Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

The owners have applied for planning permission to turn the property into offices.

ArmaniJeanss

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

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

DONTMATTER

lawred2 wrote: »

what would you like done?

Something to improve the situation. I'm not in government, I'm not an expert on this kind of thing. Either the government aren't either or they just don't want to help.

sexmag

P_1 wrote: »

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

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

Well then storm the city council offices or legally fight the challenge if they aren't happy, this kind of crap will lead to homeless people breaking into properties and saying "well they did it and told me to do it"

DONTMATTER

sbsquarepants wrote: »

By not letting out a house on which he could get considerable rental income, rents are at an all time high are they not?

You're going to have to explain this evil master plan to me, I must to be missing a step or two!

Read boom baps posts or the facebook page.

DONTMATTER

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

What's going to happen next Tuesday when these wasters have to leave the house to collect their dole and leave the house unoccupied?

No, they're champagne socialists. They have bigger houses than you.

sbsquarepants

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Like was said, highlight awareness, show that these people haven't been forgotten about, pressurise those who can do something about this. It's a good thing, they're not just sitting around, they're going and doing something about it.

You think demanding someone else buys you a house is "doing something about" your housing situation?

P_1

sexmag wrote: »

Well then storm the city council offices or legally fight the challenge if they aren't happy, this kind of crap will lead to homeless people breaking into properties and saying "well they did it and told me to do it"

Hasn't that been tried before and failed?

Not gonna break out the Einstein quote but you get the drift

DONTMATTER

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

An utterly bitter and twisted loon who effectively exists on here to try (and ultimately fail) to wind other posters up. Someone whom you're absolutely right to have on ignore.

These "activists" are just a shower of wasters committing a crime.

I have that other poster on ignore.

I have posted in a reasonable fashion and only offered my support to these decent people trying to help. I hope the mods sort out the personal abuse dished out by you.

lawred2

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You think demanding someone else buys you a house is "doing something about" your housing situation?

you're obviously not an expert on this

DONTMATTER

P_1 wrote: »

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

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

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

Gatling

Will they be offering free beauty treatments and photoshoots for fake homeless people

DONTMATTER

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You think demanding someone else buys you a house is "doing something about" your housing situation?

What? Read about the protest and the shameful behaviour of the landlord.

PlaneSpeeking

Gatling wrote: »

Will they be offering free beauty treatments and photosoots for fake homeless people

I'd say Erica F is on her way, not like she has anything better to do.

Gatling

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd say Erica F is on her way, not like she has anything better to do.

Them drafty windows are terrible during a heat wave

sexmag

DONTMATTER wrote: »

What? Read about the protest and the shameful behaviour of the landlord.

I dont like the behaviour of a lot of politicians, should I just break into somewhere to prove my point?

Donald Trump

sbsquarepants wrote: »

By not letting out a house on which he could get considerable rental income, rents are at an all time high are they not?

You're going to have to explain this evil master plan to me, I must to be missing a step or two!

Well obviously these O'Donnell people are wealthy businessmen and must be educated somewhat on how these things work. Whereas the rest of the population are gobshites.



They have a lot of currently valuable properties in this area. Properties where they had 120 people paying 4-500 a month each to them (that's up to 60k a month).


Obviously, if you have those valuable properties, with that type of income, what you are going to want to do is to kick out the tenants so that you don't have to bother with the paperwork for that 60k a month.


Then you are going to try to turn the area into a slum instead of the Eden is was formerly (an idyllic paradise of 20-25 people crammed into a house).


Once it is turned into a slum, your property values plummet. and you no longer have to worry about the pesky 60k a month


Profit


apparently



:pac:

seamus

sexmag wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/housing-groups-occupying-vacant-dublin-building-say-theyre-overwhelmed-by-public-support-37195456.html

I'm sorry but how is breaking into a privately owned house raising awareness?

This is a criminal act and should be treated as such

To be fair, it's right there:

“We want to raise awareness that local authorities have the power to CPO buildings from private landlords, and we want to expose the problem of vacant houses and slums being left with nobody in them while there is a massive problem with homelessness,” the spokeswoman said.

They're making the point that while the government blames low rates of building as the reason for the housing shortage, there are vacant properties all over the place. And rising property prices mean the property is generating significant wealth for the landlord without having to lift a finger.

It's a valid point; if not CPOing, we should at least be heavily penalising property hoarding so that it costs you money to hold onto it.

DONTMATTER

sexmag wrote: »

I dont like the behaviour of a lot of politicians, should I just break into somewhere to prove my point?

