Occupy Nama: City property taken over to house homeless

Dravokivich

mahoganygas wrote: »

This is beyond naive.

I could house every homeless person in Ireland within a week. Just buy a house for them all overnight with gov funds and just like that, homlessness is eradicated.

But what happens next week?
Has the cause of homlessness been addressed?

Have I just created an incentive for people to declare themselves homeless, show up at a shelter and wait for the keys of their new house?

I don't think that's what they were on about. I haven't seen anyone state that property should be dallied out as freely as you go on there. Housing needs to be attainable. For a lot of people it isn't.

donkeykong5 wrote: »

There is also the option of getting a bloody job. !!!!

Huh? You know the bulk of the "crisis" at the moment is made up of employed people who cant afford to rent, being put up in hotels?

jameorahiely

No need to buy houses, there are lots of council houses sitting around boarded up. Start by adressing these

VinLieger

Hansard and co re-enacting the south park hippy jam festival outside apollo house right now.

Facebook comments on the live video are cringe stuff "im proud to be irish again" etc and everything from blaming homelessness on water charges to anti-eviction stuff.

Flatzie_poo

Some hero needs to burst on down there and play some Slayer.

FTA69

Apparently the council have moved with lightening speed to order the building's immediate demolition and lawyers are kicking into overdrive serving documents at those behind Home Sweet Home.

Amazing they were content to sit and let the building rot for years and as soon as some people are making use of it then people start to act. (Act in the interests of the speculators that is)

Dyr

VinLieger wrote: »

Hansard and co re-enacting the south park hippy jam festival outside apollo house right now.

Facebook comments on the live video are cringe stuff "im proud to be irish again" etc and everything from blaming homelessness on water charges to anti-eviction stuff.

I do enjoy how this is stinging so many peoples holes

long may it continue

mahoganygas

VinLieger wrote:

Facebook comments on the live video are cringe stuff "im proud to be irish again" etc and everything from blaming homelessness on water charges to anti-eviction stuff.

My favourite comment was from a lady likening Dean Scurry's "speech" to Martin Luther King's 'I had a dream'.

Wheeliebin30

jameorahiely wrote: »

No need to buy houses, there are lots of council houses sitting around boarded up. Start by adressing these

Probably not close enough to mammy their favourite shop pub or bookies.

Or go the case of Cork it made someone feel sea sick been given a house beside the sea.

Or not enough room for a trampoline out the back.

I could go on with this list of reasons why people are choosing to remain homeless.

Galway_Old_Man

FTA69 wrote: »

Apparently the council have moved with lightening speed to order the building's immediate demolition and lawyers are kicking into overdrive serving documents at those behind Home Sweet Home.

Amazing they were content to sit and let the building rot for years and as soon as some people are making use of it then people start to act. (Act in the interests of the speculators that is)

Ahahaha! Typical underhanded maneuvers. Big money... can't be letting the ordinary plebs start thinking... That would be dangerous

Kur4mA

Unreal. This place is going down the shítter. Honestly I know After Hours is just for the LOLS and all that, but some of the responses on this thread are unbelievable.

Can we not just be happy that some of these people might possibly get to have a nicer Christmas than usual with a roof over their head, a hot meal and even if they are not surrounded by their own family then surrounded by people that appear to give a shít. Regardless of their situation and the reason they are homeless- whether it's because of their own devices or 'the system' or any number of other reasons, I think this is bloody brilliant.

Would yis come on te fúck, it's Christmas!

Phoebas

Bit of a snarky comment from Glen Hansard.
I don't know why he's trying to cast the owners of the building as villains. They don;t have any particular responsibility for housing rough sleepers.

https://twitter.com/Glen_Hansard/status/811053973415280640

They've gone to the high court this afternoon, so it'll be interesting to see how it works itself out, especially if they get a repossession order.

Dravokivich

FTA69 wrote: »

Apparently the council have moved with lightening speed to order the building's immediate demolition and lawyers are kicking into overdrive serving documents at those behind Home Sweet Home.

Amazing they were content to sit and let the building rot for years and as soon as some people are making use of it then people start to act. (Act in the interests of the speculators that is)

Appearently? Rushed?

Plans were proposed ages ago to demolish it and Omega Hawkin House.

Edit:

Link below from June: http://archiseek.com/2016/hawkins-apollo-house-redevelopment-plans-unveiled/

Phoebas

Dravokivich wrote: »

Appearently? Rushed?

