off as some attempt to invalidate their homelessness , as if we should only help them if theyre 'one of us', just middle class person who is down on their luck and ended up homeless after very unfortunate circumstances.

Galwayguy35

FTA69 wrote: »

In some places you have unscrupulous landlords and speculators allow buildings to go derelict in the heart of communities which have a terrible negative and knock on effect. If people take that over and use them for communal purposes or community assets then fair play to them.

The notion of idle property being allowed to rot in the middle of a housing crisis is obscene and socially unsustainable.

Anyone that trespasses on to private property should be thrown out immediately.

tomwaterford

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Anyone that trespasses on to private property should be thrown out immediately.

If nama is state owned.....is this not public property??

Galwayguy35

tomwaterford wrote: »

If nama is state owned.....is this not public property??

Well in that case you could say the place I work in is public property because it's in Nama as well.

Don't think it quite works that way.

tomwaterford

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well in that case you could say the place I work in is public property because it's in Nama as well.

Don't think it quite works that way.

An empty building state-owned and you want to throw people out in the middle of winter???



Your arguement has no sound reasoning behind it???


For all the faults of those involved....it's better than people sleeping rough surly? ??

Galwayguy35

tomwaterford wrote: »

An empty building state-owned and you want to throw people out in the middle of winter???



Your arguement has no sound reasoning behind it???


For all the faults of those involved....it's better than people sleeping rough surly? ??

Whether it's empty or not isn't the point, people can't just start entering properties and squatting in them.

Yes the Government needs to get the finger out and start to tackle homelessness but the point SJW never want to hear is that help is available and some people just don't want to avail of it for whatever reason best known to themselves.

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

If nama is state owned.....is this not public property??

Nama don't have control over it anymore they released a statement today.

Kh1993

You can't do try and do anything these days without being labelled a 'SJW'. Predictable.

It may or may not work, but it's an attempt. They are looking for plumbing/fire safety volunteers at the moment. Yeah the government is providing more beds, but its not enough, despite the figures. I walked up Henry St. last night at 10.30pm, 14 people in doorways in sleeping bags. They're not staying out on the streets because they want to. To us, its unseasonably mild, but I dont think I'd be calling it mild if I had to sleep on the ground for 6 hours in a doorway.

Maybe some groups like AAA or Ogle etc will of course benefit from publicity, but that's a by-product of things like this. There'll always be the type who denounce this because their political opponents are involved, that's petty. They're allowed help if they want, as are all parties/people, don't write off the whole group because Ogle is involved or because you want to throw around the 'sjw' crap from your pedestal.

Surely, at the very least, there is a discussion to be had about using state owned (or previously state owned) derelict and empty buildings for a good reason

tomwaterford

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Whether it's empty or not isn't the point, people can't just start entering properties and squatting in them.

Yes the Government needs to get the finger out and start to tackle homelessness but the point SJW never want to hear is that help is available and some people just don't want to avail of it for whatever reason best known to themselves.

So we are to assume you don't want people to help themselves or be put up in empty state owned buildings



No poor about should be you life phrase

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Nama don't have control over it anymore they released a statement today.

Clearly the homeless folks do :pac:


The horror

Galwayguy35

tomwaterford wrote: »

So we are to assume you don't want people to help themselves or be put up in empty state owned buildings



No poor about should be you life phrase

Maybe don't start assuming anything when it's not true, I don't want people to start thinking it's ok to squat in buildings, even empty ones.

As for your last sentence, maybe it makes sense to you but it looks like gibberish to me.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Reports I've read and seen about the homeless shelters around Dublin suggest that people won't stay in them due to drug use, violence and theft. What's going to stop this happening in apollo house? I'd say brendan ogle will go off the idea of helping the homeless fierce quick once he gets stuck with a needle.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't help these people, but lashing them into an essentially derelict, unheated building with no protection from each other isn't a solution either. It will all end in tears I fear.

Wheeliebin30

Kh1993 wrote: »

You can't do try and do anything these days without being labelled a 'SJW'. Predictable.

It may or may not work, but it's an attempt. They are looking for plumbing/fire safety volunteers at the moment. Yeah the government is providing more beds, but its not enough, despite the figures. I walked up Henry St. last night at 10.30pm, 14 people in doorways in sleeping bags. They're not staying out on the streets because they want to. To us, its unseasonably mild, but I dont think I'd be calling it mild if I had to sleep on the ground for 6 hours in a doorway.

