Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

padd b1975

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Shower of smelly crusties.

Wonder if Hansard will call round.

I expect so, the usual suspects are already flat out on Twitter offering "solidarity".

Flies around cow's sh1te...

DONTMATTER

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's the art of the deal Donald:D



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.

I think you should read the facebook links and look into this more.

andekwarhola

It's always a redbrick gaff within walking distance of town isn't it.

Heart goes out to people genuinely affected by a real crisis, but can't help noticing stuff like when artists bemoan the lack of affordable rent, it's always Rathmines, Phibsboro, SCR etc out of which they're being priced out.

So they're gearing up to emigrate to Berlin or Barcelona rather than renting in Tallaght or Blanchardstown and getting the bus into Whelans.

dav3

I know the default for some people on here is to take the side of the landlord or the vulture fund. But it's not as straight forward as they think. There are huge amounts of properties around the country that definitely should not be vacant during the current housing crisis.

You have landlords who bought up property during the boom now refusing to pay the mortgage on these properties and allowing them to fall into ruin. Landlords deliberately holding back properties to drive up rent and prices in a certain area. Landlords allowing properties to fall into ruin to pick up nearby properties at a cheaper price. Landlords waiting until rents rise above a certain level before they take any action on their property which could take another 5 to 10 years.

I think a case could be made to at least look at using these properties.

With Fine Gael a little bit too close to landlord's in this country, I guess some people don't see anything constructive happening to ease the crisis anytime soon.

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-183000-vacant-homes-lying-idle-in-demand-hotspots-nationwide-35710041.html

DONTMATTER

There seems to be a lot of snobbery on this thread. Looking down firstly at people who are trying to help and then at the people who are in horrible situations. Just think what it's like to be living on the street!

soups05

dontmatter, thats the point. there is no free houses, thats what they are protesting, so use my plan to build some lol.

unless your one of those who claim the house is not free as the tenant pays rent. its been pointed out that the rent comes from their dole, they do not work for it, so therefore free house.

you will also note i put " " around the term so that i could avoid the whole argument about who is paying for the house, tax payer or dole claimant.




it should be noted that if i come across as a dole basher its because i am currently on the dole, seeking work, so any anger/bitterness/loathing is directed at myself for failing to provide for my family. the ongoing shame of receiving a "hand-out" from the people who work hard for their money is slowly eroding my soul, my hatred is directed inward, not outward. (unless you piss me off)

PlaneSpeeking

I wish I had a bridge to sell to some on here, it would be snapped up in seconds.

So gullible!

PlaneSpeeking

soups05 wrote: »

dontmatter, thats the point. there is no free houses, thats what they are protesting, so use my plan to build some lol.

unless your one of those who claim the house is not free as the tenant pays rent. its been pointed out that the rent comes from their dole, they do not work for it, so therefore free house.

you will also note i put " " around the term so that i could avoid the whole argument about who is paying for the house, tax payer or dole claimant.




it should be noted that if i come across as a dole basher its because i am currently on the dole, seeking work, so any anger/bitterness/loathing is directed at myself for failing to provide for my family. the ongoing shame of receiving a "hand-out" from the people who work hard for their money is slowly eroding my soul, my hatred is directed inward, not outward. (unless you piss me off)

You should not feel bad, a temporary setback can be just that, you sound like you will work so hard to get out of it and no one would criticise that.

It's the third generation professional scroungers people have a problem with - those who pop out kids for the benefits and never intend to work, ever.

Good luck with your job hunt!

DONTMATTER

dav3 wrote: »

I know the default for some people on here is to take the side of the landlord or the vulture fund. But it's not as straight forward as they think. There are huge amounts of properties around the country that definitely should not be vacant during the current housing crisis.

You have landlords who bought up property during the boom now refusing to pay the mortgage on these properties and allowing them to fall into ruin. Landlords deliberately holding back properties to drive up rent and prices in a certain area. Landlords allowing properties to fall into ruin to pick up nearby properties at a cheaper price. Landlords waiting until rents rise above a certain level before they take any action on their property which could take another 5 to 10 years.

I think a case could be made to at least look at using these properties.

With Fine Gael a little bit too close to landlord's in this country, I guess some people don't see anything constructive happening to ease the crisis anytime soon.

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-183000-vacant-homes-lying-idle-in-demand-hotspots-nationwide-35710041.html

That's shocking. Interestingly you mention Fine Gael are a bit too close to landlords, here's a list of landlords who are in Fine Gael!

