Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

MOH

PowerToWait wrote: »

waiting respectfully for our betters to engineer a solution?

You mean the government that we elected? Yep, that's exactly what you should do.

It's a better plan than breaking into random houses to 'raise awareness' of stuff everyone knows anyway.

whisky_galore

MOH wrote: »

You mean the government that we elected? Yep, that's exactly what you should do.

It's a better plan than breaking into random houses to 'raise awareness' of stuff everyone knows anyway.

LoL, you're in for a loooong fcuking wait for the govt to pull anything out of its ass.

Maybe write a "strongly worded letter"?

Dohnjoe

whisky_galore wrote: »

LoL, you're in for a loooong fcuking wait for the govt to pull anything out of its ass.

Maybe write a "strongly worded letter"?

Yup we are in for a long wait, there's no quick solution

PowerToWait

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup we are in for a long wait, there's no quick solution

It seems most people here don't realise the problem is in fact with the current landlord of this property.

This is not about 'crusties', 'hippies', 'layabout doleys' it's about ordinary working people getting shafted on rents and essentially being in hoc for their natural lives to a tiny elite of very wealthy landlords.

The way people go on here you'd think history was no longer taught in schools.

I work hard, pay all taxes, abide the law but I wholeheartedly support the spirit of their actions.

If people see all civil disobedience as fundamentally 'wrong' then the cosseted merchant class have won the day.

weldoninhio

whisky_galore wrote: »

LoL, you're in for a loooong fcuking wait for the govt to pull anything out of its ass.

Maybe write a "strongly worded letter"?

You're right, we should be looking at other countries that have solved homelessness and following their example.

Care to point one out??

whisky_galore

weldoninhio wrote: »

You're right, we should be looking at other countries that have solved homelessness and following their example.

Care to point one out??

Typical lazy response, ah shur look at other countries...

Just an excuse to do nothing and wallow in mediocrity.

Dohnjoe

PowerToWait wrote: »

It seems most people here don't realise the problem is in fact with the current landlord of this property.

What is the problem specifically?

weldoninhio

whisky_galore wrote: »

Typical lazy response, ah shur look at other countries...

Just an excuse to do nothing and wallow in mediocrity.

Lets hear your revolutionary plan then. The floor is yours.

Im not usually in favour of "direct action" but this time it may be worth it.

The rental market is gone bananas and most voters (homeowners) dont see it and dont care.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is the problem specifically?

Ah a bit of digging.

In the landlords defence I'm sure he'd be condemned for keeping them all there too, even though its illegal.

120 in 3 gaffs, bloody hell, Dublin fire brigade must have had a fit.

https://twitter.com/Eoin_OF/status/1027882194507841536

Dohnjoe

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Ah a bit of digging.

In the landlords defence I'm sure he'd be condemned for keeping them all there too, even though its illegal.

120 in 3 gaffs, bloody hell, Dublin fire brigade must have had a fit.

https://twitter.com/Eoin_OF/status/1027882194507841536

Jaysus, the chancer

Subcomandante Marcos

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Jaysus, the cancer

FYP

markodaly

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Ah a bit of digging.

In the landlords defence I'm sure he'd be condemned for keeping them all there too, even though its illegal.

120 in 3 gaffs, bloody hell, Dublin fire brigade must have had a fit.

https://twitter.com/Eoin_OF/status/1027882194507841536

Do we have any independent verification of this, other than some hipster tool on twitter?

Does that then give me the right to take over someone else's property?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Do we have any independent verification of this, other than some hipster tool on twitter?

Does that then give me the right to take over someone else's property?

No I dont.

But I have had a few beers and I have two points that I am fairly torn about.

- Rents have gone crazy in the city, a 3 bed apartment that I used to rent in Ashtown is up for 2100 per month (Dis is nuts, and I a professional engineer cannot afford this)

- Brazilians! (where did you come out of?) are protesting the rising prices.

Am I losing my mind.

markodaly

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

No I dont.

But I have had a few beers and I have two points that I am fairly torn about.

- Rents have gone crazy in the city, a 3 bed apartment that I used to rent in Ashtown is up for 2100 per month (Dis is nuts, and I a professional engineer cannot afford this)

- Brazilians! (where did you come out of?) are protesting the rising prices.

Am I losing my mind.

There is no doubt there are issues, but lets look at the root causes of this and see how we can sort it out.

Ronan Lyons has been banging on now for the past few years about building more apartment, especially family-friendly ones. He says, that we do not need to build more homes, but we do needs tens of thousands of new apartments.

