portacabin for rent - 1300 a month, form an orderly queue

Victor

It's also on a commercial site.

.......

This post has been deleted.

I did security for a few weeks at christmas one year (2014 i think?) but it was chilly enough out. You'd be wearing a heavy jacket/hat on the walks. But i had one of these, perhaps slightly smaller (but still very big, about 30ft x 10ft if i had to guess). Anyway, the gist of my story is i was in it for a long time (12 hour shifts) and with a single plug in 2kw radiator, it was grand and warm.

So although i disagree that anyone should be putting it up for rent, or indeed charging 1300 for it, i do think it's a but of an overreaction to say you couldnt live in one. They'd be ideal for single people (at a fraction of the price, obviously).

Rubbernecker

The owner should stick it up on the airbnb, it would make a killing.

serfboard

s15r330 wrote: »

Also the cheek of them to say they're delighted to bring this to market, what a joke.

Pat Garvey ... is delighted to bring to the letting market ...

Pat Garvey shouldn't be delighted - he should be ashamed of himself.

davindub

serfboard wrote: »

Pat Garvey shouldn't be delighted - he should be ashamed of himself.

seems to have been removed and a new property has been built on the site, http://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/drimnagh/galtymore-road-drimnagh-dublin-1761131/

Alun

davindub wrote: »

seems to have been removed and a new property has been built on the site, http://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/drimnagh/galtymore-road-drimnagh-dublin-1761131/

New property?????

That's the correct one for the eircode given on the advert for the portacabin as well so it's probably on the same grounds. If you look carefully you can see it in the background on the very left of that photo.

davindub

Alun wrote: »

davindub wrote: »

seems to have been removed and a new property has been built on the site, http://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/drimnagh/galtymore-road-drimnagh-dublin-1761131/

New property?????

That's the correct one for the eircode given on the advert for the portacabin as well so it's probably on the same grounds. If you look carefully you can see it in the background on the very left of that photo.

Wonder was it a mistake or was there pictures of the inside as well?

gctest50

davindub wrote: »

seems to have been removed and a new property has been built on the site, http://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/drimnagh/galtymore-road-drimnagh-dublin-1761131/

Looper

He should have bulldozed it, then built a large airy modern facility and installed a load of these :


http://www.sleepbox.co.uk/models/grand/single/

4068ac1elhodqr

Stack 'em high. Surprised there isn't a washing machine cubicle hotel in Dublin yet

Gatling

Glamping

.......

This post has been deleted.

Skyrimaddict

God, they are grim places to live in!

CPTM

The terrible reality is that the rental market has deemed it worth almost 50% of the average industrial wage, and so any discussion that identifies this place as a solution to the homeless crisis is immediately defunct. Because it's not even an option for them. Might as well be a foxrock 4 bed.

How on earth are people on minimum wage affording housing (after bills, food, and transport costs to/from work)?

jobless

CPTM wrote: »

The terrible reality is that the rental market has deemed it worth almost 50% of the average industrial wage, and so any discussion that identifies this place as a solution to the homeless crisis is immediately defunct. Because it's not even an option for them. Might as well be a foxrock 4 bed.

How on earth are people on minimum wage affording housing (after bills, food, and transport costs to/from work)?

the more i see things like this the more depressed i get about the country..... If you are a young person and all you can see on the horizon is a **** heap like this for half your wages would you really stay here long term....
This country (well main cities) is a real clusterfcuk when it comes to housing

Yarghhh

CPTM wrote: »

The terrible reality is that the rental market has deemed it worth almost 50% of the average industrial wage, and so any discussion that identifies this place as a solution to the homeless crisis is immediately defunct. Because it's not even an option for them. Might as well be a foxrock 4 bed.

How on earth are people on minimum wage affording housing (after bills, food, and transport costs to/from work)?

