Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

Yer Da sells Avon

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

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.

Demonising landlords is stoooopid, it does nothing to solve the lack of available rental accommodation.

Yer Da sells Avon

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Demonising landlords is stoooopid, it does nothing to solve the lack of available rental accommodation.

Describing the owners of 35 Summerhill Parade as 'slum landlords' is simply stating a fact.

Yer Da sells Avon

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Describing the owners of 35 Summerhill Parade as 'slum landlords' is simply stating a fact.

Fair point

hatrickpatrick

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

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 don't necessarily want that, but if you're saying it's an inevitable consequence of going back to building large swathes of housing with public money and renting it below market rates for the good of society, like we did for most of the 20th century, then it's not something I'd shed a single tear over.

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.

The reason for it is very, very simple: There's a massive difference between "can get away with" and "should, in order to maximise society's quality of life" in terms of how much to charge for rent, and when housing is treated as and regarded as an asset or commodity rather than a national resource, people gravitate overwhelmingly towards the latter. No landlord must charge €2,000 per month for an apartment in the city centre, but they can, and therefore they choose to do so. Hence the entirely justified demonisation.

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

If a dying person wanted to sell their heart and you wanted to buy it, would you allow that to happen? Even when the natural result (and the reason it's illegal in the first place) would be that the ability to get a transplant would be based on ability to afford it and not just whether you need it or not?

There's a reason we consider some things too important for society's sake to be treated as mere commodities or assets. I simply believe in adding land and housing to that list.

Why was it never rebuilt?

Because Dun Laoghaire County Council preferred to waste its money on vanity projects at the time, such as a (failed) attempt to build a luxury (and privatised) apartment tower block in a public park, and a (successful) attempt to spend €44 million building an unnecessarily extravagant and brutalist library (when there was already a perfectly good, disused library building in the town) which was condemned before it was even completed as being an absolute eyesore.

As I said before, and as Fintan said in my linked article, this is not a question of inability, it's a question of ideological unwillingness. They could rebuild these estates if they wanted to, they just couldn't give a f*ck because of the endemic "the only thing that matters is the free market, not individual quality of life" mindset.

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.

See above. They have the money. They've wasted it on countless vanity projects while the town has been falling apart and a badly needed social housing site has been lying empty. Politics, not scarcity or inability.

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

Again, this is a matter of ideological policy. The law can, and should, be changed. That's literally what I've been saying - the council could do lots of things, it simply chooses not to because it is not ideologically focused on maximising the quality of life of the average citizen. That's not their priority, and it should be the priority of every government and every government agency.

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

They're absolutely not. For starters, commercial landlords don't generally live on their land. Secondly, farming is a productiveactivity which benefits society as a whole. Being a commercial landlord is essentially being a middleman who adds extra unnecessary costs to something the government should be providing as a public service to begin with.

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

So which is it? I'm very confused - are you saying that forcefully nationalising land for the purposes of electrification is ok, but doing so for the purposes of providing housing is not?

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

I agree entirely. But I also think that people like the slum landlord under discussion here, and the commercial property through which they are extorting and exploiting people, are a waste of space and should be actively targeted. People with that mindset shouldn't be in charge of housing people, just as people who won't put out a house fire unless the house owner can pay them on the spot shouldn't be firefighters.

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!

I agree with some of this - they do have the funds, they're just wasting them on vanity crap right across the board. How many apartments could have been built with the €80-odd-billion which was pumped into Irish Water's "look after the corporate class" consultancy payouts? This isn't an accident or mismanagement, it's intentional misuse of public money, again based on a toxic, neoliberal ideology rather than a necessity, need, or constraint.

As for planning and developing, if Herbert Simms was able to very quickly put up long-lasting blocks of flats in the poor, WWII and Great Depression days of the 1930s, it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that modern Ireland can't.

It won't. But it could. That's the argument I'm making. Those in power who are presiding over this are choosing to preside over it. They could fix it, but they're not. Because they don't give a bollocks one way or another.

weldoninhio

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

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.

Again, what business is it of yours or mine how a private citizen uses his land within the laws of the country??

