Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

Franz Von Peppercorn

BarryD2 wrote: »

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

And yet they sell for 100s of thousands of euro.

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.

By we he clearly meant the Irish State. That was in fact what you were responding to in the first part of your post.

And why personalise the issue? It’s an example of a weak argument.

whisky_galore

BarryD2 wrote: »

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

Priory Hall was supposed to be built according to those oh-so-modern building regs? :pac:
There's probably a lot more Priory Halls out there yet to be found.

Don't forget the pyrite problems, but since developers are bust what's to be done?

People 'expect' new semi-ds with a garden and room for a trampoline, or a penthouse apartment, but they aint gonna get them cos they can't afford them.

Grayson

hmmm wrote: »

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

I found out today that a friend is protesting there. They're doing it for 4 hours on their day off. Essentially occupiers are taking shifts in doing it.

hatrickpatrick

blackwhite wrote: »

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

The post I was replying to said, "the entire premise of your posts is grounded in the quasi-Marxist notion that private ownership is inherently evil." That's different from private ownership for profit. If you want to be pedantic about it, let me rephrase and be extremely specific: Private ownership of housing for the specific purpose of charging others to live on it, and making a profit by charging more than the absolute bare minimum required to maintain the property, is in my opinion something that we as a society should at least talk about doing away with altogether. Nobody should have to pay a cent more in rent than is necessary for maintenance, upkeep, tax, bills, etc.

I have absolutely no problem with people owning land in order to work on it or live in it themselves, or hire people to do so. I have an issue with people whose entire "contribution" to the system is that they charge money for use of their land for residential purposes. I regard that as inherently exploitative.

hatrickpatrick

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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.

Are you talking relative to inflation? And can you give a breakdown as to what has driven that increase? One way or another, we need a 1930s esque massive social housing build, so we're going to have to find a way to bring those costs down. Simple as that. The current situation is abhorrent and cannot be allowed to continue.

hatrickpatrick

BarryD2 wrote: »

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



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.

I'm not talking about me or people I know, I'm talking about doing this on a massive scale so that the cost of housing plummets for the country in general. It's not about sorting out some people here and there, what we need is a concerted policy effort to drive rents down - by more than 50% in a lot of cases. Four figures for a one bed apartment is utterly obscene.

hatrickpatrick

BarryD2 wrote: »

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

Wants and needs are two different things. I'm pretty sure that someone who "accepts" living in a f*cking bunk bed dormitory in one of these Summerhill Slums would be happy enough to take a flat in a Simms-style apartment block. I know many of my friends who are paying close to €1,000 to rent a bedroom in someone else's gaff would be more than happy to.

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.

I'm not talking about me or people I know, I'm talking about doing this on a massive scale so that the cost of housing plummets for the country in general. It's not about sorting out some people here and there, what we need is a concerted policy effort to drive rents down - by more than 50% in a lot of cases. Four figures for a one bed apartment is utterly obscene.

pumpkin4life

There will be no solution to the housing crisis, bar a massive technological or economic shock.

There's two components to the housing issue = supply and demand.

The demand side of the equation has been tainted with the "that's racist" slur. Call it the Rotherham effect. Bringing up the fact that increased people equals an increased demand for housing means that a lad gets the "far right" label thrown at him. Even if it means shifting demand in a way that has nothing to do with immigration. Forget about demand, no one will touch it.

Because of this, the government are stuck with the supply component. And the public sector, academia and politicans? Well, they're not known for innovation. Throw in AirBnB, exorbitant tax rates for landlords, overcentralization in Dublin, tech companies purchase of local property, skyrise issues and crappy transport, and you have a hell of a storm coming up.

Nothing will come of this. The next thing to do is to figure out what will happen next.

dotsman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

What a crock.

There is absolutely no "free-market" in the Irish property market.

Not only that, but right at the heart of Ireland's Property crisis are left wing policies by left wing politicians.

