Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

n97 mini

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?

I'm going to add my 2c. With taxis the govt is regulating a market which the Competition Authority would say is showing "cartel like behaviour". It is setting the upper fare limits as all taxis charge the same rates. Instead (IMHO) it shouldn't be regulating what is a single market, but should be pro-consumer and create an environment in which real competition can thrive.

I think the same should be applied to the housing market. Govt should not interfere directly by building low density council houses. Instead it should be formulating policy that in areas of demand building heights are set at a minimum, not a maximum as is currently the case. There should be 30+ storey buildings in the city centre, and 8 storey buildings on the fringes of the city centre. As things currently stand, moderately well paid people are living in the outer suburbs as that's all they can afford. If there was more high rise closer to where they work, they could move in, taking pressure off the outer suburbs, which would be available to those on lower incomes.

There is an area behind Connolly Station in Dublin 1 that is full of terraced bungalows. These are as low density as they come, in prime city centre locations. If I had the money I'd replace them with 30+ storey towers and give all the owners 2 or 3 bed apartments in the new tower.

I agree with this Councillor regarding AirBnB. They should be banned in cities where homes are needed. https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/calls-for-airbnb-to-be-banned-in-cork-city-865366.html

n97 mini

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with this Councillor regarding AirBnB. They should be banned in cities where homes are needed. https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/calls-for-airbnb-to-be-banned-in-cork-city-865366.html

The problem is there aren't enough hotel rooms. Again, govt should be increasing competition, not regulating one aspect of the market.

KevRossi

Paul Murphy on the news this evening...

Interviewer: "So what's going on here, what's the next step?..."
Murphy: "Eh, well as far as I'm aware..."

Translation: I haven't a fcuking clue, I was told by one of my crew that a camera was here as it's D-Day, so I got my arse up here as quickly as possible.

Pretzeluck

n97 mini wrote: »

I'm going to add my 2c. With taxis the govt is regulating a market which the Competition Authority would say is showing "cartel like behaviour". It is setting the upper fare limits as all taxis charge the same rates. Instead (IMHO) it shouldn't be regulating what is a single market, but should be pro-consumer and create an environment in which real competition can thrive.

I think the same should be applied to the housing market. Govt should not interfere directly by building low density council houses. Instead it should be formulating policy that in areas of demand building heights are set at a minimum, not a maximum as is currently the case. There should be 30+ storey buildings in the city centre, and 8 storey buildings on the fringes of the city centre. As things currently stand, moderately well paid people are living in the outer suburbs as that's all they can afford. If there was more high rise closer to where they work, they could move in, taking pressure off the outer suburbs, which would be available to those on lower incomes.

There is an area behind Connolly Station in Dublin 1 that is full of terraced bungalows. These are as low density as they come, in prime city centre locations. If I had the money I'd replace them with 30+ storey towers and give all the owners 2 or 3 bed apartments in the new tower.

But, but it spoils my view!

end of the road

conjon wrote: »

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.

the free market doesn't always work in some situations unfortunately.

beertons

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

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

I was parked, illegally, outside this place yesterday. There was a group of kids on the steps, and they had to individually give their name and age before they were let in. Then the guy on the door looked out. He was holding a cut out of Leo Varadker over his face, so he wouldn't be recognised. Had the eyes cut out so he could look out. Looked at me a few times too, I burst out laughing, as it was very clever. More people came up to the door, but he told them to scarper till the van went away. The amount of locks and bolts on the door, there must have been 6/8, as it made loads of noise, and took a while to get them all open.

TallyRand

@hatrickpatrick, why don’t you go buy a gaff and charge a “reasonable rent”?
Get all your mates to do the same and you will turn the tide and I’m sure you’ll all charge a “reasonable rent” for as long as you all live

Wheeliebin30

Leeches.

hatrickpatrick

sexmag wrote: »

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

That's not what I asked. Should they exist at all? Yes or no?

sexmag wrote: »

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

This is true when taxis are plentiful, but it's not true in the example I gave, late at night on a weekday in horrible weather. Someone trying to get home who's just flagged the one taxi they've seen in half an hour can be taken advantage of without price controls - and the taxi driver would know it. Do you seriously imagine nobody would ever get gouged in this scenario?