Plans were proposed ages ago to demolish it and Omega House.

The current proposal has been back and forth with DCC for the last 6 months. 163 documents have changed hands in that period. A decision notice was issued at the end of July, asking for a the developers to review some of the plans for the upper floors.
The developers responded to that on 23 November and the decision to grant permission (subject to a slew of conditions) came out last week.

I don't see anything particularly unusual about the decision last week, but the timing will have conspiracy theorists going into overdrive. Maybe the Home Sweet Home crowd should have picked a better property that didn't have a live application pending.

Dravokivich

Phoebas wrote: »

The current proposal has been back and forth with DCC for the last 6 months. 163 documents have changed hands in that period. A decision notice was issued at the end of July, asking for a the developers to review some of the plans for the upper floors.
The developers responded to that on 23 November and the decision to grant permission (subject to a slew of conditions) came out last week.

I don't see anything particularly unusual about the decision last week, but the timing will have conspiracy theorists going into overdrive. Maybe the Home Sweet Home crowd should have picked a better property that didn't have a live application pending.

To be honest, I feel it may have been picked for those reasons. "We're trying to do something because they won't and now they are trying to stop us."

It's what I'm seeing all over my facebook, even when you show someone that there had been plans to demolish it for a long time.

Phoebas

Mazars have gone to the High Court this afternoon. I presume they'll get a possession order, but hopefully they can hold it for a couple of weeks. I don't think anyone gains anything if this is used as a political football over the Christmas.

It looks more and more like the choice of Apollo House was deliberate to provoke a confrontation.

Sierra Oscar

Phoebas wrote: »

Mazars have gone to the High Court this afternoon. I presume they'll get a possession order, but hopefully they can hold it for a couple of weeks. I don't think anyone gains anything if this is used as a political football over the Christmas.

It looks more and more like the choice of Apollo House was deliberate to provoke a confrontation.

It's difficult one for the receivers. They'll be hounded if they try and turf people out over Christmas. On the other hand if an accident happens and the building goes up in flames or the likes then they will ultimately be liable, not Glen Hansard.

Koptain Liverpool

Some shower of cnutish folk on here alright.

A common gripe seems to be that nobody has to be homeless as they could get rent allowance etc etc.

Now this may be the case. But the fact is that some people, due to different circumstances are not able to make good decisions. Simple as that. And many such people end up sleeping outside, in freezing conditions, and often dying young.

While many may argue that the government provides plenty of resources for homeless folk and so on the fact is that this takeover of a NAMA building means that for a while at least some people will have a bit of comfort that they would not otherwise have.

Are you begrudging them that??
I hope you choke on your Christmas dinner if that's the case so.

VinLieger

Koptain Liverpool wrote: »

While many may argue that the government provides plenty of resources for homeless folk and so on the fact is that this takeover of a NAMA building means that for a while at least some people will have a bit of comfort that they would not otherwise have.

Its not a NAMA building, has nothing to do with the state whatsoever so the idiotic claims of "its owned by the people, so we can do what we like with it" are uninformed ignorant waffle

Dravokivich

Koptain Liverpool wrote: »

Some shower of cnutish folk on here alright.

A common gripe seems to be that nobody has to be homeless as they could get rent allowance etc etc.

Now this may be the case. But the fact is that some people, due to different circumstances are not able to make good decisions. Simple as that. And many such people end up sleeping outside, in freezing conditions, and often dying young.

While many may argue that the government provides plenty of resources for homeless folk and so on the fact is that this takeover of a NAMA building means that for a while at least some people will have a bit of comfort that they would not otherwise have.

Are you begrudging them that??
I hope you choke on your Christmas dinner if that's the case so.

Read more, rant less.

"Home Sweet Home," targeted a building that had applications submitted to demolish it. If they wanted to get a point across they'd of gone for something that'd have more longevity to it. It comes across as quite contentious. I'm not sure people who give out about it are even reading the news articles about the outcome of the planning permission. Which clearly provide those details. But sure, hop on the hysteria train. Don't get off anytime soon, be sure to keep all limbs within the windows though.

20Cent

Dravokivich wrote: »

Read more, rant less.