In my mind the DCC are the biggest problem here. They made any development in the city difficult and want to maintain the illusion that Dublin is a low rise city and want it to remain so. That is fine of course, but then you drive up rents because of lack of supply and increased demand.

I am absolutely in agreement Mark. Iv read some of Ronans commentary the last few years and he is no fool.

That apartment I used to live in was (wait for it).... FOUR! STOREYS high near the pheonix park. But a fine place to live.


Pretending the city can stay low rise is a joke. And DCC is a joke.

Subcomandante Marcos

markodaly wrote: »

Do we have any independent verification of this, other than some hipster tool on twitter?

Does that then give me the right to take over someone else's property?

Actually there are many examples of this scumbag slumlord stuffing umpteen Tennants on top of eachother.

markodaly

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Actually there are many examples of this scumbag slumlord stuffing umpteen Tennants on top of eachother.

Such as?

Edgware

markodaly wrote: »

Do we have any independent verification of this, other than some hipster tool on twitter?

Does that then give me the right to take over someone else's property?

No it doesnt but it does show up the complete charade of there being any worthwhile inspections of rented accommodation being carried out.

I am aware of one local authority inspection team ticking boxes by doing inspections of modern built apartments rather than inspecting ****holes owned by both private and public.
Then they can produce annual reports saying how many properties they inspected and warning notices served for not having a fire blanket in the property

The building in question is deemed unfit for human habitation yet they move in and want it used for the homeless. What planet are they on?

Edgware

Edgware wrote: »

No it doesnt but it does show up the complete charade of there being any worthwhile inspections of rented accommodation being carried out.

I am aware of one local authority inspection team ticking boxes by doing inspections of modern built apartments rather than inspecting ****holes owned by both private and public.
Then they can produce annual reports saying how many properties they inspected and warning notices served for not having a fire blanket in the property

They are probably in a bit of a bind.

Closing all the dumps with no alternatives = Increasing homelessness

Geuze

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

- Rents have gone crazy in the city, a 3 bed apartment that I used to rent in Ashtown is up for 2100 per month (Dis is nuts, and I a professional engineer cannot afford this)

- Brazilians! (where did you come out of?) are protesting the rising prices.

Given the housing shortage for the past 5 years or more, was it wise to allow the number of non-EU students increase by 37,000?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-plan-to-attract-37000-foreign-students-and-generate-an-extra-520m-a-year-424618.html


"The target for the English-language training (ELT) sector is set even higher, with plans to increase numbers from 106,000 to 132,500, a 25% increase.

“There will be strong opportunities for Ireland in the area of international education when Ireland becomes the only English-speaking member of the EU,” Mr Bruton said.

The ELT sector currently generates around €760m a year and it is intended to increase that by around €200m to just under €1bn."

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

The building in question is deemed unfit for human habitation yet they move in and want it used for the homeless. What planet are they on?

They want it to be compulsorily purchased by Dublin City Council, made habitable, and rented to people on the housing list. Not an unreasonable demand.

Yer Da sells Avon

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

They want it to be compulsorily purchased by Dublin City Council, made habitable, and rented to people on the housing list. Not an unreasonable demand.

Good Luck with that! Whichever one renovates the property it’ll take time and money.

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

Good Luck with that! Whichever one renovates the property it’ll take time and money.

It's already been idle for three months. What, if anything, do you think is unreasonable about their demand?

gctest50

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It's already been idle for three months. What, if anything, do you think is unreasonable about their demand?

Even planning might take more than that

You can't just go gutting and repurposing places just because it'd Monday

Although in the magical mystery world they live in you'd never know

Yer Da sells Avon

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It's already been idle for three months. What, if anything, do you think is unreasonable about their demand?

What are they demanding re this specific house? It’s uninhabitable and needs vast amounts of money to get it up to scratch, not to mention planning, workers, etc.

Turnipman

Deleted User wrote: »

What are they demanding re this specific house? It’s uninhabitable and needs vast amounts of money to get it up to scratch, not to mention planning, workers, etc.

They're demanding unlimited, uncritical fawning media coverage during the silly season.

When it's over, they'll all go home, have a good wash, get checked out for STIs and then go back to college or continue drawing the dole.

CrankyHaus

Geuze wrote: »

Given the housing shortage for the past 5 years or more, was it wise to allow the number of non-EU students increase by 37,000?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-plan-to-attract-37000-foreign-students-and-generate-an-extra-520m-a-year-424618.html


"The target for the English-language training (ELT) sector is set even higher, with plans to increase numbers from 106,000 to 132,500, a 25% increase.