And as for "plunging quality of life where housing is concerned since the 1980's" - you're really having a laugh.

blackwhite

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The post I was replying to said, "the entire premise of your posts is grounded in the quasi-Marxist notion that private ownership is inherently evil." That's different from private ownership for profit. If you want to be pedantic about it, let me rephrase and be extremely specific: Private ownership of housing for the specific purpose of charging others to live on it, and making a profit by charging more than the absolute bare minimum required to maintain the property, is in my opinion something that we as a society should at least talk about doing away with altogether. Nobody should have to pay a cent more in rent than is necessary for maintenance, upkeep, tax, bills, etc.

I have absolutely no problem with people owning land in order to work on it or live in it themselves, or hire people to do so. I have an issue with people whose entire "contribution" to the system is that they charge money for use of their land for residential purposes. I regard that as inherently exploitative.

So do away with the concept of rental property altogether.
And then try to claim that “Ireland followed your ideology until the 1980s” :pac:


Quasi-Marxist was being generous TBH.

hatrickpatrick

blackwhite wrote: »

So do away with the concept of rental property altogether.
And then try to claim that “Ireland followed your ideology until the 1980s” :pac:


Quasi-Marxist was being generous TBH.

I'm not suggesting doing away with the concept of rental property.

Let me give you an analogy here. Should each individual taxi driver be allowed to set whatever fare they want? Should the NTA be disbanded so that consumers can be fleeced freely when they're trying to get home after a night out - €100 for a five minute drive or I leave you at the side of the road, in the cold, to freeze to death or be attacked?

Most people wouldn't agree with this and are fairly supportive of limits being places on how much can be charged for transport.

Now, unless you regard that as "marxist", then how is that any different to housing price controls?

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to rent property, but I'm suggesting that the "three Fs" of old need to return to Irish political discourse. Transport prices are limited by regulations because we recognise that transport is necessary for a functioning society and that people have no choice but to use it from time to time, thereby making price gouging and fleecing morally unacceptable to us as a society. Why is it any different when we talk about housing in the same terms?

Housing can be rented by private or state actors for all I care, I'm merely stating that they shouldn't be allowed to profiteer off it. Prices should be limited by law much like taxi fares, so that they can make an acceptable living without exploiting people.

hatrickpatrick

dotsman wrote: »

What a crock.

There is absolutely no "free-market" in the Irish property market.

Not only that, but right at the heart of Ireland's Property crisis are left wing policies by left wing politicians.

You've got to be kidding. This crisis didn't manifest until after we stopped building public housing with public money and charging fair, not free-for-all "market", rents for it.

And as for "plunging quality of life where housing is concerned since the 1980's" - you're really having a laugh.

You think so? Someone born in 1960 and entering the workforce in the early 1980s could reasonably expect to be able to afford decent housing with an average, decent job. This is no longer the care. Ergo, quality of life with regard to housing has diminished. Or to put it in the clinical, mathematical terms that right wingers adore so much, "average earnings have not kept pace with inflation in the housing market over time". This is a problem. It's not just a neutral "fact", it's a societal problem. And the whole purpose of having a government and paying taxes is that that government will solve society's problems to some extent, using the aforementioned taxes.

dotsman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not suggesting doing away with the concept of rental property.

Let me give you an analogy here. Should each individual taxi driver be allowed to set whatever fare they want? Should the NTA be disbanded so that consumers can be fleeced freely when they're trying to get home after a night out - €100 for a five minute drive or I leave you at the side of the road, in the cold, to freeze to death or be attacked?

Most people wouldn't agree with this and are fairly supportive of limits being places on how much can be charged for transport.

Now, unless you regard that as "marxist", then how is that any different to housing price controls?

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to rent property, but I'm suggesting that the "three Fs" of old need to return to Irish political discourse. Transport prices are limited by regulations because we recognise that transport is necessary for a functioning society and that people have no choice but to use it from time to time, thereby making price gouging and fleecing morally unacceptable to us as a society. Why is it any different when we talk about housing in the same terms?

Housing can be rented by private or state actors for all I care, I'm merely stating that they shouldn't be allowed to profiteer off it. Prices should be limited by law much like taxi fares, so that they can make an acceptable living without exploiting people.

Taxi's are very different to houses. By and large, taxi's are the same (or should be, as is the case in many countries). The reason for setting the price is so that everyone knows what price to expect in advance.