"Home Sweet Home," targeted a building that had applications submitted to demolish it. If they wanted to get a point across they'd of gone for something that'd have more longevity to it. It comes across as quite contentious. I'm not sure people who give out about it are even reading the news articles about the outcome of the planning permission. Which clearly provide those details. But sure, hop on the hysteria train. Don't get off anytime soon, be sure to keep all limbs within the windows though.

Could you link to where home sweet home claimed Apollo house was intended to be a long term solution? Thanks.

VinLieger

20Cent wrote: »

Could you link to where home sweet home claimed Apollo house was intended to be a long term solution? Thanks.

They very obviously picked this specific building which they knew was in the process of getting demolition approved so there would have to be scenes and pictures of them being evicted.

Dravokivich

20Cent wrote: »

Could you link to where home sweet home claimed Apollo house was intended to be a long term solution? Thanks.

I said more longevity to it, not that it was intended to be a long term solution. Days later the public are complaining it's due to be demolished and associating those plans as a counter to Home Sweet Home.

20Cent

VinLieger wrote: »

They very obviously picked this specific building which they knew was in the process of getting demolition approved so there would have to be scenes and pictures of them being evicted.

Yeah of course, plus the big crowds who will gather to try and stop the eviction. Images and videos of people and their possessions being put back out into the cold. Will be one big huge mess and embarrassing situation for the government. It will be dragged out as long as possible. Maybe to avoid this those in power would make better arrangements for those living on the street now and do something about this.

Dravokivich

20Cent wrote: »

Yeah of course, plus the big crowds who will gather to try and stop the eviction. Images and videos of people and their possessions being put back out into the cold. Will be one big huge mess and embarrassing situation for the government. It will be dragged out as long as possible. Maybe to avoid this those in power would make better arrangements for those living on the street now and do something about this.

How about those 2 shelters and the 3rd that was challenged by residents that'd of provided more beds then homeless recently recorded on the streets in Dublin?

VinLieger

20Cent wrote: »

Yeah of course, plus the big crowds who will gather to try and stop the eviction. Images and videos of people and their possessions being put back out into the cold. Will be one big huge mess and embarrassing situation for the government. It will be dragged out as long as possible. Maybe to avoid this those in power would make better arrangements for those living on the street now and do something about this.

And yet the government have nothing to do with this building or its demolition and its been proven there's enough free beds to house everyone currently in apollo house.

The mere presence of Eirigi, Brendan Ogle and the rest of the core professional protesters proves how much of a sham this is and just a jumping off point to push their own petty agendas once apollo house and the homeless becomes a distant memory and the next populist de rigeur news story hits the front pages

Hansard and his mates have been duped by snake oil salesmen to be the public face cus Ogle et al know they have no viability or credibility as a public face for this

20Cent

VinLieger wrote: »

And yet the government have nothing to do with this building or its demolition and its been proven there's enough free beds to house everyone currently in apollo house.

The mere presence of Eirigi, Brendan Ogle and the rest of the core professional protesters proves how much of a sham this is and just a jumping off point to push their own petty agendas once apollo house and the homeless becomes a distant memory and the next populist de rigeur news story hits the front pages

Hansard and his mates have been duped by snake oil salesmen to be the public face cus Ogle et al know they have no viability or credibility as a public face for this

The building is symbolic it could be any building you don't seem to be getting it.

bitburger

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/apollo-house-homeless-action-triggers-loss-of-fire-insurance-cover-1.2912989

"Permission for the demolition of the property has been granted by Dublin City Council. Plans for its redevelopment along with its neighbour Hawkins House, with office blocks up to 51.8m (170ft) tall, were simultaneously lodged last June with the council.
However, while the council has now given the go-ahead for the Apollo House scheme it has yet to issue a decision on the plans for Hawkins House."

So if this decision wasnt rushed and both applications were submitted simultaneously then wouldnt hawkins house be right before or after on the queue of applications? and we should get word on it this week also?

Dravokivich

bitburger wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/apollo-house-homeless-action-triggers-loss-of-fire-insurance-cover-1.2912989

"Permission for the demolition of the property has been granted by Dublin City Council. Plans for its redevelopment along with its neighbour Hawkins House, with office blocks up to 51.8m (170ft) tall, were simultaneously lodged last June with the council.
However, while the council has now given the go-ahead for the Apollo House scheme it has yet to issue a decision on the plans for Hawkins House."