It happens regularly with hotels, in fact - prices go up during periods of higher demand (matches, concerts, large events, etc). Everyone loses but the hoteliers. Your free market ideology doesn't work when there's genuine scarcity, as there obviously is in the example I gave.

hatrickpatrick

suicide_circus wrote: »

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.

So taxis provide a public service but people who make their properties available to rent do not? How does that make sense?

As far as I'm concerned, the very reason we have private business is as a means to an end to provide functioning and necessary services in society. Providing housing is definitely providing an essential service to the public and as such it shouldn't be allowed to be profit driven, but driven by the needs of society as a whole. Why do you regard being a taxi driver as providing a service, but being a landlord as somehow different? Housing is as, if not even slightly more, essential a public service in a functioning society as transport is.

hatrickpatrick

conjon wrote: »

Why shouldnt they? They have bought the place.

Because land is a valuable national resource and affordable housing is essential in a functioning society. If you want to profiteer and take advantage of scarcity, do it in a sector which people can live without if they get priced out of it. Some things are too important for society's functioning to be left at the mercy of profiteering.

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

And yet we literally don't have one in Ireland right now - taxis are forced to charge the same fares across the board. Do you disapprove of this? And what if the taxi who chooses to charge you €100 for a ten minute drive is the only one covering that stretch of road at the time you need to get home, and the driver knows it? You can't just wait for a cheaper one if one isn't going to show up.

hatrickpatrick

blackwhite wrote: »

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

And yet, as you well know, entry to the housing market is highly restricted at the moment, and ridiculous expensive as well. So the industry is being protected from competition by a variety of factors - and I'm arguing that in this scenario, until we sort out the supply side issues, consumers need to be protected from opportunistic price gouging. There can't be "a jump in the number of landlords / developers" when the amount of land we have to work with is limited, and the planning process and other factors are ridiculously bureaucratic. That's not going to be fixed nearly quickly enough to avoid several more years of price gouging in the meantime, and I for one find just putting up with that ideologically unacceptable.

hatrickpatrick

n97 mini wrote: »

The problem is there aren't enough hotel rooms. Again, govt should be increasing competition, not regulating one aspect of the market.

But in a crisis situation where both are scarce, we can easily see that one is needed more by society than the other, and the one which is needed more by society is the one which comes with less profit. So the only way to ensure that the supply of one (housing) is not choked by available resources (housing units) being used to instead supply the other (hotel space). And that has to be done through government regulation / legislation. The market cannot fix that by itself, and it certainly can't do it overnight as we need it done.

hatrickpatrick

TallyRand wrote: »

@hatrickpatrick, why don’t you go buy a gaff and charge a “reasonable rent”?
Get all your mates to do the same and you will turn the tide and I’m sure you’ll all charge a “reasonable rent” for as long as you all live

If I ever end up in a position to afford to do this, It's actually always been a fantasy of mine. As it happens myself and most people my age can barely afford their own rent, never mind actually buying something.

In all honesty though, I've always said that if I ever manage to earn a lot of disposable income or win the euromillions or something, I'd buy a f*ckload of apartments and exponentially reduce the rents on them just to make as many peoples' lives easier as possible. But I don't see why you're deflecting this to an individual thing when it's very obviously something the state needs to be doing on a society-wide level, as it did right up until the beginning of the 1990s.

If we had privatised water in this country and the companies involved were literally pricing many people out of being able to keep themselves hygenic or have enough to drink, would your solution seriously be "sink your own well and get your mates to do the same so ye can provide water at some point in the future", or would you be demanding government intervention to ensure affordable access to drinking water? Do you believe that any simultaneously vital and scarce resource should be price controlled so that the scarcity isn't exploited to rip people off?

sexmag

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If I ever end up in a position to afford to do this, It's actually always been a fantasy of mine. As it happens myself and most people my age can barely afford their own rent, never mind actually buying something.