“There will be strong opportunities for Ireland in the area of international education when Ireland becomes the only English-speaking member of the EU,” Mr Bruton said.

The ELT sector currently generates around €760m a year and it is intended to increase that by around €200m to just under €1bn."

Everyone knows a large amount of ELT is a scam to circumvent immigration restrictions.

Plenty of important people make big money off this so don't expect any policy change.

Sure wasn't Minister Batt O'Keefe the president of one that had to be closed down by the immigration services when it really took the mick.

Lord Bruton certainly doesn't care if the proles have to crowd up in rented accommodation. It just means bigger profits for his clique of landlords.

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

What are they demanding re this specific house? It’s uninhabitable and needs vast amounts of money to get it up to scratch, not to mention planning, workers, etc.

During a massive housing crisis, spending vast amounts of money on bringing it (and many similar buildings around town) into public ownership and making it habitable would make more economic sense than leaving it idle while continuing to pay even more vast amounts of money to private landlords.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Much of the people on this thread are horrible. So many myopic thick people.

Turnipman

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Much of the people on this thread are horrible. So many myopic thick people.

I agree 100%. It's enough to fill slender, long-sighted, charming, intellectually gifted people like you and me with complete and utter despair, isn't it?

weldoninhio

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

During a massive housing crisis, spending vast amounts of money on bringing it (and many similar buildings around town) into public ownership and making it habitable would make more economic sense than leaving it idle while continuing to pay even more vast amounts of money to private landlords.

But it isn't lying idle. There is planning in for the building. Just not the type of planning the crusty hippies want.

sbsquarepants

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'd class it as dangerous group think and herd mentality more so than any conspiracy. We ve all been lead to believe that continual rising asset prices are good for our economy, we ve even created complex metric systems and models to justify this thinking, which in turn respond positively to these rising asset prices, we ve convinced ourselves that by doing all this, the wealth created will 'trickle down', but has it really?

Very little has trickled down as far as my level anyway!

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is the problem specifically?

As far as I can make out, people are outraged that a business man appears to be trying to make money from an investment property, rather than distributing his wealth to various crusties and nare do wells.
Something to do with deserving free stuff cos reasons or something along those lines.
I'm not too sure, I'm a bit confused by the whole thing!

Yer Da sells Avon

weldoninhio wrote: »

Just not the type of planning the crusty hippies want.

Not the type of planning the housing crisis requires. Lots of offices, nowhere for office workers to live.

weldoninhio

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Not the type of planning the housing crisis requires. Lots of offices, nowhere for office workers to live.

Is that up to a private owner to solve??

Why would he plough hundreds of thousands of HIS OWN money into building offices if there was no demand for them??

Shows the cognitive dissonance that the leeches of this country have. Too many offices, not enough houses when a non-leech does something. They should be held accountable.

Outrage if someone asks why leeches are having kids they can't afford to house. Can't blame the kids/parent/leeches. Gubberments fault.

end of the road

as i said would happen.
they have been ordered to leave by tomorrow morning by the high court. just on the news there now.

Edgware

end of the road wrote: »

as i said would happen.
they have been ordered to leave by tomorrow morning by the high court. just on the news there now.

Hopefully they will put up resistance and the riot squad has to go in to enforce the court order. I love seeing Arts students getting their heads creased by the police

Dravokivich

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

During a massive housing crisis, spending vast amounts of money on bringing it (and many similar buildings around town) into public ownership and making it habitable would make more economic sense than leaving it idle while continuing to pay even more vast amounts of money to private landlords.

During a housing crisis the state don't help anyone by buying up property. It makes it harder for people who've been cleared for a mortgage to buy property as they are now competing with the state for it. These are not the people who require the states support and the state should not be impeeding them.

hatrickpatrick

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Very little has trickled down as far as my level anyway!



As far as I can make out, people are outraged that a business man appears to be trying to make money from an investment property, rather than distributing his wealth to various crusties and nare do wells.
Something to do with deserving free stuff cos reasons or something along those lines.
I'm not too sure, I'm a bit confused by the whole thing!

Some of us don't believe that residential property should be allowed to be used as a private revenue generating asset at all to begin with. Like water, human organs and healthcare, housing is something some of us see as being too important for society's wellbeing to be within the purview of market economics, and that it should be nationalised to some extent - just like we did in the mid-20th century when tenements were cleared from literally the exact same neighbourhood in Dublin 1.