So if this decision wasnt rushed and both applications were submitted simultaneously then wouldnt hawkins house be right before or after on the queue of applications? and we should get word on it this week also?

My understanding is that they weren't happy with the height of the plans for Hawkins House and wanted them reviewed. It's also currently in use as well right? so anything going on there will be dependent on when it gets vacated.

20Cent wrote: »

The building is symbolic it could be any building you don't seem to be getting it.

Symbolic of what? A property that had been vacant because there were plans to demolish it?

Phoebas

bitburger wrote: »

So if this decision wasnt rushed and both applications were submitted simultaneously then wouldnt hawkins house be right before or after on the queue of applications? and we should get word on it this week also?

Permission was granted on Hawkins House yesterday.

donkeykong5

Why has colin farrell who lives in America got involved in all the publicity over this. Is he going to let the homeless people move into his many rental properties in docklands and balls bridge and stoney batter. ?

AGC

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Why has colin farrell who lives in America got involved in all the publicity over this. Is he going to let the homeless people move into his many rental properties in docklands and balls bridge and stoney batter. ?

Farrell is a supporter of homless charities, certainly involved in the homeless world cup IIRC so he is obviously going to have a view.

The second part of your comment is just good aul begrudgery

Hellrazer

20Cent wrote: »

Hotel rooms don't have cooking facilities, often don't have a fridge.

You got there before me!!

jameorahiely

Will "home sweet home" be going after the arsonist who attacked the jcb driver who was working on building the social houses in west dublin today?

I'm bono, I've got glen hanson with me, building socual houses with my jcb ...



18 empty beds in hostels last night

jameorahiely

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Probably not close enough to mammy their favourite shop pub or bookies.

Or go the case of Cork it made someone feel sea sick been given a house beside the sea.

Or not enough room for a trampoline out the back.

I could go on with this list of reasons why people are choosing to remain homeless.

Ain't that the truth.

Berserker

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Why has colin farrell who lives in America got involved in all the publicity over this. Is he going to let the homeless people move into his many rental properties in docklands and balls bridge and stoney batter. ?

This is a wet dream for these z-list celebs, many of whom are very wealthy people as a result of capitalist investments and tax breaks for those in the arts. 'Sowcialism' is the place to be in Ireland these days, so they cannot possibly turn down the chance to "get involved" in a campaign like this. In agreement with others, I wonder how many of these people would happily pay more tax, throw some of their significant earnings, most of which has not been taxed in Ireland, into a pot, to fund services for the homeless or even put forward some of their own investments in the housing market in Ireland, for use by homeless people. Some of these celebrity campaigners own property in very upmarket areas in Dublin.

I feel for the government on this one to a certain extent. Much like the health crisis, this problem is not going to get resolved in the lifetime of this government. It's gonna take 5-10 years to resolve something like this. They have an action plan in place but we will not see the fruits of that for many years to come. If housing units started to pop up all over the place, I would be worried about the quality of those buildings, to be honest.

Finally, when the units they have been occupying turn into crime ridden dumps, will all these celebs be willing to foot the clean up bill or will it fall to the tax payer? Also, will they even condemn the actions and behavior of those who make a mess of these buildings or will that be "society's fault", as per usual.

To political for me and seem aimed at getting at the government prefer quieter ways of helping, came across a woman who went in to M&S and purchased a whole outfit of new clothes for a homeless man who sleep outside her office.

On the other hand there are homeless people sleeping on the seafront in Bray something that has only occurred in the past few years, Its very hard to get to the truth of the matter undoubtedly the cost of property is a factor but so is addictions a culture of homelessness should not be allowed to develop it a very hard problem to tackle.

donkeykong5

AGC wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Why has colin farrell who lives in America got involved in all the publicity over this. Is he going to let the homeless people move into his many rental properties in docklands and balls bridge and stoney batter. ?

Farrell is a supporter of homless charities, certainly involved in the homeless world cup IIRC so he is obviously going to have a viewd part of your comment is just good aul begrudgery

He does not live here. Yet owns a good few rental.properties. so if he is so concerned about the homeless crisis. I only suggested he let them move into some of his rentals. No begrudgery at all. Maybe jim glen and the others will do similar. PROBLEM SOLVED.

AlekSmart

donkeykong5 wrote: »

He does not live here. Yet owns a good few rental.properties. so if he is so concerned about the homeless crisis. I only suggested he let them move into some of his rentals. No begrudgery at all. Maybe jim glen and the others will do similar. PROBLEM SOLVED.