Tánaiste Simon Coveney, Social Protection Minister Regina Doherty, Agriculture Minister Michael Creed, Minister for Older People Jim Daly, Fine Gael chair Martin Heydon, Sean Canney, John Paul Phelan, Paul Kehoe, Pat Deering, Alan Farrell and John Deasy.

DONTMATTER

soups05 wrote: »

dontmatter, thats the point. there is no free houses, thats what they are protesting, so use my plan to build some lol.

unless your one of those who claim the house is not free as the tenant pays rent. its been pointed out that the rent comes from their dole, they do not work for it, so therefore free house.

you will also note i put " " around the term so that i could avoid the whole argument about who is paying for the house, tax payer or dole claimant.




it should be noted that if i come across as a dole basher its because i am currently on the dole, seeking work, so any anger/bitterness/loathing is directed at myself for failing to provide for my family. the ongoing shame of receiving a "hand-out" from the people who work hard for their money is slowly eroding my soul, my hatred is directed inward, not outward. (unless you piss me off)

So there's no free houses.

andekwarhola

The vacant properties are a tricky one. Home owners should be allowed to do what they want with their property (funds stockpiling land or property is a different matter) but its clearly a touchy issue to have so many vacant properties in the current climate.

The real blame, though, is with governments of the last 20 years. They halted social housing construction and abdicated responsibility for general housing needs to developers engaged in a turbo charged, unregulated property bubble.

It shouldn't have to be about demonizing a single person that owns a vacant property in the city.

jobbridge4life

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

Well it is being covered in the newspapers and media in general so I guess that is raising awareness.

I support the occupation.

DONTMATTER

1 in a 5 TD's are landlords! No wonder this issue hasn't been sorted. It's not in the landlords interests. The current rental market is their dream scenario. They couldn't care less about the homeless or those who can't afford rent.

sbsquarepants

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I think you should read the facebook links and look into this more.

No, I just refuse to do facebook for any reason.

What made these evictions illegal?

PlaneSpeeking

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No, I just refuse to do facebook for any reason.

What made these evictions illegal?

This should be good!!!

DONTMATTER

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No, I just refuse to do facebook for any reason.

What made these evictions illegal?

You can't be informed of the situation if you don't read the information available.

ArmaniJeanss

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

andekwarhola

DONTMATTER wrote: »

1 in a 5 TD's are landlords! No wonder this issue hasn't been sorted. It's not in the landlords interests. The current rental market is their dream scenario. They couldn't care less about the homeless or those who can't afford rent.

You'd think if that was the case, they'd stop rising property taxes and try and stop up to 50% of their rental income going to income tax?

I'd say most landlords are like us (me and wife). Stuck with a single extra property, providing a family with a much needed long term home and just about scraping even after the mortgage is cleared when the income tax, property tax and maintenance gets taken out.

sbsquarepants

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You can't be informed of the situation if you don't read the information available.

You don't know, do you?:rolleyes:

DONTMATTER

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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

Thanks for the link. People should have a read of it.

mahamageehad

They should be turfed out immediately and dropped down whatever housing list they’re on. Seriously though, I don’t care if the landlord is Satan Incarnate, he bought the house, he owns it and now this crowd are breaking and entering. Have a camp out at the relevant government offices if you want to force change and raise awareness. This problem was created by this government and previous ones. Also, have I got it right that over 100 people were sharing 5 houses and they are now complaining that they should be allowed to do that? Maybe having 100 tenants was too much for the landlord so he wanted to have easier business tenants. So what of it?

DONTMATTER

andekwarhola wrote: »

You'd think if that was the case, they'd stop rising property taxes and try and stop up to 50% of their rental income going to income tax?

I'd say most landlords are like us (me and wife). Stuck with a single extra property, providing a family with a much needed long term home and just about scraping even after the mortgage is cleared when the income tax, property tax and maintenance gets taken out.

Well then you should be protesting against the immoral landlords who are giving the rest a bad name?

DONTMATTER

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You don't know, do you?:rolleyes:

Don't know what?

MarinersBlues

andekwarhola wrote: »

You'd think if that was the case, they'd stop rising property taxes and try and stop up to 50% of their rental income going to income tax?

I'd say most landlords are like us (me and wife). Stuck with a single extra property, providing a family with a much needed long term home and just about scraping even after the mortgage is cleared when the income tax, property tax and maintenance gets taken out.