This is not a radical concept - in fact, if you take the history of Ireland since independence, the ideology I and others are espousing was in place for far longer than the comparatively recent neoliberal ideology, which only emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Before that, housing was developed by Dublin Corporation - with its own architects and with construction companies hired directly to work for the council, no developer middleman involved - and rented to individuals below market rates, because society recognised that this was the right thing to do.

Anyone who believes that this is somehow impossible or out of reach today needs to read this article by Fintan O'Toole about the Simms era:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-opposition-to-social-housing-is-matter-of-ideology-not-economics-1.2397695

The estate I grew up in, Crumlin in southwest Dublin, was built by the local authority, Dublin Corporation, with funding from the central government. The process actually started in the 1930s, during the Great Depression: 250 acres of south Crumlin were acquired by compulsory purchase in 1934 and the building of over 3,000 houses began more or less straight away.

The project was far from perfect. The houses were too small – most, like the one I grew up in, had just two bedrooms for big (often extended) Irish Catholic families. (Our household, by no means untypical, had three adults and five children.) Services and facilities were slow to follow.

But the rent was affordable and the houses were a hell of a lot better than what most people had before.

My mother had been living (with seven other people) in what was essentially a one-room cottage in the Liberties; my father grew up in a little hovel off the Dublin quays.

The “market” never had and never would give them a decent place to live – the State did so instead. For all the problems, people in Crumlin had a secure roof over their heads and the chance to build a good community. We had homes.

Why could the State do this in the hungry 1930s and the postwar 1940s but not now?

Not because we can’t but because, as Enda Kenny put it last week, “interference in the market” must be avoided. The desperation to avoid the simple conclusion that government should build houses for people who need them is about ideology, not resources. Fine Gael, in particular, seems incapable of understanding housing as anything other than a market.

It is striking that the decline in the building of social housing in Ireland follows directly from the rise of so called “free market” ideology in the Thatcher/Reagan era. In the mid-1970s, social housing made up a third of all new houses. The shift in which that proportion dropped to just 5 per cent was as disastrous economically as it was socially – the property bubble could not have inflated without it.
And still, after all we’ve been through, 75 per cent of the Government’s promised “social housing” is to be built (supposedly) by the private sector.

There is an almost obsessive fear of stating the obvious – that a large proportion of people will never be decently housed by “the market”. Those citizens need a State that’s not afraid to clear the ground of narrow ideology and build on the foundations of real human needs. That might involve relearning another forgotten word – republic.

Some people have obviously grown up in an era where the free market and the concept that housing and land are not national resources but private, commercial commodities is an absolute sacred cow which can never be questioned. But it's a recent invention - and what ye seem not to understand is that for some of us, it's not remotely sacred.

brooke 2

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It's strange the way different people can look at things and come to a completely different conclusion. To me it looks like the O'Donnells are the gangsters!

Definitely. How can people support slum landlords? :mad:

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Some of us don't believe that residential property should be allowed to be used as a private revenue generating asset at all to begin with.

Well then, if you get your way, we should prepare for no houses to get built AT ALL.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Like water, human organs and healthcare, housing is something some of us see as being too important for society's wellbeing to be within the purview of market economics, and that it should be nationalised to some extent - just like we did in the mid-20th century when tenements were cleared from literally the exact same neighbourhood in Dublin 1.

This is not a radical concept - in fact, if you take the history of Ireland since independence, the ideology I and others are espousing was in place for far longer than the comparatively recent neoliberal ideology, which only emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Before that, housing was developed by Dublin Corporation - with its own architects and with construction companies hired directly to work for the council, no developer middleman involved - and rented to individuals below market rates, because society recognised that this was the right thing to do.

Anyone who believes that this is somehow impossible or out of reach today needs to read this article by Fintan O'Toole about the Simms era:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-opposition-to-social-housing-is-matter-of-ideology-not-economics-1.2397695

Fintan can talk alright, lets suggest building an estate of social housing beside his house now and see him clutching his pearls about it. :pac:

He admits in the article the houses were too small and the area lacked services and facilities, exactly what local councils now desperately want to avoid.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Some people have obviously grown up in an era where the free market and the concept that housing and land are not national resources but private, commercial commodities is an absolute sacred cow which can never be questioned. But it's a recent invention - and what ye seem not to understand is that for some of us, it's not remotely sacred.