If there is no need for these offices, they’ll be useless and worthless to the owner. I doubt he’s building them for the craic and I’d imagine he already has a company interested in setting up there.

sexmag

9:37 and theres no sign of them leaving, theyve said they ll release information at 12pm

I hope they send the swat team and drag them out.

The "Awareness" has been raised, they go 3 articles in the paper oer the last week and a bit about a crisis people in other countries know we are having (clap clap).

No hopefully they can bunk in with ms.cash in her new pad and work on their next shock bait moment

blackwhite

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. 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.

In a later post you accuse people of being blinded by "ideology" yet the entire premise of your posts is grounded in the quasi-Marxist notion that private ownership is inherently evil.

They've left according to 98FM just now but they say they are looking at other houses.

Landlords with empty houses will have to get busy barricading them.

sexmag

They went like a thief in the night

Why are they not hanging around to keep the press going to raise "awareness" for a social issue that people out side of this country know about

Guess they didnt want to be martyrs for their cause after all or have the stones to keep it going and have scarperd back to their champagne socialist lifestyle

pjohnson

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

They've left according to 98FM just now but they say they are looking at other houses.

Landlords with empty houses will have to get busy barricading them.

Yep. Heaven forbid they you know RENT the place.

dav3

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

They've left according to 98FM just now but they say they are looking at other houses.

Landlords with empty houses will have to get busy barricading them.

Won't somebody please think of the poor slum landlords.

Edgware

sexmag wrote: »

They went like a thief in the night

Why are they not hanging around to keep the press going to raise "awareness" for a social issue that people out side of this country know about

Guess they didnt want to be martyrs for their cause after all or have the stones to keep it going and have scarperd back to their champagne socialist lifestyle

Mummy has promised them an avocado salad and Prosecco for lunch as soon as they shower and wash that working class smell off themselves.

BarryD2

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

They've left according to 98FM just now but they say they are looking at other houses.

Landlords with empty houses will have to get busy barricading them.

Or organise a counter occupation of some of these protesters gaffs and see how they deal with it

BarryD2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Built them to very basic standards that just don't wash today. Building basic housing is simple - you could do it, I've done it, anyone could. Putting in foundations, raising four walls and inserting spaces for a few windows & a door is straightforward. And that was the basic standard of much of the local uthority housing that you see around the country - cheap and basic.

Problem is that people expect a lot more nowadays. They're not going to put up with damp and drafty boxes with a small patch of communal grass outside or concrete yards. Building regulations also demand a lot more - in terms of build quality. All for good reasons. But the consequences of this is that building such accommodation is more technical and costlier than what was done for 'council houses' in the decades that you hold up as shining examples.

If I was to suggest one practical approach to help with the housing problem, it would be to encourage community building projects where people group together and contribute their labour and skills to build their own houses under supervision of skilled builders. There should be an emphasis on facilitating people who want social housing to get up off their arses, break some sweat and do something that will provide shelter for themselves and their families.

The well publicised Cash example is a case in point. Her partner should be out raising a few blocks and putting in some backwork instead of languishing in custody and expecting society to provide free housing for his kids.

weldoninhio

sexmag wrote: »

They went like a thief in the night

Why are they not hanging around to keep the press going to raise "awareness" for a social issue that people out side of this country know about

Guess they didnt want to be martyrs for their cause after all or have the stones to keep it going and have scarperd back to their champagne socialist lifestyle

Cowards. All for standing up until it may affect them.

Gone with a whimper rather than a bang.

Does the Brazil left front want to avoid deportation for defending keeping the inner city for the people of the inner city?

scamalert

and now we’re in so we’re going to see what the reaction is from the landlord,"

shot on the spot would be my response.

Amirani

dav3 wrote: »

Won't somebody please think of the poor slum landlords.

The "landlord" in this case is a pension fund, with retirees living off the rental income generated by the properties.

whisky_galore

BarryD2 wrote: »

Built them to very basic standards that just don't wash today. Building basic housing is simple - you could do it, I've done it, anyone could. Putting in foundations, raising four walls and inserting spaces for a few windows & a door is straightforward. And that was the basic standard of much of the local uthority housing that you see around the country - cheap and basic.