Houses, on the other hand are different. Very different. In fact, no 2 houses are the same. Even when built to the same design/size/estate, one house will always be nearer the entrance/bus stop/cul-de-sac/green/shop etc.

dotsman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You've got to be kidding. This crisis didn't manifest until after we stopped building public housing with public money and charging fair, not free-for-all "market", rents for it.

"public housing is a big factor in causing the housing crisis. The biggest factor being the fact that Ireland has rapidly modernised over the past 30 years, but are city planning has not. As a result, we have people in low-density "public housing" right bang in the city center where 10-30 story apartment complexes and office blocks should be. But, as long as as our city councils are dominated by left-wing loons and our judicial system happily accepts (and, thus, promotes) anti-social behavior, we will have a property crisis.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You think so? Someone born in 1960 and entering the workforce in the early 1980s could reasonably expect to be able to afford decent housing with an average, decent job. This is no longer the care. Ergo, quality of life with regard to housing has diminished. Or to put it in the clinical, mathematical terms that right wingers adore so much, "average earnings have not kept pace with inflation in the housing market over time". This is a problem. It's not just a neutral "fact", it's a societal problem. And the whole purpose of having a government and paying taxes is that that government will solve society's problems to some extent, using the aforementioned taxes.

I think the clinical term you are looking for is "household income has greatly increased over the past 30 years driving up the price of the extremely underutilised city landscapes".

And yes, a government's duty is to solve national problems, not constantly try to transfer wealth from section of society to another, causing the underlying problem to continue to get bigger by ignoring it and compounding it.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You think so? Someone born in 1960 and entering the workforce in the early 1980s could reasonably expect to be able to afford decent housing with an average, decent job. This is no longer the care. Ergo, quality of life with regard to housing has diminished.

The good times of the 1980s, Iv heard it all now. :rolleyes:

Re the 80's. When a good chunk of your population is emigrating every year there will be much less demand and house prices will be much more reasonable.

IF you can manage to get that "average decent job" and stay home.

hatrickpatrick

dotsman wrote: »

Taxi's are very different to houses. By and large, taxi's are the same (or should be, as is the case in many countries). The reason for setting the price is so that everyone knows what price to expect in advance.

Houses, on the other hand are different. Very different. In fact, no 2 houses are the same. Even when built to the same design/size/estate, one house will always be nearer the entrance/bus stop/cul-de-sac/green/shop etc.

There's no reason price controls couldn't take that into account. I'm not suggesting that all rents should be the same for all types of housing, merely that they should be limited relative to average take-home pay so that the necessary cost of being housed doesn't totally f*ck people over the way it does now, when the only "rule" is "how much can I get away with charging here".

dotsman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's no reason price controls couldn't take that into account.

And who would set these prices? On each individual house???

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that all rents should be the same for all types of housing, merely that they should be limited relative to average take-home pay

What??? Have you actually even thought about that one for a second? So rather than rent being dependent on how desirable a property is, it should be based on how much a person earns?

So, can someone who earns 20K a year live in a mansion for a few euro a month, while an extremely hard working, successful couple earning 200K between them get stuck in a dingy little box and be forced to pay 5K rent a month?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

so that the necessary cost of being housed doesn't totally f*ck people over the way it does now, when the only "rule" is "how much can I get away with charging here".

The only rule is "with a massive shortage of suitable housing, what is the price point the market is willing to pay?"

And politicians have spent the last 30 years trying to ignore that rule and have spent the last 30 years making things worse. People need to stop trying to fight reality and just accept it - that's how the world works. It's simple economics 101. The only way to change the price is to increase the supply (by introducing at least a few free market principles to the property market to allow building up, of high quality construction and design, along with the associated facilities and public transport, and strictly combating anti-social behavior of all sorts, as well as giving more power to purchasers, good landlords and good tenants) or decrease demand (by cutting everybody's salaries or making a $hitload of people redundant and shipping them out to the countryside/abroad).

erica74

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.

How do we make the rules about what land/houses can be purchased in order for it to be handed over to people who don't want to pay for their own house? Will it be a national plan or just in cities or just outside of cities, all types of properties, how long do the properties have to be vacant before being CPOed, can properties which are only occupied for 2 weeks every year be CPOed?