Go and see the film "The Field". Its was performed first in 1965 but lets face it, the sentiments involved go way back further in time.

brooke 2

P_1 wrote: »

From what I understand of the situation the owner is turning Summerhill into a slum in a bid to lower property values. He owns significant land and wishes to build yet more glass and concrete monstrosity offices on it.

The people of Dublin are being priced out of their city and some are saying that enough is enough.

It's embarrassing as someone from Clare to see this gangster's name on the Clare jerseys! :mad:

brooke 2

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

There's been plenty on the various investigative websites about the owners being amongst the absolute worst type of inner city slum landlords.

So whilst I wouldn't normally condone this type of direct action I think in this case it has some merit.

Time attention were drawn to this slum landlord - and others like him. Well done to the people who occupied that house in Summerhill!!!

brooke 2

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It seems their actions are completely justified. The powers that be need to take notice!

+100

brooke 2

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

https://slumleaks.wordpress.com/ is one of my bookmarks and they've been looking into the O'Donnells for a while.
There's no actual proof, no smoking gun, nothing which would get them convicted if that's the standard of link you are looking for. It's just interesting stuff and strikingly familiar with how landlords/developers used to operate in certain parts of London or Manchester - ruthlessly maximise rent and occupancy whilst simultaneously running down the building/area to eventually force redevelopment through that you make even more on.
They should be sueing slumleaks if it's not true.

I read as far as that shyster Michael Ryan trying to illegally evict people during the worst snow we had for over thirty years - my blood is boiling at this stage!! :mad: What hope do these unfortunate people have when the guards don't seem to have a clue, or, at least, pretend they don't have a clue? Reading through that 'slumleaks' article, I can only conclude that it is like the wild west out there for renters when they come up against gangsters like Ryan, the O'Donnells and that unhinged maniac from Mayo!! Thank heavens we have some people in this country who are determined to draw attention to the criminal activities of property owners who seem to have a free hand to victimise and, in cases, terrorise those who are in the truly miserable situation of being their tenants.

What is even more galling is to observe the number of individuals on here - the majority, it appears - who don't see anything wrong with such gangsterism. What is wrong with all you people??? Just have a read of that 'slumleaks' article, and tell me you are ok with what you see there!!

brooke 2

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

I think this house was picked more because it is owned by a slum lord than anything else. People like the LL of that property who have the gall to ram 20 desperate people in 1 property shouldn't just be fined, they should be jailed. The Agency who oversaw it should be fine massively too. There's far too much of this ****e going on in Dublin.

I'm amazed that so much of it seems to be going on and furious that they are getting away with it.

hatrickpatrick

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Well then, if you get your way, we should prepare for no houses to get built AT ALL.

Funny how that didn't happen in the 1930s-80s, when the Irish government literally built hundreds of apartment blocks all over the country. Dublin City alone has dozens, designed by publicly paid architects and built by G.T.Crampton directly for ownership by Dublin City Council. I doubt you can walk through Dublin City for ten minutes without stumbling across one. And where did the land come from? It was the site of former tenements, which were pretty much exactly the kind of overcrowded, misused and abusive sh!t that these Summerhill and Mountjoy Square landlords have been involved in, and which were compulsorily purchased by Dublin Corporation (City Council) because, essentially, "we believe that land is a public resource and should be used for the public good".

Here's a question for you: My dad owns a tree farm and several years ago he had to cut down and sell some of his trees prematurely. Why was this? Because there's an ESB electricity pylon in the middle of one of the fields, and the maturing trees were starting to get dangerously close to it as they fanned out their rapidly growing upper branches. Now, that pylon was built on privately owned land compulsorily nationalised by the ESB for the purposes of rural electrification.

Do those who worship at the alter of land and property being an entirely private and revenue generating commodity think we should have just not provided electricity to people living in the country, because it means violating the oh-so-sacred cow of private land ownership?

The argument is moronic. This has only been a thing for a couple of decades. Before that, the idea that the government could forcibly acquire land for the greater good was a mainstream part of political policy. And surprise surprise, during that period, we solved housing crises similar to the current one.

What you're actually saying is, "be prepared for no houses to get built and owned by private developers at all". Given that I believe housing should be built on a not-for-profit basis, that's not an argument which bothers me.

Fintan can talk alright, lets suggest building an estate of social housing beside his house now and see him clutching his pearls about it. :pac:

If it means anything to you, I've been agitating for years to get one near where I live rebuilt for years. It was an estate of small flats complexes demolished in or around 2008 and never rebuilt. I'd love nothing more than for it to be rebuilt and remain in 100% public ownership, with a mixture of tenant categories in terms of rent etc. I'm very far from being Fintan O'Toole :pac: but the idea that those on the left are also NIMBYists when it comes to social housing is ridiculous and unfounded.