Surely having the mortgage paid on a house is equivalent to a hefty profit.
Getting to own the house and having the loan repaid sounds like an alright deal to me.

DONTMATTER

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Surely having the mortgage paid on a house is equivalent to a hefty profit.
Getting to own the house and having the loan repaid sounds like an alright deal to me.

It sounds much better than not being able to pay rent and been forced to live on the street or in homeless accommodation anyway.

boombang

Can we buy these guys one way tickets to Venezuela?

jobbridge4life

andekwarhola wrote: »

You'd think if that was the case, they'd stop rising property taxes and try and stop up to 50% of their rental income going to income tax?

I'd say most landlords are like us (me and wife). Stuck with a single extra property, providing a family with a much needed long term home and just about scraping even after the mortgage is cleared when the income tax, property tax and maintenance gets taken out.

'Stuck with a single extra property'... My word, how unfortunate for you... the burden of property. You are not 'barely scraping even', you are acquiring an enormous asset. Honestly this is unbelievable.

DavidLyons_

DONTMATTER wrote: »

sexmag wrote: »

What links? There have been no links posted here

The facebook page.

Hahaha! Crazy stuff.

So your evidence that the landlords are gangsters is that a facebook page says so.

Not only do you take facebook page as gospel but you expect others to as well!!!

This explains so much.

PlaneSpeeking

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Surely having the mortgage paid on a house is equivalent to a hefty profit.
Getting to own the house and having the loan repaid sounds like an alright deal to me.

You heard it here folks - struggling to make ends meet for 30 years to keep a roof over your family's head is "a great deal".

Jesus wept.

sbsquarepants

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Don't know what?

:D

Why the evictions were illegal?

PlaneSpeeking

jobbridge4life wrote: »

'Stuck with a single extra property'... My word, how unfortunate for you... the burden of property. You are not 'barely scraping even', you are acquiring an enormous asset. Honestly this is unbelievable.

Ever heard of people getting stuck with an elderly parent's house where they can't sell it ?

Or having a mortgage on a house down south and having no option but to move to another city for work ?

Divorced persons with a new family ?

And many more. But sure, the only reason is the begrudgery of the left and the "non" working class.

Berserker

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It's a good thing, they're not just sitting around, they're going and doing something about it.

No, they are sitting around in a house that they have occupied illegally.

P_1 wrote: »

He owns significant land and wishes to build yet more glass and concrete monstrosity offices on it.

They have planning permission in at the moment. It's up to the authorities to tell them to get stuffed if the proposal is not acceptable. Two chances of that happening in this case given the organisation involved.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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

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

I have to agree with you w.r.t the owner in this case. Still doesn't excuse the breaking and entering. It's going to achieve absolutely nothing, at the end of the day.

DONTMATTER

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Hahaha! Crazy stuff.

So your evidence that the landlords are gangsters is that a facebook page says so.

Not only do you take facebook page as gospel but you expect others to as well!!!

This explains so much.

No, I was just making a point. That other poster was claiming the protesters were gangsters, anyone can throw around terms like that. I think my point has been well made.

Oh and : https://slumleaks.wordpress.com/

DONTMATTER

sbsquarepants wrote: »

:D

Why the evictions were illegal?

Where did I say anything about any evictions being illegal?

sbsquarepants

jobbridge4life wrote: »

'Stuck with a single extra property'... My word, how unfortunate for you... the burden of property. You are not 'barely scraping even', you are acquiring an enormous asset. Honestly this is unbelievable.

There are any number of people who are actually "stuck" acquiring this enormous asset. It's not as unbelievable as you seem to think.

An obvious example would be an apartment in negative equity that a family have grown out of - you have no real choice other than to become a "greedy landlord"
If you sold the damn thing you'd still owe the bank the amount it's in the red. That's if they'd even let you sell it without an obvious way of covering that amount first.

DONTMATTER

Berserker wrote: »

No, they are sitting around in a house that they have occupied illegally.

They are doing something to help the homeless and those in desperate need of support.

Uriel.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You can't be informed of the situation if you don't read the information available.

provide a credible source with verified information and I'll be happy to read it, posting links to the social media account of a crowd of AAA want to be knacks is not credible.

jobbridge4life

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Ever heard of people getting stuck with an elderly parent's house where they can't sell it ?

Or having a mortgage on a house down south and having no option but to move to another city for work ?