Problem is that people expect a lot more nowadays. They're not going to put up with damp and drafty boxes with a small patch of communal grass outside or concrete yards. Building regulations also demand a lot more - in terms of build quality. All for good reasons. But the consequences of this is that building such accommodation is more technical and costlier than what was done for 'council houses' in the decades that you hold up as shining examples.

If I was to suggest one practical approach to help with the housing problem, it would be to encourage community building projects where people group together and contribute their labour and skills to build their own houses under supervision of skilled builders. There should be an emphasis on facilitating people who want social housing to get up off their arses, break some sweat and do something that will provide shelter for themselves and their families.

The well publicised Cash example is a case in point. Her partner should be out raising a few blocks and putting in some backwork instead of languishing in custody and expecting society to provide free housing for his kids.

A lot of those houses are still standing and lived in today.

I wonder how well a lot of the jerry-built sh!tboxes flung up during the Tiger era will fare in 50-80 years time?
That is if they don't catch fire or fall down of their own accord.

Yer Da sells Avon

weldoninhio wrote: »

Again, what business is it of yours or mine how a private citizen uses his land within the laws of the country??

The owners of 35 Summerhill Parade had to be served with an enforcement notice by Dublin Fire Brigade to protect the lives of their tenants, who were living eight to a room. In defending them, you've picked one hell of a strange hill to die on.

papu

https://www.facebook.com/events/840101953045347/permalink/840660872989455/

Apparently they have "Secured" ( broken into ) another building..

papu

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

The owners of 35 Summerhill Parade had to be served with an enforcement notice by Dublin Fire Brigade to protect the lives of their tenants, who were living eight to a room. In defending them, you've picked one hell of a strange hill to die on.

Many times these Slums are self organized by the tenants, they sub-let and essentially live rent free in massively overcrowded houses. I could imagine the landlords might not even know, it may not be the situation in this premises but I know that it's a substantial problem around the city.

Amirani

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If a dying person wanted to sell their heart and you wanted to buy it, would you allow that to happen? Even when the natural result (and the reason it's illegal in the first place) would be that the ability to get a transplant would be based on ability to afford it and not just whether you need it or not?

There's a reason we consider some things too important for society's sake to be treated as mere commodities or assets. I simply believe in adding land and housing to that list.

This is a very imperfect analogy.

Deciding on transplant allocation can be done using pharmaeconomics, and they can be allocated very fairly based on need and qualys.

Deciding on housing/land allocation just can't work the same way. Let's say we nationalise all of Ireland's housing stock tomorrow. How does the State go about allocating the available housing to people in a fair manner? If you believe that this could happen fairly then you're completely naive or ideologically blinded. Just look at the nepotism and corruption involved in the allocation of sports grants or quango appointments to realise that this would never take place in a fair manner. Deciding on "fair" is incredibly subjective too, which isn't the case with transplant allocation.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

A lot of those houses are still standing and lived in today.

I wonder how well a lot of the jerry-built sh!tboxes flung up during the Tiger era will fare in 50-80 years time?
That is if they don't catch fire or fall down of their own accord.

There was a very interesting debate on Sean O'Rourke a few months ago about some of the original city council flat complexes around the city when knocking some of them was being discussed at the council

Frank Mc Donald of the Irish Times was saying how they should be preserved, they are architectural gems, la dee daa etc etc.

Dublin city councillor Mannix Flynn who grew up in them painted a far more realistic picture of poor construction, leaking sewage, damp, mould and overcrowding of his youth.

It was an interesting culture clash.

hatrickpatrick

BarryD2 wrote: »

Built them to very basic standards that just don't wash today. Building basic housing is simple - you could do it, I've done it, anyone could. Putting in foundations, raising four walls and inserting spaces for a few windows & a door is straightforward. And that was the basic standard of much of the local uthority housing that you see around the country - cheap and basic.

Problem is that people expect a lot more nowadays. They're not going to put up with damp and drafty boxes with a small patch of communal grass outside or concrete yards. Building regulations also demand a lot more - in terms of build quality. All for good reasons. But the consequences of this is that building such accommodation is more technical and costlier than what was done for 'council houses' in the decades that you hold up as shining examples.