I think the issue with your begrudgery,is that it is accurate,and thus fails the reality test...I very much doubt that any of Apollo House's guests will ever recieve a long-term lease on a Docklands Apartment or a Dalkey Duplex from any of this cast ?

mr_edge_to_you

I think the plan to take over this vacant office block is a poorly judged one. There is no medium/long term benefit to such a stunt. The office block is not suitable for living in. It is as I understand close to being sold. Thereby, the people pushing this stunt have created a whole new range of problems which won't help anyone - homeless or not.

Anyone who stays in the building is doing so illegally and trespassing. When the time comes to demolish or renovate the premises these people will have to be moved out. Where will they go then?

I strongly expect that this building will become a ghetto for junkies. It is in a part of town that won't impact the vast majority of social justice warriors so it's an easy cause to support. Everyone in this country supports a cause once it's not on their own door step.

Who is going to fund the building in the long term providing heat, water and electricity?

This is going to cause more problems than it will solve.

Yamanoto

jameorahiely wrote: »

I'm bono, I've got glen hanson with me...

MMMBop?

AGC

donkeykong5 wrote: »

He does not live here. Yet owns a good few rental.properties. so if he is so concerned about the homeless crisis. I only suggested he let them move into some of his rentals. No begrudgery at all. Maybe jim glen and the others will do similar. PROBLEM SOLVED.

How many properties does he own?

AGC

donkeykong5 wrote: »

He does not live here. Yet owns a good few rental.properties. so if he is so concerned about the homeless crisis. I only suggested he let them move into some of his rentals. No begrudgery at all. Maybe jim glen and the others will do similar. PROBLEM SOLVED.

How many properties does he own?

Dravokivich

AGC wrote: »

How many properties does he own?

What does it matter?

20Cent

Dravokivich wrote: »

What does it matter?

He won't be able to sort the problem unless he owns a few thousand properties. Also what happens to the current tenants? Kick them out?

Radiosonde

jameorahiely wrote: »

18 empty beds in hostels last night

And 88 people sleeping rough, with another 70 odd sleeping on the floor in Merchant's Quay.

So, there are enough emergency places for all rough sleepers?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1220/840298-emergency-beds-dublin/

corner of hells

Radiosonde wrote: »

jameorahiely wrote: »

18 empty beds in hostels last night

And 88 people sleeping rough, with another 70 odd sleeping on the floor in Merchant's Quay.

So, there are enough emergency places for all rough sleepers?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1220/840298-emergency-beds-dublin/

A sizeable group of rough sleepers won't access one night only accommodation for a variety of reasons from severe mental health , being heavily under the influence of drugs or alcohol , fear of being in hostels etc.

Berserker

corner of hells wrote: »

A sizeable group of rough sleepers won't access one night only accommodation for a variety of reasons from severe mental health , being heavily under the influence of drugs or alcohol , fear of being in hostels etc.

I agree. Some will not be allowed into the accommodation as a result of past indiscretions whilst they were in the system also. It's fair to say that some of these people aren't exactly angels, contrary to the image that is being portrayed by some.

donkeykong5

AlekSmart wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

He does not live here. Yet owns a good few rental.properties. so if he is so concerned about the homeless crisis. I only suggested he let them move into some of his rentals. No begrudgery at all. Maybe jim glen and the others will do similar. PROBLEM SOLVED.

I think the issue with your begrudgery,is that it is accurate,and thus fails the reality test...I very much doubt that any of Apollo House's guests will ever recieve a long-term lease on a Docklands Apartment or a Dalkey Duplex from any of this cast ?

Your texts are getting silly now. I am not a begrudger. I just think he should keep hus mouth shut. He does not live here or pay tax here. Just collects his monthly rent off 4 docklands apartments. And a house in Stoney batter and one in balls bridge. I am sure there may be others. But that's all I know about.

Dyr

Fascinating to see this thread has become a symposium of experts on homelessness

donkeykong5

AGC wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

He does not live here. Yet owns a good few rental.properties. so if he is so concerned about the homeless crisis. I only suggested he let them move into some of his rentals. No begrudgery at all. Maybe jim glen and the others will do similar. PROBLEM SOLVED.

How many properties does he own?

Six. At least