So your view is already askewed and biased on this enitre situation

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In all honesty though, I've always said that if I ever manage to earn a lot of disposable income or win the euromillions or something, I'd buy a f*ckload of apartments and exponentially reduce the rents on them just to make as many peoples' lives easier as possible. But I don't see why you're deflecting this to an individual thing when it's very obviously something the state needs to be doing on a society-wide level, as it did right up until the beginning of the 1990s.

Fantasy and practicalities are two very different things though.

As an example my parents could never afford to buy their home ,theyve rented for years,scrapped by to give us the best they could, my brothers and sisters and i are lucky enough to have a decent paying jobs, i won a chunk of money years ago, not huge but enough that we decided it would be best to put the money down as a deposit and buy them a house near the west where they use to bring us as children, we all chip in each month and with 6 of us we cover the mortgage fine, we did try and rent it out but nobody was renting it due to location not being close enough for work etc so weve kept it, they are planning to retire there in a few year and we all visit periodically over the summer but for 90% of the year its empty.

Should we be forced to sell our home to give it to someone else after we all put our money together to buy this house for the people who sacarficed a lot for us growing up so we can give them somewhere to relax in their old age and enjoy life without any porblems?

Not a bloody chance are we going to stand and let that happen mate, changing the enitre social structure of what we did to benifit other people who havent isnt the way forward

Edgware

sexmag wrote: »

So your view is already askewed and biased on this enitre situation

Fantasy and practicalities are two very different things though.

As an example my parents could never afford to buy their home ,theyve rented for years,scrapped by to give us the best they could, my brothers and sisters and i are lucky enough to have a decent paying jobs, i won a chunk of money years ago, not huge but enough that we decided it would be best to put the money down as a deposit and buy them a house near the west where they use to bring us as children, we all chip in each month and with 6 of us we cover the mortgage fine, we did try and rent it out but nobody was renting it due to location not being close enough for work etc so weve kept it, they are planning to retire there in a few year and we all visit periodically over the summer but for 90% of the year its empty.

Should we be forced to sell our home to give it to someone else after we all put our money together to buy this house for the people who sacarficed a lot for us growing up so we can give them somewhere to relax in their old age and enjoy life without any porblems?

Not a bloody chance are we going to stand and let that happen mate, changing the enitre social structure of what we did to benifit other people who havent isnt the way forward

Maybe when McAleeses and Co lead by example and open up their holiday homes to house Ms Cash and sprogs

sexmag

Edgware wrote: »

Maybe when McAleeses and Co lead by example and open up their holiday homes to house Ms Cash and sprogs

She wouldnt accept it, no matter how big or nice the house was as its not where she wants to be

weldoninhio

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 do. I believe that you should be able to sell your organs off before you die. Maybe E10k now and your funeral expenses paid for. I'd do that. Why? BEcause it costs around E40k a year to keep someone on dialysis, so i'd be saving the govt money in the long term.

I'll never be a donor for free.

weldoninhio

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?

Ridiculous analogy. The most apt one using a taxi driver would be should he be allowed sell his car for whatever he wants. The answer to that is yes.

hatrickpatrick

sexmag wrote: »

So your view is already askewed and biased on this enitre situation

Of course it is.

As an example my parents could never afford to buy their home ,theyve rented for years,scrapped by to give us the best they could, my brothers and sisters and i are lucky enough to have a decent paying jobs, i won a chunk of money years ago, not huge but enough that we decided it would be best to put the money down as a deposit and buy them a house near the west where they use to bring us as children, we all chip in each month and with 6 of us we cover the mortgage fine, we did try and rent it out but nobody was renting it due to location not being close enough for work etc so weve kept it, they are planning to retire there in a few year and we all visit periodically over the summer but for 90% of the year its empty.