The people living in these Summerhill Slums are literally living in f*cking bunk beds packed into rooms together. The idea that if we built more flats in their place, in the style of (to take one example) Chancery Place, they would lie empty because the standard isn't good enough - but that at the same time, people are happy to live in crowded, tenement-esque conditions under the landlordship of the likes of scumbags such as O'Donnell or Howard and pay extortionate rents to these people is utterly moronic.

I can certainly say that most of my friends who are stuck living at home because despite working decent out-of-college jobs they just can't afford the four figure rents in Dublin right now would be happy to live in a building like Chancery or Markievicz for a decent rent. Sure, there would be things people would b!tch about - there always is when renting accomodation - but people would actually have somewhere to live. Which right now, many people simply don't.

If I was to suggest one practical approach to help with the housing problem, it would be to encourage community building projects where people group together and contribute their labour and skills to build their own houses under supervision of skilled builders. There should be an emphasis on facilitating people who want social housing to get up off their arses, break some sweat and do something that will provide shelter for themselves and their families.

I'd have no problem with this - but I would suggest that this flies in the face of the right wing ideology which is currently preventing social housing from being built at all. So it won't happen.

The well publicised Cash example is a case in point. Her partner should be out raising a few blocks and putting in some backwork instead of languishing in custody and expecting society to provide free housing for his kids.

That still involves local and national government accepting that the post-80s neoliberalism is a failure for society and that the government must fund housing projects. Which is the central problem with everything that's happening relating to housing right now.

hatrickpatrick

Amirani wrote: »

This is a very imperfect analogy.

Deciding on transplant allocation can be done using pharmaeconomics, and they can be allocated very fairly based on need and qualys.

Deciding on housing/land allocation just can't work the same way. Let's say we nationalise all of Ireland's housing stock tomorrow. How does the State go about allocating the available housing to people in a fair manner? If you believe that this could happen fairly then you're completely naive or ideologically blinded. Just look at the nepotism and corruption involved in the allocation of sports grants or quango appointments to realise that this would never take place in a fair manner. Deciding on "fair" is incredibly subjective too, which isn't the case with transplant allocation.

Why is it that we were able to do this from the 1930s right up until the 1980s, but now it's somehow impossible?

Do people know the history of Summerhill and its environs at all? When the tenements were demolished en masse, and corporation flats built by GT Crampton replaced them? You can literally see them all over the area now, or renovated versions of them - Gloucester Place, Killarney Court, FitzGibbon Court, Matt Talbot Court, Gardiner Street Flats, Avondale House, Peader Kearney House, I could go on and on. Throughout the 20th century, public housing was prioritised over private property rights especially when it came to slum landlords like the current Howards and O'Donnells. The state didn't give them a choice in selling their slums, and then replaced them with housing for people who needed it.

It's beyond comprehension that people honestly believe that something which was possible until a change in ideology a small few decades ago is now impossible.

weldoninhio

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

The owners of 35 Summerhill Parade had to be served with an enforcement notice by Dublin Fire Brigade to protect the lives of their tenants, who were living eight to a room. In defending them, you've picked one hell of a strange hill to die on.

That's not what the Summerhill Occupation Front said in their statement.

"In May, a mass eviction occurred between the five properties resulting in these 120 tenants being illegally evicted over the duration of a week."

hatrickpatrick

weldoninhio wrote: »

Again, what business is it of yours or mine how a private citizen uses his land within the laws of the country?

Until the late 1980s, it was regarded as the public's business what was done with misused property. And the "worship the free market to the exclusion of all other concerns" ideology which has prevailed since then has resulted in plunging quality of life where housing is concerned, and rampant wealth and income inequality.

hatrickpatrick

blackwhite wrote: »

In a later post you accuse people of being blinded by "ideology" yet the entire premise of your posts is grounded in the quasi-Marxist notion that private ownership is inherently evil.

When did I suggest that it's "inherently evil"? I'm not suggesting that. I am simply suggesting that when private ownership and the wider needs of society come into conflict, the latter should prevail - especially when we're talking about commercial property and not merely someone's family home.

And for the bajillionth time, Ireland has followed my proposed ideology for a greater proportion of its history since independence than the right wing ideology you seem to espouse, and society seemed to function more efficiently in those days.

papu

Seems like they've broken into a building on N fredrick St now
https://goo.gl/maps/82n3uuCShHC2
https://www.facebook.com/summerhilloccupation/photos/a.219379815414934/227507347935514/?type=3&theater

Edgware

weldoninhio wrote: »

Cowards. All for standing up until it may affect them.