Maybe some groups like AAA or Ogle etc will of course benefit from publicity, but that's a by-product of things like this. There'll always be the type who denounce this because their political opponents are involved, that's petty. They're allowed help if they want, as are all parties/people, don't write off the whole group because Ogle is involved or because you want to throw around the 'sjw' crap from your pedestal.

Surely, at the very least, there is a discussion to be had about using state owned (or previously state owned) derelict and empty buildings for a good reason

But Johnathan currie refused accommodation the night he died and sold 2 houses to stay on the streets.

Some people do choose to live that life. That's a fact.

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

But Johnathan currie refused accommodation the night he died and sold 2 houses to stay on the streets.

Some people do choose to live that life. That's a fact.

What's he got to do with this


Are the homeless a hive mind???

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

What's he got to do with this


Are the homeless a hive mind???

Because people say none of these people want to sleep on the streets.

I'm showing that's not true.

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Because people say none of these people want to sleep on the streets.

I'm showing that's not true.

So you know all of the people occupying this place so??

1 person who has to ando deosnt want to sleep on the streets is 1 too many??


Its 2016 ffs

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

So you know all of the people occupying this place so??

1 person who has to ando deosnt want to sleep on the streets is 1 too many??


Its 2016 ffs

You're missing the point.

There is beds already available for everyone who wants them but they aren't allowed in if they are taking drugs or drink so a lot choose the street instead.

It's such a complex situation and occupying a building isn't gonna solve it or come close to it.

RayM

Kh1993 wrote: »

You can't do try and do anything these days without being labelled a 'SJW'. Predictable.

Given that people who throw that term around are always, without fail, dreadful, morally bankrupt individuals, I think it should always be taken as a huge compliment. I would rather be a 'Social Justice Warrior' than the kind of person who sneers at the very notion of empathy.

enricoh

My oul car is nackered, can I just go to the nearest garage, sit in a new one and refuse to get out until they give it to me?
I'm sure the big German or jap corporation have more money than me!

the_syco

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Providing homeless people with social housing is probably the most effective way of providing them with shelter and a somewhat decent, sustainable way of living.

Providing those that can live in a home, a home. But some can't live in a home, and sometimes a family (multiple people) are put into a house, rather than a singular person.

FTA69 wrote: »

Stealing my hole. If it's owned by anyone it's owned by some speculator who has been bailed out to the nth degree with public money and is now sitting on this asset waiting for it to appreciate in value.

NAMA is waiting on someone to buy the asset. This of course won't happen anytime soon as the new owner will need to spend even more money getting rid of the rubbish and fixing any damage done whilst it was taken over by the homeless.

I wonder if it'll have heating, and if not, I wonder will the fire suppression system kick in should someone light a small fire?

tomwaterford wrote: »

If nama is state owned.....is this not public property??

So you're totally okay if all the homeless walked into the nearest hospital, and camped in any unused sections?

tomwaterford wrote: »

An empty building state-owned and you want to throw people out in the middle of winter???

It's an unheated shell. When the owner decides to move the people out, people will be found dead in the rooms, having died from the elements.

From link;

The proposed development consists of the demolition of the existing Apollo House and the construction of a commercial office building including the provision of café/retail units and associated services.

Seems the place will be knocked down. I'm guessing maybe March?

Kh1993 wrote: »

I walked up Henry St. last night at 10.30pm, 14 people in doorways in sleeping bags. They're not staying out on the streets because they want to. To us, its unseasonably mild, but I dont think I'd be calling it mild if I had to sleep on the ground for 6 hours in a doorway.

Not everyone wants to be in a hostel with other people, as they're afraid of getting robbed, assaulted, or want to be able to drink. Some hostels don't care if you drink, but I'm led to believe that some don't allow it.

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Reports I've read and seen about the homeless shelters around Dublin suggest that people won't stay in them due to drug use, violence and theft. What's going to stop this happening in apollo house?

There'll probably be several illegal raves held in it over Xmas & New Years.

I'm guessing once the volunteers leave, so too will the homeless.

=-=

This will only end with death. People will die upstairs from the smoke of a small fire downstairs. Or they'll die huddled in a corner, because unlike the street where people will see them, they'll die in some room in the building.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

What these people fail the recognise is that so many of these people are homeless because of their own doing. Rent prices are not the reason why Boxcar Fred has been sleeping rough for the last 6 years. Give him a house and he'll still spend his money on booze or drugs and will get evicted for not paying rent.

Occupy what you like, it's not going to stop people being trainwrecks

I would doubt that every single homeless person are out there by choice somehow