Should we be forced to sell our home to give it to someone else after we all put our money together to buy this house for the people who sacarficed a lot for us growing up so we can give them somewhere to relax in their old age and enjoy life without any porblems?

Not a bloody chance are we going to stand and let that happen mate, changing the enitre social structure of what we did to benifit other people who havent isnt the way forward

The bolded part is the relevant part. Your disused property is not being wasted in an area and time period in which there is a housing crisis, clearly. Someone would have rented it if it was. If the house was in a pressure zone and you'd made it available to rent, as you say you did here, someone would have taken it - and in that scenario, yes, I absolutely believe that if you'd chosen to leave it empty rather than renting it, thus hoarding a resource which is desperately short supply, that's when government intervention would have been mandated.

Apples and oranges.

Sweet.Science

How is this property occupied midweek ?

How are they getting time off work to do it ?

hatrickpatrick

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ridiculous analogy. The most apt one using a taxi driver would be should he be allowed sell his car for whatever he wants. The answer to that is yes.

How is that a better analogy when it comes to renting a house? You're paying a fee for the temporary usage of the house, just like you pay a taxi driver a temporary fee for the usage of the vehicle and his or her service in driving it.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If we had privatised water in this country and the companies involved were literally pricing many people out of being able to keep themselves hygenic or have enough to drink, would your solution seriously be "sink your own well and get your mates to do the same so ye can provide water at some point in the future", or would you be demanding government intervention to ensure affordable access to drinking water?

I'm not exactly sure what the current situation is for a connection but my memory from a few years ago is that if you lived outside the town and were too far from "town water" then our local council didnt give a damn.

Yes, it was literally "go and sink your own well", thousands have done it all over the country.

weldoninhio

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is that a better analogy when it comes to renting a house? You're paying a fee for the temporary usage of the house, just like you pay a taxi driver a temporary fee for the usage of the vehicle and his or her service in driving it.

Eh, there is nothing temporary about a taxi fee. :rolleyes:

You pay rent for the sole use of the house. You pay a taxi fare to get from A to B. You don't get to use the car as and when you want.

hatrickpatrick

weldoninhio wrote: »

I do. I believe that you should be able to sell your organs off before you die. Maybe E10k now and your funeral expenses paid for. I'd do that. Why? BEcause it costs around E40k a year to keep someone on dialysis, so i'd be saving the govt money in the long term.

I'll never be a donor for free.

In that case we just have fundamentally opposing views. I respect your right to yours, but I believe to some extent in the greater good, which obviously you do not - continuing to debate on this once we acknowledge those differing views is fairly pointless. Good debate all the same.

However, I suspect that not everyone who read my post would be ok with profiteering on one's organs, thus making organ transplants only "affordable" to some people - and it's those people who I'm looking for an explanation from as to why land should be treated differently.

hatrickpatrick

weldoninhio wrote: »

Eh, there is nothing temporary about a taxi fee. :rolleyes:

Oh FFS, are we really going to turn this into an argument over semantics? You're paying a fee for temporary use of the vehicle, not buying it permanently.

You pay rent for the sole use of the house. You pay a taxi fare to get from A to B. You don't get to use the car as and when you want.

How are they not comparable? You're paying for something on a temporary basis, and if you want to continue using it beyond that initially agreed period (in the case of rent, a time period, in the case of a taxi, a certain distance) you pay more. The two are directly analogous. Selling the car is only analogous to selling the house - and as cars are not in desperately short supply nor an essential resource for everyone to have, price controls on their ownership are unnecessary and don't make sense. Transport, on the other hand, is an essential resource, hence why we don't allow unchecked profiteering from it.

weldoninhio

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In that case we just have fundamentally opposing views. I respect your right to yours, but I believe to some extent in the greater good, which obviously you do not - continuing to debate on this once we acknowledge those differing views is fairly pointless. Good debate all the same.