If they had any courage they would have put up a physical resistance, get arrested. Maybe a weekend in the Joy. Margaret Cash and Co would be grateful to them forever.
When the owner decided to hit the High Court the Socialist heroes weren't ready to do a Stalingrad on it. Might harm their U.S. Visa chances

Amirani

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is it that we were able to do this from the 1930s right up until the 1980s, but now it's somehow impossible?

We didn't have full public ownership of land and housing in that time, which is what you have been suggesting. There's always been a private market.

hatrickpatrick

Amirani wrote: »

We didn't have full public ownership of land and housing in that time, which is what you have been suggesting. There's always been a private market.

But I haven't been suggesting full public ownership of all land and housing, that's a ridiculous strawman. I've been suggesting that the state should do what it did in those days - compulsorily acquire slums such as those being run by the likes of Howard and O'Donnell, and build housing on that land which remains in full public ownership and is rented by the council below market rates. That's it. No developers, no sell-off, no more slums, basically no BS.

We managed it in Summerhill when the tenements were demolished to make room for Simms designed and Crampton built flats and houses. We can manage it today.

EDIT: There's a big difference between saying "the state should own all land" and "the state should be able to forcefully acquire land in times of need, as it always has done".

I mentioned a few pages back that my father had land in the middle of his tree farm compulsorily acquired by the ESB to build an electricity pylon. Was this wrong, as it goes against the absurd concept that the free, private market literally trumps every other consideration?

We have a housing crisis in Dublin at the moment. It's an emergency. Therefore, it justifies measures such as these.

blackwhite

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When did I suggest that it's "inherently evil"? I'm not suggesting that. I am simply suggesting that when private ownership and the wider needs of society come into conflict, the latter should prevail - especially when we're talking about commercial property and not merely someone's family home.

And for the bajillionth time, Ireland has followed my proposed ideology for a greater proportion of its history since independence than the right wing ideology you seem to espouse, and society seemed to function more efficiently in those days.

You need to re-read your own first post on the matter.

You mightn’t have mean it, but you explicitly stated you wanted to ban the private ownership of land for any profit - without any qualification

jam_mac_jam

It would be cheaper in the long run for the state to provide social housing.  The amount that is being spent on rent in schemes like the HAP scheme are huge and will only get bigger.  Apart from any moral argument on housing it is incredibly short sighted to rely on the private sector to provide long term housing needs for social housing.

sexmag

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It would be cheaper in the long run for the state to provide social housing.  The amount that is being spent on rent in schemes like the HAP scheme are huge and will only get bigger.  Apart from any moral argument on housing it is incredibly short sighted to rely on the private sector to provide long term housing needs for social housing.

But the people being housed wont be happy with their location, too far from their family,greens for their kids etc and will refuse the offerings

dav3

Amirani wrote: »

The "landlord" in this case is a pension fund, with retirees living off the rental income generated by the properties.

Cramming as many people as you can into an old dilapidated house and allowing the area to fall into ruin is why certain landlords are referred to as slum landlords. It doesn't matter if it's 1 or 100 landlords. Someone collected the rent, someone is the owner, someone is the landlord.

jam_mac_jam

sexmag wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It would be cheaper in the long run for the state to provide social housing.  The amount that is being spent on rent in schemes like the HAP scheme are huge and will only get bigger.  Apart from any moral argument on housing it is incredibly short sighted to rely on the private sector to provide long term housing needs for social housing.

But the people being housed wont be happy with their location, too far from their family,greens for their kids etc and will refuse the offerings

Yeah of course they will. All of them. Nobody is on the housing list who would jump at the chance to get somewhere of their own. There are people on the housing list housed every day who don't refuse them.

Wheeliebin30

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But I haven't been suggesting full public ownership of all land and housing, that's a ridiculous strawman. I've been suggesting that the state should do what it did in those days - compulsorily acquire slums such as those being run by the likes of Howard and O'Donnell, and build housing on that land which remains in full public ownership and is rented by the council below market rates. That's it. No developers, no sell-off, no more slums, basically no BS.