What are you protesting against?

wildlifeboy

can they occupy 169 clonsilla road and clean it up a bit please?

Gatling

DONTMATTER wrote: »

What are you protesting against?

Better ice cream options in this weather

lawred2

DONTMATTER wrote: »

What are you protesting against?

insufficient levels of free stuff I'd say

Donald Trump

I for one think that it makes perfect sense, especially from an efficient use of resource perspective, that very valuable property in the city centre should be purchased by public money and given to the least productive people in society. Why get up at 12pm for a solid afternoon **** and looking out the window in an estate in Longford when you can do that while looking out onto the busiest streets in the nation?

And the people paying the taxes to buy the houses, can be happy in the knowledge that they've been up six hours already at that stage, what with their daily commute from Mullingar or Drogheda so that they can earn money to pay for those houses for the **** crusties.

PlaneSpeeking

lawred2 wrote: »

insufficient levels of free stuff I'd say

That rank gob****e Pat Flanagan in the Mirror today was riling these idiots up to "take direct action" like they did with water.

Do these AAA/PBP eejits EVER want to pay for anything ?????

PlaneSpeeking

Donald Trump wrote: »

I for one think that it makes perfect sense, especially from an efficient use of resource perspective, that very valuable property in the city centre should be purchased by public money and given to the least productive people in society. Why get up at 12pm for a solid afternoon **** and looking out the window in an estate in Longford when you can do that while looking out onto the busiest streets in the nation?

And the people paying the taxes to buy the houses, can be happy in the knowledge that they've been up six hours already at that stage, what with their daily commute from Mullingar or Drogheda so that they can earn money to pay for those houses for the **** crusties.

Bloody good point!

Love to Tiffany!!

Donald Trump

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Bloody good point!

Love to Tiffany!!

There is no Tiffany. We don't talk about here here or anywhere else. She is a myth


There is only Ivanka!

AfterLife

Use it or lose it.

AfterLife

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And that randomer "heard" it somewhere too.

Jesus there are some gullible folk around these parts.

Says the absolute biggest waffler on boards. Have you a fantastical anecdote about this story yet or can we expect it later?

Chris_Heilong

New age socialist are at it again :rolleyes:

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's not that simple for the landlord or the authorities.

We're dealing with people who could well be struggling with significant mental health issues.

Mental Health officials need to be on the scene when the forced removal takes place and protesters assessed before being taken into custody.

DONTMATTER

AfterLife wrote: »

Says the absolute biggest waffler on boards. Have you a fantastical anecdote about this story yet or can we expect it later?

Please stop quoting that poster. Ignore doesn't work if they get quoted. Thanks.

sbsquarepants

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Read boom baps posts or the facebook page.

I've read the post. I see the master plan in all it's evil genius now. It's called business as far as I can tell. Business man has bought some property and wants to redevelop it, what of it?
You don't have some god given right to live in another persons house, even if you really, really, really want to be next your ma, or it's handy for signing on.

What made the evictions illegal by the way, I'm not familiar with the details?

PlaneSpeeking

Donald Trump wrote: »

There is no Tiffany. We don't talk about here here or anywhere else. She is a myth


There is only Ivanka!

I'd say love to Ivanka but dude you got that covered lol!

Red_Wake

I see there's been a few unsubstantiated allegations about the owners being slumlords. No doubt this will be repeated as fact ad nauseum with each moron pointing to another's post as evidence.

Any documentation or links to back this up?

DONTMATTER

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've read the post. I see the master plan in all it's evil genius now. It's called business as far as I can tell. Business man has bought some property and wants to redevelop it, what of it?
You don't have some god given right to live in another persons house, even if you really, really, really want to be next your ma, or it's handy for signing on.

What made the evictions illegal by the way, I'm not familiar with the details?

You support the gangster landlord?

soups05

how about a compromise? the dcc buys the house, gets it to a decent state, then sells it for a fair market value to someone who is working for a living.

the profit is then used to build social housing elsewhere for those looking for the "free gaff".

landlord does not make obscene profit from hoarding stock.

hard working people get a house at a reasonable price.

free loaders, eh i mean the less well off get a house albeit not in the center of a high price urban area.,

the dcc uses its money in a practical way to help all levels.

now to me, i think the landlord can do what he wants with HIS property, he took the risk of buying so he gets to do as he likes, but the above would seem like a good way to keep the protesters happy.

thoughts?

btw, if it were my house i would be demanding a riot squad clear the fkers out or its can of petrol time

sexmag

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You support the gangster landlord?