However, I suspect that not everyone who read my post would be ok with profiteering on one's organs, thus making organ transplants only "affordable" to some people - and it's those people who I'm looking for an explanation from as to why land should be treated differently.

It would be the government i'd be willing to sell my organs to, thus saving them money on keeping people on dialysis etc, thus having more money to spend on other areas.

CosmicJay

Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the board,

I motion to rename them from Protestors to 'crusties'.

Thank you for your time today.

sexmag

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh FFS, are we really going to turn this into an argument over semantics? You're paying a fee for temporary use of the vehicle, not buying it permanently.



How are they not comparable? You're paying for something on a temporary basis, and if you want to continue using it beyond that initially agreed period (in the case of rent, a time period, in the case of a taxi, a certain distance) you pay more. The two are directly analogous. Selling the car is only analogous to selling the house - and as cars are not in desperately short supply nor an essential resource for everyone to have, price controls on their ownership are unnecessary and don't make sense. Transport, on the other hand, is an essential resource, hence why we don't allow unchecked profiteering from it.

Except where your analogy is wrong is in 2018 nobody will be stuck in the rain trying to hail a taxi and get charged 100 quid, you can halo a taxi,uber one,ring one and agree a price before your start

blackwhite

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In that case we just have fundamentally opposing views. I respect your right to yours, but I believe to some extent in the greater good, which obviously you do not - continuing to debate on this once we acknowledge those differing views is fairly pointless. Good debate all the same.

However, I suspect that not everyone who read my post would be ok with profiteering on one's organs, thus making organ transplants only "affordable" to some people - and it's those people who I'm looking for an explanation from as to why land should be treated differently.

Such disingenuous BS. For some reason I expected a little bit better from you than some smug "well I'm just a better person than you" bolloxology.


Some people don't believe that the "greater good" is served by expecting everyone else to pay for your own poor life decisions.
Some people don't believe that granting free or almost-free accomodation near commercial centres at the expense of working people (and thus driving up the costs for working people - the ones who are paying the taxes to subsidise the non-workers) serves the greater good.
And funnily enough - some people don't think that the greater good is served by a bunch of Arts students deciding that because they chose to pursue a lifepath that means they can't afford the same lifestyle as people in decent careers, that they should be entitled to either steal private property or to expect the people with decent careers to pay for those who chose not to provide for themselves.

hatrickpatrick

sexmag wrote: »

Except where your analogy is wrong is in 2018 nobody will be stuck in the rain trying to hail a taxi and get charged 100 quid, you can halo a taxi,uber one,ring one and agree a price before your start

But you can't do this with housing, because it's in desperately short supply.

hatrickpatrick

blackwhite wrote: »

Such disingenuous BS. For some reason I expected a little bit better from you than some smug "well I'm just a better person than you" bolloxology.

Actually I'm not saying that, at all. I respect peoples' right to hold right wing views, I just neither agree with them nor personally find them morally justifiable. But I do accept that this is merely my own opinion and that it's no more valid than anyone else's opinion.

Some people don't believe that the "greater good" is served by expecting everyone else to pay for your own poor life decisions.
Some people don't believe that granting free or almost-free accomodation near commercial centres at the expense of working people (and thus driving up the costs for working people - the ones who are paying the taxes to subsidise the non-workers) serves the greater good.
And funnily enough - some people don't think that the greater good is served by a bunch of Arts students deciding that because they chose to pursue a lifepath that means they can't afford the same lifestyle as people in decent careers, that they should be entitled to either steal private property or to expect the people with decent careers to pay for those who chose not to provide for themselves.

That's all fair enough and I respect your opinion. I believe that housing should be an absolute right and that inability to afford it just shouldn't be a "thing" in society. I don't think it should be regarded as a commercial asset unless it's in such plentiful supply that nobody is getting fleeced on prices. I fundamentally regard the quality of life of the average citizen renting a property to be of greater importance than the right of the property owner to choose to charge rents which diminish their tenant's quality of life by obliterating their disposable income, because ultimately there are more tenants in the world than landlords, so protecting tenants from gouging means that a greater number of people are guaranteed a better quality of life than if we protected landlords from price controls. That's simple mathematics as far as I'm concerned.