We managed it in Summerhill when the tenements were demolished to make room for Simms designed and Crampton built flats and houses. We can manage it today.

EDIT: There's a big difference between saying "the state should own all land" and "the state should be able to forcefully acquire land in times of need, as it always has done".

I mentioned a few pages back that my father had land in the middle of his tree farm compulsorily acquired by the ESB to build an electricity pylon. Was this wrong, as it goes against the absurd concept that the free, private market literally trumps every other consideration?

We have a housing crisis in Dublin at the moment. It's an emergency. Therefore, it justifies measures such as these.

The cost to build housing back then compared to now has increased 5 times the amount.

One way to bankrupt the country again is a massive social housing build.

Yer Da sells Avon

weldoninhio wrote: »

That's not what the Summerhill Occupation Front said in their statement.

"In May, a mass eviction occurred between the five properties resulting in these 120 tenants being illegally evicted over the duration of a week."

Rather than undertaking the required remedial works, the owners evicted the 120 tenants.

hmmm

They must have very forgiving employers to get so much time off at short notice?

whisky_galore

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

There was a very interesting debate on Sean O'Rourke a few months ago about some of the original city council flat complexes around the city when knocking some of them was being discussed at the council

Frank Mc Donald of the Irish Times was saying how they should be preserved, they are architectural gems, la dee daa etc etc.

Dublin city councillor Mannix Flynn who grew up in them painted a far more realistic picture of poor construction, leaking sewage, damp, mould and overcrowding of his youth.

It was an interesting culture clash.

Put it down to the half arsed way maintenance is carried out here.

I see a few 21st cent builds with peeling paint and algae growth as green as fcuking Killarney.

weldoninhio

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Rather than undertaking the required remedial works, the owners evicted the 120 tenants.

Here, where are you going with those goalposts??

Yer Da sells Avon

weldoninhio wrote: »

Here, where are you going with those goalposts??

Why are you so eager to defend slum landlords?

Amirani

dav3 wrote: »

Cramming as many people as you can into an old dilapidated house and allowing the area to fall into ruin is why certain landlords are referred to as slum landlords. It doesn't matter if it's 1 or 100 landlords. Someone collected the rent, someone is the owner, someone is the landlord.

Do you have access to the tenancy agreements? Do you know whether the landlord agreed to this situation?

Back when I was in college, there were plenty of people I knew who'd take out a 3 person tenancy and the house would end up with 6 people living in it, with the landlord none the wiser. I myself temporarily lived in a 4 bedroom apartment with 13 other people (albeit not in Ireland), the landlord thought there was 4 people living there.

sexmag

hmmm wrote: »

They must have very forgiving employers to get so much time off at short notice?

On their facebook page it says most are students giving up the last of their holidays to make a difference in their country:rolleyes:

Thats not all their going to give up, their freedom will be next when they get caught locked up and them fancy college degrees will be usesless with a criminal record

Franz Von Peppercorn

Amirani wrote: »

We didn't have full public ownership of land and housing in that time, which is what you have been suggesting. There's always been a private market.

It’s was ameliorated by public ownership.

end of the road

sexmag wrote: »

But the people being housed wont be happy with their location, too far from their family,greens for their kids etc and will refuse the offerings

so be it, there will be plenty of others in the form of the majority on the housing list who will take the houses, compared to the tiny minority on the housing list who would refuse.

Franz Von Peppercorn

sexmag wrote: »

But the people being housed wont be happy with their location, too far from their family,greens for their kids etc and will refuse the offerings

People accepted social housing before.

At one time 42% of people in the U.K. relied on council, public or other social housing.

BarryD2

whisky_galore wrote: »

A lot of those houses are still standing and lived in today.

Yes but they don't pass muster in terms of new building regs, standards and what people expect.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is it that we were able to do this from the 1930s right up until the 1980s, but now it's somehow impossible?

When you say 'we', why don't you say 'me'?? If you want to provide housing for yourself and family, then there's plenty of scope outside greater Dublin to buy and renovate an older property or even start from scratch. Self help is entirely possible - instead of people expecting the state to deliver the goods without getting theirs hands dirty.