Will show us proof they're a gangster please and not someone just doing business in a capitalist society

DONTMATTER

Red_Wake wrote: »

I see there's been a few unsubstantiated allegations about the owners being slumlords. No doubt this will be repeated as fact ad nauseum with each moron pointing to another's post as evidence.

Any documentation or links to back this up?

There's people on the ground who have local knowledge and information on this. Much more credible than those stating all the protesters are on the dole or living next to their ma despite not knowing who they are.

PlaneSpeeking

Red_Wake wrote: »

I see there's been a few unsubstantiated allegations about the owners being slumlords. No doubt this will be repeated as fact ad nauseum with each moron pointing to another's post as evidence.

Any documentation or links to back this up?

I'm guessing beyond "I heard", Facebook posts from the same scumbags and left wing chips on shoulders - no.

DONTMATTER

soups05 wrote: »

how about a compromise? the dcc buys the house, gets it to a decent state, then sells it for a fair market value to someone who is working for a living.

the profit is then used to build social housing elsewhere for those looking for the "free gaff".

landlord does not make obscene profit from hoarding stock.

hard working people get a house at a reasonable price.

free loaders, eh i mean the less well off get a house albeit not in the center of a high price urban area.,

the dcc uses its money in a practical way to help all levels.

now to me, i think the landlord can do what he wants with HIS property, he took the risk of buying so he gets to do as he likes, but the above would seem like a good way to keep the protesters happy.

thoughts?

btw, if it were my house i would be demanding a riot squad clear the fkers out or its can of petrol time

Where are these free houses you speak of?

DONTMATTER

sexmag wrote: »

Will show us proof they're a gangster please and not someone just doing business in a capitalist society

Read the links.

P_1

soups05 wrote: »

how about a compromise? the dcc buys the house, gets it to a decent state, then sells it for a fair market value to someone who is working for a living.

the profit is then used to build social housing elsewhere for those looking for the "free gaff".

landlord does not make obscene profit from hoarding stock.

hard working people get a house at a reasonable price.

free loaders, eh i mean the less well off get a house albeit not in the center of a high price urban area.,

the dcc uses its money in a practical way to help all levels.

now to me, i think the landlord can do what he wants with HIS property, he took the risk of buying so he gets to do as he likes, but the above would seem like a good way to keep the protesters happy.

thoughts?

btw, if it were my house i would be demanding a riot squad clear the fkers out or its can of petrol time

That sounds a fair deal. Based on what has presumably been said by the people evicted the landlord sounds like the sort of prick youd hate to work for

sexmag

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Read the links.

What links? There have been no links posted here

PlaneSpeeking

P_1 wrote: »

That sounds a fair deal. Based on what has presumably been said by the people evicted the landlord sounds like the sort of prick youd hate to work for

I wouldn't class those evicted as particularly impartial witnesses.

Omackeral

DONTMATTER wrote: »

This adds more detail to things. We shouldn't be worried about the owner of this house. They are not worrying about people struggling on the streets, a greedy landlord who wants to make profit off the back of others suffering.

Yeah if it was your mother's house you'd soon change your tune.

DONTMATTER

sexmag wrote: »

What links? There have been no links posted here

The facebook page.

P_1

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I wouldn't class those evicted as particularly impartial witnesses.

Well given how they've been treated can you blame them really? I mean 450 for a bed in a slum? Jaysis

sbsquarepants

Donald Trump wrote: »

Once it is turned into a slum, your property values plummet. and you no longer have to worry about the pesky 60k a month


Profit


apparently



:pac:

It's the art of the deal Donald:D

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You support the gangster landlord?

What makes him a gangster? (I'm not saying he's not, I don't know anything about him)

But I certainly do support the fact that he should be able to use his property for whatever use he wants, subject to the normal planning restrictions. If he wants to buy houses and turn them into shops, or offices, or just nicer houses that's fine by me. Nobody should have a right to live in someone elses house.

I bought my house for my use, I don't give a rats arse who else feels entitled to live there, they can fúck right off, it's mine. That same principle applies whether you have 1 house or 1,000 houses.

DONTMATTER

P_1 wrote: »

Well given how they've been treated can you blame them really? I mean 450 for a bed in a slum? Jaysis

It's really a desperate situation people find themselves in. That it's got to this level is a disgrace, that nothing has been done about it is criminal.

Omackeral

DONTMATTER wrote: »

There's no one in the house and as we've just heard, the owner of the house could make a difference but is adding to the misery of locals.

You talk some amount of bollox but this is close to the top of it.