I don't regard myself as a better person for holding these views, I just regard myself as so fundamentally different to yourself that continuing to debate is somewhat pointless. You have a fundamentally different view of society and how it should work, and while I don't agree with it, and personally regard it as morally repugnant, I do respect your right to hold it. In the same way as I always respected, during the recent referendum debate, the right of the right (heh) to their genuinely held beliefs on the subject. I was never one of the "vote yes or you're a scumbag" muppets and you can find plenty of examples on Boards of me opposing that kind of carry on.

I'm merely stating that we see the world in fundamentally different ways, and therefore that no amount of ongoing debate is going to change either of our stances. Does there not come a point at which it makes more sense to agree to disagree? You regard housing as something optional that people should have to earn, I do not - I regard it as something fundamentally necessary which should be guaranteed to each person, regardless of any factors whatsoever. Neither of us is likely to change our opinions, and we've both stated why we believe what we do - I'm not making a judgment on you other than being a typical human and stating that I believe my opinion to be more humane. But again, I accept that this is just my opinion and nothing more.

sexmag

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's all fair enough and I respect your opinion. I believe that housing should be an absolute right and that inability to afford it just shouldn't be a "thing" in society. I don't think it should be regarded as a commercial asset unless it's in such plentiful supply that nobody is getting fleeced on prices. I fundamentally regard the quality of life of the average citizen renting a property to be of greater importance than the right of the property owner to choose to charge rents which diminish their tenant's quality of life by obliterating their disposable income, because ultimately there are more tenants in the world than landlords, so protecting tenants from gouging means that a greater number of people are guaranteed a better quality of life than if we protected landlords from price controls. That's simple mathematics as far as I'm concerned.

you believe it should be a right but these rights are only given to you by people in the higher ups, watch george carlin talk about rights and it might change your opinion.
The thing is there is affordable housing, around the country there are areas that are affordable for people it just doesnt suit them based on location, ireland is small, if this country was twice the size it is now this problem wouldnt be happening but its not. Rural areas are all the stopping people having a home if they want it

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm merely stating that we see the world in fundamentally different ways, and therefore that no amount of ongoing debate is going to change either of our stances. Does there not come a point at which it makes more sense to agree to disagree? You regard housing as something optional that people should have to earn, I do not - I regard it as something fundamentally necessary which should be guaranteed to each person, regardless of any factors whatsoever. Neither of us is likely to change our opinions, and we've both stated why we believe what we do - I'm not making a judgment on you other than being a typical human and stating that I believe my opinion to be more humane. But again, I accept that this is just my opinion and nothing more.

And how will it work in this society where everyone is enititled to a house,im assuming from birth as is their right as you put it? There will be no incentive to work, nobody will go out and get a job to keep the roof over their head as its always there, this in turn brings society to collapse, the fear of lossing ones home makes them go out and work and provide for their family and this is turn keeps society moving

blackwhite

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually I'm not saying that, at all. I respect peoples' right to hold right wing views, I just neither agree with them nor personally find them morally justifiable. But I do accept that this is merely my own opinion and that it's no more valid than anyone else's opinion.



That's all fair enough and I respect your opinion. I believe that housing should be an absolute right and that inability to afford it just shouldn't be a "thing" in society. I don't think it should be regarded as a commercial asset unless it's in such plentiful supply that nobody is getting fleeced on prices. I fundamentally regard the quality of life of the average citizen renting a property to be of greater importance than the right of the property owner to choose to charge rents which diminish their tenant's quality of life by obliterating their disposable income, because ultimately there are more tenants in the world than landlords, so protecting tenants from gouging means that a greater number of people are guaranteed a better quality of life than if we protected landlords from price controls. That's simple mathematics as far as I'm concerned.