I have also had land CPOed by the ESB and the county council and, in my opinion, there's a difference between land being purchased for infrastructure like roads and electricity supply and houses being purchased for people who don't want to pay for their own house. The land that was purchased by the ESB was used to run supply to a new factory built about 15km from our house, which employs hundreds of people. The land purchased by the county council was used for part of a road, which is one of the busiest roads in Ireland.

In my opinion, if we start CPOing private property then that will be become a system equally as abused as the current social housing system.

If we have a housing crisis in Dublin, move these people out of Dublin, remove the right of refusal of anyone on a housing list, make criminal conviction for certain crimes grounds for automatic removal from a housing list, link school attendance to children's allowance, there's plenty else that needs to be done before we start taking property off someone who has paid for it and giving it to someone else who doesn't want to pay for it.

Lastly, everyone needs to understand the social contract of paying their way, getting a job and keeping a job, maintaining some sort of stable life before bringing 2, 3, 4, 5 more kids into their lives, exercising personal responsibility, understanding that what you want and paying for it yourself are directly linked.

weldoninhio

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Why are you so eager to defend slum landlords?

Not once have I referred to the landlord in this particular case. Although, is there anything to suggest that this LL knew there were so many people in the house? Any rental agreement? Contract?

Or could it be a case, as seen before, where 3/4 people rent a house and then sublet it to reduce their own rent??

You’ve shown you have no idea about other aspects of this case, what’s to say this isn’t another thing you’ve no idea about?

end of the road

to catch up on a few points.
there is no purchasing of houseing for people who don't want to pay for them, the proposal is to purchase properties belonging to slumlords, which seem to be in a state, all to re-develop the land to build affordible housing. the slumlords would deserve it and would get no sympathy from me and many others, they destroy the reputation of decent landlords. people in social housing pay rent, so technically pay for their house, even if they get help from the state. it's subsidized rent. paople paying for their houses, aka buying them, is only ever going to be a reality for those who can really afford it. garra mortgage bankrupted the country, so it is only right that mortgages should be for those who can afford them given it is private banks giving them out, and we have had to bail some of them out.
it is not viable to move all the people on the social housing list in dublin out of dublin to solve the housing crisis. the costs of either implementing resources outside dublin for the huge influx of people, or the costs of dealing with social breakdown if we don't, would highly likely pass the current costs by miles. it is not the job of other areas to become essentially a dumping ground for dublin's issues either.
removing the right of refusal of anyone on a housing list isn't needed, the system self-regulates, if someone refuses, someone else will take. making a criminal conviction grounds for automatic removal also would not really solve anything. they are going to have to be housed. everyone does understand the social contract, hence the amount of unemployable are very very tiny. however, even in a job, with the current costs, it's not viable for people to fully pay their way, hence if we want people to fully pay their way, the cost of living is going to have to be brought down. personal responsibility is irrelevant, as 99% of people have it. doesn't change the fact of the costs of living though.

dotsman wrote: »

The only rule is "with a massive shortage of suitable housing, what is the price point the market is willing to pay?"

And politicians have spent the last 30 years trying to ignore that rule and have spent the last 30 years making things worse. People need to stop trying to fight reality and just accept it - that's how the world works. It's simple economics 101. The only way to change the price is to increase the supply (by introducing at least a few free market principles to the property market to allow building up, of high quality construction and design, along with the associated facilities and public transport, and strictly combating anti-social behavior of all sorts, as well as giving more power to purchasers, good landlords and good tenants) or decrease demand (by cutting everybody's salaries or making a $hitload of people redundant and shipping them out to the countryside/abroad).

the politicians have not ignored the supply and demand rule. in fact, they seem to have absolutely allowed it. except, it's not working. simple supply and demand and the free market has failed in this regard. there is lots of demand, little supply, and people are spending large amounts of their income on rent. it's going to get to the stage where people will be spending all their income on rent if the country is not careful. the current system is not sustainible and things are going to come crashing down hard eventually.
we have tried the free market, it hasn't worked. time for a social and affordible houseing building program. yes social and affordible housing.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Not once have I referred to the landlord in this particular case. Although, is there anything to suggest that this LL knew there were so many people in the house? Any rental agreement? Contract?