Divorced persons with a new family ?

And many more. But sure, the only reason is the begrudgery of the left and the "non" working class.

What are you talking about?

The individual stated they had an additional property. They are renting it, and 'barely breaking even' after the mortage etc. on that property was deducted from rent recieved. That means they are acquiring an additional asset. If this was actually an unreasonable asset they could sell the property.

This isn't difficult.

Subcomandante Marcos

Properties that are vacant for a prolonged period should have a levy applied to them that forces the owners to either occupy them, sell them or have them removed from their ownership at below the market value. It's a disgrace that last year it was reported that in Dublin city alone there were 31,000 vacant housing united, with over 6,000 being vacant for over 5 years, and nothing has been done about it.

TitianGerm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

'Stuck with a single extra property'... My word, how unfortunate for you... the burden of property. You are not 'barely scraping even', you are acquiring an enormous asset. Honestly this is unbelievable.

How do you know that a parent didn't die and leave the house to the OP with a mortgage in tow?

How do you know that the OP and his partner hadn't worked their arses off for 20 years scrimping, saving, sacrificing and working every hour available to buy their houses?

They then met each other and moved in together? The second house could very well be in negative equity so there's no point in selling?

The OP deserves his houses.

DONTMATTER

Uriel. wrote: »

provide a credible source with verified information and I'll be happy to read it, posting links to the social media account of a crowd of AAA want to be knacks is not credible.

Who are you? Do you have 2 accounts you're posting under?

jobbridge4life

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There are any number of people who are actually "stuck" acquiring this enormous asset. It's not as unbelievable as you seem to think.

An obvious example would be an apartment in negative equity that a family have grown out of - you have no real choice other than to become a "greedy landlord"
If you sold the damn thing you'd still owe the bank the amount it's in the red. That's if they'd even let you sell it without an obvious way of covering that amount first.

I didn't say anyone was greedy, I don't think owning a second home is inherently greedy at all.

If the mortage etc. is being paid by the rent, as implied by the posters words, then the asset is being acquired in the owners favour. End off.

gctest50

DONTMATTER wrote: »

They are doing something to help the homeless and those in desperate need of support.

Not really - it seems now the thing to do if you have an unoccupied house that is to be redeveloped is to rip out all the floors etc to keep it protester free

Squatter

DONTMATTER wrote: »

They are doing something to help the homeless and those in desperate need of support.

No they're not. Their pointless stunt will achieve absolutely nothing for the homeless, but they will gain valuable street cred from their mates and some of them may well end up in good jobs in the poverty industry sector.

sbsquarepants

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Where did I say anything about any evictions being illegal?

I didn't mean to imply you said it personally, it's in the statement from the peoples front of summerhill.... summer hill peoples front.... the occupiers.

DONTMATTER

jobbridge4life wrote: »

What are you talking about?

The individual stated they had an additional property. They are renting it, and 'barely breaking even' after the mortage etc. on that property was deducted from rent recieved. That means they are acquiring an additional asset. If this was actually an unreasonable asset they could sell the property.

This isn't difficult.

The truth about those who are anti the protesters is emerging. They despise them because they are highlighting an issue that goes against their profit making schemes. It seems like we have a number of landlords posting on this thread!

PlaneSpeeking

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Properties that are vacant for a prolonged period should have a levy applied to them that forces the owners to either occupy them, sell them or have them removed from their ownership at below the market value. It's a disgrace that last year it was reported that in Dublin city alone there were 31,000 vacant housing united, with over 6,000 being vacant for over 5 years, and nothing has been done about it.

My father's house is "vacant".

Damn him for having such a great deal of suffering with an illness and having to spend time in a nursing home.

Clearly according to some posters he should give up his house to some workshy layabout.

Yeah good luck getting them out later.

PlaneSpeeking

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I didn't mean to imply you said it personally, it's in the statement from the peoples front of summerhill.... summer hill peoples front.... the occupiers.

Splitters!

gctest50

Uriel. wrote: »

provide a credible source with verified information and I'll be happy to read it, posting links to the social media account of a crowd of AAA want to be knacks is not credible.

c'mon like, travellers don't go around like junkies occupying houses

PlaneSpeeking

gctest50 wrote: »

c'mon like, travellers don't go around like junkies occupying houses

Oh yeah I'd love him in my dad's empty gaff. Sure the place would be treated with respect.

Ahem.