I don't regard myself as a better person for holding these views, I just regard myself as so fundamentally different to yourself that continuing to debate is somewhat pointless. You have a fundamentally different view of society and how it should work, and while I don't agree with it, and personally regard it as morally repugnant, I do respect your right to hold it. In the same way as I always respected, during the recent referendum debate, the right of the right (heh) to their genuinely held beliefs on the subject. I was never one of the "vote yes or you're a scumbag" muppets and you can find plenty of examples on Boards of me opposing that kind of carry on.

I'm merely stating that we see the world in fundamentally different ways, and therefore that no amount of ongoing debate is going to change either of our stances. Does there not come a point at which it makes more sense to agree to disagree? You regard housing as something optional that people should have to earn, I do not - I regard it as something fundamentally necessary which should be guaranteed to each person, regardless of any factors whatsoever. Neither of us is likely to change our opinions, and we've both stated why we believe what we do - I'm not making a judgment on you other than being a typical human and stating that I believe my opinion to be more humane. But again, I accept that this is just my opinion and nothing more.

Branding people as "morally repugnant" for disagreeing with you is a fairly sh*tty attitude TBH.

Plenty of people might regard those who refuse to take any responsibility for their poor life decisions, and demand the right to steal what they want from people who've bother to actually look after themselves as morally repugnant - but each to their own.


Basic housing should be a right - very few people disagree with that.

Trying to extend that from basic housing to a right to housing in the prime locations, at the expense of people who actually fund themselves, and demanding a higher quality than people who pay their own way can afford is where most "decent" people differ from you.

Trying then to pretend that everyone who doesn't share your view of the full suite of entitlements is fully opposed to any housing at all is also fairly repugnant. But then I guess it's easier to build a strawman than actually argue the facts

johnnyskeleton

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually I'm not saying that, at all. I respect peoples' right to hold right wing views, I just neither agree with them nor personally find them morally justifiable. But I do accept that this is merely my own opinion and that it's no more valid than anyone else's opinion.

That's all fair enough and I respect your opinion. I believe that housing should be an absolute right and that inability to afford it just shouldn't be a "thing" in society.

What level of property should I be able to demand uder this absolute right? Can I insist on getting a free 6 bed ballsbridge townhouse or a period home with 200 acres in Kildare? If I can't, then its not an absolute right and is instead a qualified right.

sexmag

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What level of property should I be able to demand uder this absolute right? Can I insist on getting a free 6 bed ballsbridge townhouse or a period home with 200 acres in Kildare? If I can't, then its not an absolute right and is instead a qualified right.

Edgware

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But you can't do this with housing, because it's in desperately short supply.

There is no desperate shortage of housing. Older couples, widows and widowers who's children are reared and gone are holding social properties which are more family appropriate.
Similarly there is no encouragement for older couples who own houses to consider downsizing

end of the road

Sweet.Science wrote: »

How is this property occupied midweek ?

How are they getting time off work to do it ?

people work a multitude of various different shifts these days. it's not all 9 to 5 anymore. so therefore people can do shifts at the occupation.

CosmicJay wrote: »

Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the board,

I motion to rename them from Protestors to 'crusties'.

Thank you for your time today.

motion denied.

sexmag wrote: »

you believe it should be a right but these rights are only given to you by people in the higher ups, watch george carlin talk about rights and it might change your opinion.
The thing is there is affordable housing, around the country there are areas that are affordable for people it just doesnt suit them based on location, ireland is small, if this country was twice the size it is now this problem wouldnt be happening but its not. Rural areas are all the stopping people having a home if they want it

exactly. you aren't going to get people moving in mass to rural areas because there is nothing for them there. it would also cost a hell of a lot to implement everything to allow them to have a good quality of life there. the world trend i believe is toards increased urbanisation anyway. those who live in rural areas want to do so because they feel the quality of life they get is worth the trade-off of the benefits city life can bring.