Or could it be a case, as seen before, where 3/4 people rent a house and then sublet it to reduce their own rent??

You’ve shown you have no idea about other aspects of this case, what’s to say this isn’t another thing you’ve no idea about?

it's a landlord's business to check that their property is being rented within the terms of the agreement. if they aren't doing that, they should be, it's in their interests to do it.

sexmag

end of the road wrote: »

to catch up on a few points.
there is no purchasing of houseing for people who don't want to pay for them, the proposal Demands are to purchase properties belonging to slumlords, which seem to be in a state, all to re-develop the land to build affordible housing.

Fixed it for you. They publically state they are demands, essentially these people are social terrorists holding private citizens and the government hostage

end of the road

sexmag wrote: »

Fixed it for you. They publically state they are demands, essentially these people are social terrorists holding private citizens and the government hostage

you will need to report them to the gards then. being a terrorist in any form is illegal in ireland.

you will probably be charged with wasting police time though, as they are not terrorists, never mind social ones.

dotsman

end of the road wrote: »

the politicians have not ignored the supply and demand rule. in fact, they seem to have absolutely allowed it.

But it is the politicians who control our planning. And our planning rules for the last 30 years have prevented the building of proper cities with strategically located, serviced, quality high density properties.

end of the road wrote: »

simple supply and demand and the free market has failed in this regard.

But how can you say "the free market has failed us" when we have the very opposite of a free market with regards property? Do you even understand what free market principles are?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

it's a landlord's business to check that their property is being rented within the terms of the agreement. if they aren't doing that, they should be, it's in their interests to do it.

Tenants are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their rented property. Landlords are not entitled to go around checking/spying on them and I believe neither landlords nor tenants want to do that.

I rented one place and I saw the landlady (I think) twice in 5 years.

Landlords should be able to trust that tenants agree to the agreement that they signed.

ExoPolitic

As nice as it would be for me to be able to afford a home in my life time, this is most certainly not the way to go about getting change. Vote for the right people and you will get change, if they don't hold on to their election promises hold them to account...


HOWEVER


The main problem we have is homeowners will not back such a vote because it would have a negative effect on their investment in their property... They will also fight planning permission of any new housing developments anywhere near them.

Not quite so sure how each generation can do that to the next, seeing as its their own children and grandchildren that suffer for it.

And so the great flight of the Irish young take off to distant corners of the world, with it all the skills our education system provided them, there is no home for them here in Ireland.

This is still going over in 34 North Frederick Street.

They got their orders to get out today, doesnt sound like they will move this time.

https://www.joe.ie/news/dublin-housing-protest-638505

hatrickpatrick

Apologies for abandoning this thread, got caught up with all the Pope stuff elsewhere on AH and forgot to reply to these ones

dotsman wrote: »

Taxi's are very different to houses. By and large, taxi's are the same (or should be, as is the case in many countries).

How does that stop us setting price limits? It would involve calculating different limits for different housing, sure, but we already do something similar with LPT so the expertise is there at a local government level.

The reason for setting the price is so that everyone knows what price to expect in advance.

...It's also to make sure that people don't get ripped off by being charged more than is reasonable for an often essential service.

Houses, on the other hand are different. Very different. In fact, no 2 houses are the same. Even when built to the same design/size/estate, one house will always be nearer the entrance/bus stop/cul-de-sac/green/shop etc.

See above. We can do this for LPT, doing it for pricing isn't massively different.

hatrickpatrick

dotsman wrote: »

And who would set these prices? On each individual house???

The same department as sets local property tax for each property?

What??? Have you actually even thought about that one for a second? So rather than rent being dependent on how desirable a property is, it should be based on how much a person earns?

Partially, yes. But not individually, it should be based on general average wages and so on. We should decide as a society how much of a proportion of someone's income it's reasonable to be paying in rent to avoid plummeting quality of life in other areas where one has to scrimp, and set prices accordingly.

So, can someone who earns 20K a year live in a mansion for a few euro a month, while an extremely hard working, successful couple earning 200K between them get stuck in a dingy little box and be forced to pay 5K rent a month?

When did I suggest this? LPT already takes the type and location of housing into account, price controls could do the same. As far as I know, the same is true with taxies - for example, larger vehicles with more seats (and therefore higher running costs) can charge higher fares. This isn't rocket science.