I live below minimum wage renting in Dublin city centre. It involves house sharing, cooking nearly all my food, walking to work. No health care, savings, any kind of security. Obviously this isn't my long term situation so I am fine with it but yeah...

pwurple

jobless wrote: »

the more i see things like this the more depressed i get about the country..... If you are a young person and all you can see on the horizon is a **** heap like this for half your wages would you really stay here long term....
This country (well main cities) is a real clusterfcuk when it comes to housing

The rental market has been tampered with to such a painful amount, it is so tied up in knots it cannot function normally. No landlord wants to enter the market, because the risk is enormous, with very low return. Only pension funds (aka vultures) are buying up rental property, and it makes very little sense for them to rent them out. They make safer money holding them and waiting for the value to increase.

Once things become worth a landlords while, and developers even allowed to start building, then you'd see some improvement. If it ever becomes lucrative to provide this service for a reasonable amount of money, then everyone and their mother will want to do it.

(And we are nowhere near that point. Everything that's been brought in over the last few years has further booted the service providers -aka landlords- from the market. I've never seen anything as ridiculously planned as that ridiculous 4% cap. Talk about chasing more capacity out of the market... Head, meet Wall.)

CPTM

pwurple wrote: »

Once things become worth a landlords while, and developers even allowed to start building, then you'd see some improvement. If it ever becomes lucrative to provide this service for a reasonable amount of money, then everyone and their mother will want to do it.

(And we are nowhere near that point. Everything that's been brought in over the last few years has further booted the service providers -aka landlords- from the market. I've never seen anything as ridiculously planned as that ridiculous 4% cap. Talk about chasing more capacity out of the market... Head, meet Wall.)

I would like to see a heavier tax placed on residential properties which are not in use, and separately a tax break on rental income. The idea being to get the owners to renovate and rent, rather than leaving them sit empty. I'm just not sure how the tax bit would be effectively enforced. I guess it's easy to make a building look occupied.

I know of 3 houses in my area with so much potential that have sat empty for nearly 4 years. I even know lads that would happily move in and renovate as part of the rental agreement if the opportunity was given to them and costs were agreed but we don't even know who the owner is.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hector Savage

I cannot ****ing wait for the next crash...

Yarghhh

Anyone notice the portacabin for rent it has been taken down? Hope that doesn't mean it was let.

.......

This post has been deleted.

CPTM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

These are fair points. However, I would argue that the tax system, aside from generating income for the government, is also designed to make for a better society as a whole (often to the detriment of the individual). Car tax is an example of this - A person's right to pick whichever engine they want in the car they own is disregarded, because society benefits from an incentive to have smaller engines.

I'm not arguing that it is fair to the home owner, but I would argue that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, particularly in a crisis. And my point of creating a rental income tax break was to give something back to the landlord in exchange for that sacrifice they made.

.......

This post has been deleted.

serfboard

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As someone put it recently, hoarding housing during a housing emergency is equivalent to hoarding food during a famine.

I'm alright Jack ...

.......

This post has been deleted.

serfboard

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We already do this - we purchase (not "take") assets (farmland) off people who own them because other people have a need (roads).

It's called Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO).

.......

This post has been deleted.

CPTM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just to be clear from my side, I'm not talking about employing a communist state attitude. There would be no taking assets off someone. And there's no forcing someone to do anything. Not even forcing them to sell their property.

Nobody is forced to drive a 1.0 litre engine.

I'm talking about creating incentives and disincentives, that's all, and only for those with an empty property (ie. not their primary residence in that given year).

Fully agree that there are exemptions required for the logical examples you gave above.

serfboard

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you're unhappy that the roads you travel on are provided by means of CPO? If so, have you been kicking up a stink about that anywhere? If not, why not? After all, it's a privately-held asset purchased for the greater public good.

Nobody is calling for this to be done for all assets and all needs. Don't worry - I'm not coming after your gold.

However, on a list of assets and needs that are worthy, shelter (AKA housing) is defintely one of them.