sexmag wrote: »

And how will it work in this society where everyone is enititled to a house,im assuming from birth as is their right as you put it? There will be no incentive to work, nobody will go out and get a job to keep the roof over their head as its always there, this in turn brings society to collapse, the fear of lossing ones home makes them go out and work and provide for their family and this is turn keeps society moving

sorry but i believe this is nonsense. there are plenty of incentives to work and always would be even if society covered everything. i don't believe everybody is going to stop working just because of subsidized accommodation. the fear of losing one's home is 1 of many reasons why someone goes to work, removing that fear won't suddenly make those people decide not to work. i believe your view is just scare mongering tbh.

sexmag

end of the road wrote: »

sorry but i believe this is nonsense. there are plenty of incentives to work and always would be even if society covered everything. i don't believe everybody is going to stop working just because of subsidized accommodation. the fear of losing one's home is 1 of many reasons why someone goes to work, removing that fear won't suddenly make those people decide not to work. i believe your view is just scare mongering tbh.

A vast amount of people currently on the dole,currently live in social welfare housing, there is no incentive for them to get work as they have no need too, the money they get covers more than their basic needs and leads many to having holidays and such each year. I stand firmly by my point and know thats what a lot of other people agree would happen, the attitude of if we gave eveyone free houses they would go and work is nonsense and living in a fairytale land

end of the road

sexmag wrote: »

A vast amount of people currently on the dole,currently live in social welfare housing, there is no incentive for them to get work as they have no need too, the money they get covers more than their basic needs and leads many to having holidays and such each year. I stand firmly by my point and know thats what a lot of other people agree would happen, the attitude of if we gave eveyone free houses they would go and work is nonsense and living in a fairytale land

some of those people are what would be considered unemployable and would never be given work. others are on the way back to work. those who are on the dole are in many varied and different circumstances. the majority will work soon. there is no attitude of "if we gave everyone a subsidized house they would go and work" . there is an attitude of "the vast vast majority of people will work no matter what because it brings them more opportunities then not working"

Galwayguy35

end of the road wrote: »

people work a multitude of various different shifts these days. it's not all 9 to 5 anymore. so therefore people can do shifts at the occupation.

I'm going to take a wild guess here that most of the folks squatting in that house would know very little about shift work or the USC.

Galwayguy35

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?



Absolutely.



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?

What on earth are you raving on about selling organs?

As for the second bit, no I don't and I'm saying this as someone who went through the planning process.

But you think it's fine for a few crusties to illegally enter someone's property so you really didn't have any credible argument to start with.

You're not Brendan Ogle by any chance are you?

Graces7

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm going to take a wild guess here that most of the folks squatting in that house would know very little about shift work or the USC.

at l east you admit is is a "wild guess"...

AndrewJRenko

blackwhite wrote: »

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

Yeah, they might be a little cheaper all right.

They might also be a more tired having worked all night to make the same amount of money, which just might lead to more crashes.

They might also be less accessible for people with disabilities, as all the improvements built into taxi regulation over the last 5 to 10 years roll back. They might also be untrained, as all the regulations about mandatory training and certification roll back. They might also be unvetted, so you can work out just which category of criminal you want to drive your tipsy daughter or wife home.

Be careful what you wish for.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, they might be a little cheaper all right.

They might also be a more tired having worked all night to make the same amount of money, which just might lead to more crashes.

They might also be less accessible for people with disabilities, as all the improvements built into taxi regulation over the last 5 to 10 years roll back. They might also be untrained, as all the regulations about mandatory training and certification roll back. They might also be unvetted, so you can work out just which category of criminal you want to drive your tipsy daughter or wife home.

Be careful what you wish for.

Ah yes, deregulation. The theory is it will serve the the greater good....... B*ll*x. Just look at the bus system in Manchester.

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2016/oct/26/30-years-bus-deregulation-greater-manchester-mayor

They seem to have entered a third house yesterday, on Mountjoy Square.