The only rule is "with a massive shortage of suitable housing, what is the price point the market is willing to pay?"

And it shouldn't be, because this "rule" allows the scenario in which peoples quality of life gets f*cked over by having to spend an unreasonable proportion of their income on housing.

And politicians have spent the last 30 years trying to ignore that rule and have spent the last 30 years making things worse. People need to stop trying to fight reality and just accept it - that's how the world works. It's simple economics 101. The only way to change the price is to increase the supply (by introducing at least a few free market principles to the property market to allow building up, of high quality construction and design, along with the associated facilities and public transport, and strictly combating anti-social behavior of all sorts, as well as giving more power to purchasers, good landlords and good tenants) or decrease demand (by cutting everybody's salaries or making a $hitload of people redundant and shipping them out to the countryside/abroad).

That's one way to run an economy, and happens to be the way which has been fashionable since the late 1980s / early 1990s. The other option is to do what we did for most of our independent history and build publicly subsidised housing so that people could afford it without breaking the bank.

hatrickpatrick

erica74 wrote: »

How do we make the rules about what land/houses can be purchased in order for it to be handed over to people who don't want to pay for their own house? Will it be a national plan or just in cities or just outside of cities, all types of properties, how long do the properties have to be vacant before being CPOed, can properties which are only occupied for 2 weeks every year be CPOed?

There are a number of ways we could do this. In areas which are currently designated as rent pressure zones, for instance, or areas with chronic social housing shortages and massive waiting lists.

I have also had land CPOed by the ESB and the county council and, in my opinion, there's a difference between land being purchased for infrastructure like roads and electricity supply and houses being purchased for people who don't want to pay for their own house. The land that was purchased by the ESB was used to run supply to a new factory built about 15km from our house, which employs hundreds of people. The land purchased by the county council was used for part of a road, which is one of the busiest roads in Ireland.

In my opinion, if we start CPOing private property then that will be become a system equally as abused as the current social housing system.

This is because in your own opinion, housing is a privilege and not something we should guarantee to every citizen as a right, regardless of circumstances or anything else. Personally, I don't agree with that ideology, hence my own proposals. And again, Ireland in general did not follow that ideology until relatively recently.

If we have a housing crisis in Dublin, move these people out of Dublin, remove the right of refusal of anyone on a housing list, make criminal conviction for certain crimes grounds for automatic removal from a housing list, link school attendance to children's allowance, there's plenty else that needs to be done before we start taking property off someone who has paid for it and giving it to someone else who doesn't want to pay for it.

We tried that before. Ghettoes have worked out so well for us in the past, removing people from their social networks and smashing up communities :rolleyes:

Lastly, everyone needs to understand the social contract of paying their way, getting a job and keeping a job, maintaining some sort of stable life before bringing 2, 3, 4, 5 more kids into their lives, exercising personal responsibility, understanding that what you want and paying for it yourself are directly linked.

I don't agree that essential things such as housing should be part of that, same way I don't believe that water should be part of it. You obviously do. Agree to disagree?

jobbridge4life

Delighted to see another direct action. Long may these continue.

Galwayguy35

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Delighted to see another direct action. Long may these continue.

You might think different if you found a crowd of scroungers squatting in your house that you paid for.

The owner should go in a and throw them out.

hatrickpatrick

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You might think different if you found a crowd of scroungers squatting in your house that you paid for.

The owner should go in a and throw them out.

If I owned a house I'd either live in it or rent it out to people who needed it, at a reasonable price. If you choose to keep it derelict and therefore waste it, or charge the maximum you can possibly get away with, without regard to how much that reduces the tenant's quality of life by obliterating their disposable income, you're a scumbag.

Slum landlords and land hoarders deserve every bit of vitriol they get.

sexmag

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Delighted to see another direct action. Long may these continue.

You would feel different about it for sure if you had worked hard to buy a property and then another as you earned a decent wage to buy o be,then the government screws the population up resulting in homelessness and then your house is broken into to prove a point.

All but for some different chances and directions in life this could have been you and some people could be holding your property that you sweated for years to buy hostage so that you will be FORCED to sell it to the government.