He admits in the article the houses were too small and the area lacked services and facilities, exactly what local councils now desperately want to avoid.

A gaff that's too small is still better than living on the street or having to leave your hometown, as Fintan noted himself in literally the same sentence that you're citing. As far as services and facilities, that's a council planning issue which can be solved by - you guessed it - properly thought out public policy. If the area lacks facilities, the council should be building them alongside the housing it builds. Obviously.

Go and see the film "The Field". Its was performed first in 1965 but lets face it, the sentiments involved go way back further in time.

I will of course, but given that it's after midnight, for the purposes of this conversation I've consulted a summary. The film seems to be about someone's attachment to his family farm and resisting efforts by a private actor to purchase it. Firstly, the idea of compulsory purchase in the public interest and private purchase for financial reasons are totally different issues. Secondly, there's a world of difference between a family farm which the current owner is actually working on, and a bunch of houses owned by people for the express purpose of charging extortionate amounts of money for others to live there and thus making money for the owner. The two are not comparable.

Yes or no question: Was Dublin Corporation wrong to buy the tenements in the mid-20th century and replace them with public housing? Yes or no? Would you rather the tenements had been left standing and people had been allowed to continue exploiting others and having them live in those appalling conditions, because "muh free markets"?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What you're actually saying is, "be prepared for no houses to get built and owned by private developers at all". Given that I believe housing should be built on a not-for-profit basis, that's not an argument which bothers me.

If you want all housing to be built by the government then good for you. But be prepared to go on the waiting list for it.

I think the current fashion for demonising landlords is childish and counter productive. I rented for about 15 years and had few problems and was very rarely ever in contact with the landlord.

If a developer wants to build a house and I want to buy it then let him and me.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If it means anything to you, I've been agitating for years to get one near where I live rebuilt for years. It was an estate of small flats complexes demolished in or around 2008 and never rebuilt.

Why was it never rebuilt?
I assume the local council has control of it and they will SIMULTANEOUSLY bemoan the lack of funds AND chop their property taxes tro the bare minimum. :pac::rolleyes:
Also around 2008 Ireland thought it would never ever need to build a house again, we had so many emptys.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A gaff that's too small is still better than living on the street or having to leave your hometown, as Fintan noted himself in literally the same sentence that you're citing.

We cant build small gaffs anymore as far as I can see, there seems to be lots of arguments over minimum sizes for apartments.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as services and facilities, that's a council planning issue which can be solved by - you guessed it - properly thought out public policy. If the area lacks facilities, the council should be building them alongside the housing it builds.

- See above about property tax comment.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I will of course, but given that it's after midnight, for the purposes of this conversation I've consulted a summary. The film seems to be about someone's attachment to his family farm and resisting efforts by a private actor to purchase it. Firstly, the idea of compulsory purchase in the public interest and private purchase for financial reasons are totally different issues. Secondly, there's a world of difference between a family farm which the current owner is actually working on, and a bunch of houses owned by people for the express purpose of charging extortionate amounts of money for others to live there and thus making money for the owner. The two are not comparable.

They very much are the same. Family farm or landlord, they are both businesses and the sentiments involved are the same for the owners.

No it was right to buy them. They can build again today, build away all they want. I dont care.

The government and the Dublin councils dont even need to CPO from private people, they own huge sites in the city already.

Getting them to build will be the problem.
- Its extremely slow, planning, organising, the building itself, it takes years to develop large sites
- They wont have the funds, councils chop their property tax, central government is under pressure from social welfare, education and a HSE that is uncontrollable and blows through its budget every year!

Yer Da sells Avon

weldoninhio wrote: »

Is that up to a private owner to solve??

Why would he plough hundreds of thousands of HIS OWN money into building offices if there was no demand for them??

Shows the cognitive dissonance that the leeches of this country have. Too many offices, not enough houses when a non-leech does something. They should be held accountable.

Outrage if someone asks why leeches are having kids they can't afford to house. Can't blame the kids/parent/leeches. Gubberments fault.

It's no use building offices everywhere if the people who work in them have nowhere to live, or have to spend over half of their salary on rent. Seems you have more sympathy for slum landlords than for people earning an honest living. The classist bullshit about 'leeches' is just a diversionary tactic.