These people are dictating your life and how you should be living it and telling what you should or shouldn't do with it.

These people are self riotous scroungers and should be targeting the government and not the people who worked all their life to get what they have because they havent the balls to occupy murphys house or office or Harris or varadkar.

sexmag

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If I owned a house I'd either live in it or rent it out to people who needed it, at a reasonable price.

That's you and everybody is different and you can't tell everyone else what they should do with their life and things, that's called a dictatorship

Tell the government what change you want and get it the diplomatic way

Galwayguy35

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If I owned a house I'd either live in it or rent it out to people who needed it, at a reasonable price. If you choose to keep it derelict and therefore waste it, or charge the maximum you can possibly get away with, without regard to how much that reduces the tenant's quality of life by obliterating their disposable income, you're a scumbag.

Slum landlords and land hoarders deserve every bit of vitriol they get.

They bought the property so they can do what ever they want with it, and I'd suggest the owner contributes a lot more to the country than the wasters squatting in their property.

It's interesting who you view as scumbags..

hatrickpatrick

sexmag wrote: »

That's you and everybody is different and you can't tell everyone else what they should do with their life and things, that's called a dictatorship

So taxes are a dictatorship? Speed limits are a dictatorship? Fare limits on privately operated transport are a dictatorship? Drink driving laws are a dictatorship? Anti-littering laws are a dictatorship?

There are plenty of laws which tell people what to do with their things, when certain actions, even if undertaken using private property, can harm others. Price gouging and misuse of land definitely qualify as actions which can harm others.

Tell the government what change you want and get it the diplomatic way

We have been, and direct action is part of that. Analogy for you: Were protest marches the only thing which killed water charges, or did the numerous examples of direct action in which people slowed down or blocked the installation of meters make any contribution?

Edgware

sexmag wrote: »

You would feel different about it for sure if you had worked hard to buy a property and then another as you earned a decent wage to buy o be,then the government screws the population up resulting in homelessness and then your house is broken into to prove a point.

All but for some different chances and directions in life this could have been you and some people could be holding your property that you sweated for years to buy hostage so that you will be FORCED to sell it to the government.

These people are dictating your life and how you should be living it and telling what you should or shouldn't do with it.

These people are self riotous scroungers and should be targeting the government and not the people who worked all their life to get what they have because they havent the balls to occupy murphys house or office or Harris or varadkar.

Hopefully Rich Boy and Posh Boy will get a few digs when the Guards go in to clear the scruff out

hatrickpatrick

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

They bought the property so they can do what ever they want with it, and I'd suggest the owner contributes a lot more to the country than the wasters squatting in their property.

That's your opinion. I don't share it.

Do you believe that it should be legal for a person, for instance you, to sell your organs (either before or after death, doesn't particularly matter for this analogy)? Why, or why not?

It's interesting who you view as scumbags..

People who choose to exploit others' need for personal gain? Yeah, scumbags.

sexmag

"We have made repeated attempts to contact and negotiate a resolution with the property owner, attempts that have so far been met with aggression and indifference," the DCHA said.

"Yeah here,it us,the DCHA people,we broke inta yer gaff and we won't move until you sell it"

No wonder they been met with "aggression and indifference"

Sounds very organised crime/mafia shake down to me. Bullys

conjon

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If I owned a house I'd either live in it or rent it out to people who needed it, at a reasonable price. If you choose to keep it derelict and therefore waste it, or charge the maximum you can possibly get away with, without regard to how much that reduces the tenant's quality of life by obliterating their disposable income, you're a scumbag.

Slum landlords and land hoarders deserve every bit of vitriol they get.

So a property owner shouldn't be allowed charge what that they want for their property? Christ.

hatrickpatrick

conjon wrote: »

So a property owner shouldn't be allowed charge what that they want for their property? Christ.

Absolutely not.

Again, should a taxi driver be allowed to charge what they want for a lift? Would you be happy if we had a scenario in which a taxi driver could see you on the side of the road in the pissing rain and say "€100 for a ten minute journey, or you walk"? Should the NTA be banned from setting limits on taxi rates and just turn it into a free-for-all?

Galwayguy35

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's your opinion. I don't share it.

Do you believe that it should be legal for a person, for instance you, to sell your organs (either before or after death, doesn't particularly matter for this analogy)? Why, or why not?



People who choose to exploit others' need for personal gain? Yeah, scumbags.

I've no idea what you are trying to say in the first part of the post so let's move on the the second bit.

You also called people who for whatever reason leave their property vacant scumbags, it's their property bought and paid for to do as they wish with it.

Allinall

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely not.

Again, should a taxi driver be allowed to charge what they want for a lift? Would you be happy if we had a scenario in which a taxi driver could see you on the side of the road in the pissing rain and say "€100 for a ten minute journey, or you walk"? Should the NTA be banned from setting limits on taxi rates and just turn it into a free-for-all?

Why not?

Do you think that would lead to a shortage of taxis, similar to the shortage of houses?

hatrickpatrick

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I've no idea what you are trying to say in the first part of the post so let's move on the the second bit.

No, let's not - it's a simple question and one which is central to the ideological clash here. Right now, it's illegal to sell human organs - you can either donate them or keep them, but you can't sell them. Do you believe that this is ideologically wrong? Should it be changed? Why, or why not?

You also called people who for whatever reason leave their property vacant scumbags

Absolutely.

it's their property bought and paid for to do as they wish with it.

That's your opinion. I don't approve of this paradigm and would happily vote for someone who was going to change it. Land is a national resource like many other things, there should be sensible limits on how much freedom people have regarding what they do with it.

Here's another one for you: Should planning permission be abolished? After all, if I own a plot of land, "it's my property bought and paid for to do as I wish with it" - should I be able to build anything I want on it, no questions asked, no democratic involvement, no opportunity for the public or the local government to object, etc? Yes or no?

hatrickpatrick

Allinall wrote: »

Why not?

Do you think that would lead to a shortage of taxis, similar to the shortage of houses?

No, I think it would lead to taxis charging far more than they do now. The demand is 100% there if they were to significantly increase the average taxi fare, the only thing stopping them is that it's illegal.

sexmag

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Here's another one for you: Should planning permission be abolished? After all, if I own a plot of land, "it's my property bought and paid for to do as I wish with it" - should I be able to build anything I want on it, no questions asked, no democratic involvement, no opportunity for the public or the local government to object, etc? Yes or no?

As a matter of fact I do believe current planning permission requirements are to stringent but that's a different matter for a different thread

sexmag

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, I think it would lead to taxis charging far more than they do now. The demand is 100% there if they were to significantly increase the average taxi fare, the only thing stopping them is that it's illegal.

Not really you clearly don't know how business works, what you would have is taxi 1 trying to charge 100 euro,taxi 2 saying screw him I'll only charge 99 to get customers and then taxi 3 charging 98,it will become a competitive buyers market until it reaches a plateau

suicide_circus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, I think it would lead to taxis charging far more than they do now. The demand is 100% there if they were to significantly increase the average taxi fare, the only thing stopping them is that it's illegal.

i get your taxi analogy but it dosnt quite work somehow. Taxi drivers are choosing to provide a public service, private property owners are not.

conjon

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely not.

Again, should a taxi driver be allowed to charge what they want for a lift? Would you be happy if we had a scenario in which a taxi driver could see you on the side of the road in the pissing rain and say "€100 for a ten minute journey, or you walk"? Should the NTA be banned from setting limits on taxi rates and just turn it into a free-for-all?

Why shouldnt they? They have bought the place.

As for that taxi analogy, it's called s free market. You don't want to pay the fare, wait for a cheaper one.

blackwhite

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, I think it would lead to taxis charging far more than they do now. The demand is 100% there if they were to significantly increase the average taxi fare, the only thing stopping them is that it's illegal.

Funny how anywhere where Uber has managed to come in properly that they’ve ended up charging significantly less than the established taxis.

The only reason that taxis used get away with price gouging was that entry into the taxi market was highly restricted. The regulations artificially protected the industry from any real competitive forces.

Do away with price limits now and you’d find taxis much cheaper at quiet times and a small bit more expensive at night time. If fares increased a whole lot at busy times there’d be a jump in the number of drivers, who would eventually start undercutting each other and driving prices back down to more normal levels