Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

P_1

Berserker wrote: »

Absolutely not. Occupying a house is not going to do anything to help those people.



My brother owns an apartment in Dublin city centre. He works in the USA and he comes back to Ireland twice a year. He tried to rent out the apartment a few years back but the tenants decided that paying rent was not for them and they also decided to re-decorate the place on leaving. Are you seriously telling me that he should be forced to open up that property and be subject to that treatment again?

I think we can differentiate between someone like your brother and two scumbag builders from Clare who are using questionable methods to squeeze out yet more profit

DONTMATTER

Uriel. wrote: »

Newsflash, breaking and entering is criminal activity as is damage to property.
Those who do not and have not earned in their lives are freeloaders.
Some groups are communist leaning.

I am not seeing any attempts to silence anyone. You're acting delusional tbh.

It's important to out those who are pro landlord or landlords themselves.

DONTMATTER

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

About time the gravy train was put to an end for these spongers and leeches.

You want something in life go out and work for it, if you can’t afford it tough that’s life.

Are you a landlord too?

jobbridge4life

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Richard BB and Paul Murphy will be hightailing it in from Dalkey and Monkstown at any moment. This could be it lads - the start of the revolution!!!

A revolution? Unlikely. A genuine large scale movement to address the housing crisis? Possibly, and that would be a good thing IMHO.

After all look at what emerged in respect of water charges (a much less serious issue). I supported water charges and still do, but no one can deny that it was the political galavanising of grass routes protest movement against the charges that brought them down.

Technocentral

As long as they dont damage the house in any way, fair play to them, homelessness and obscene rents based on speculation and profitt making are the real crime. People need to wake up.

DONTMATTER

gctest50 wrote: »

If it's that easy, why are there :





well ?

I don't think they said it was easy? They just exposed their poor mouth routine as nonsense.

Pkiernan

Technocentral wrote: »

As long as they dont damage the house in any way, fair play to them, homelessness and obscene rents based on speculation and profitt making are the real crime. People need to wake up.

Yes.

Also, they should be allowed to break in to your house and live in the unoccupied attic. How dare you have extra space when so many are homeless.

Varik

Technocentral wrote: »

As long as they dont damage the house in any way, fair play to them, homelessness and obscene rents based on speculation and profitt making are the real crime. People need to wake up.

And what happens when the owners insurance company drops them or increase the fee, or there is a need for a claim and the owner is out of luck.

Berserker

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Richard BB and Paul Murphy will be hightailing it in from Dalkey and Monkstown at any moment. This could be it lads - the start of the revolution!!!

Glen is performing in the Czech Republic. He'll be home in a few days to sing a few songs and read a few poems to them.

P_1 wrote: »

I think we can differentiate between someone like your brother and two scumbag builders from Clare who are using questionable methods to squeeze out yet more profit

Fair enough. The post I reacted to declared that all properties should be subject to this. Also, I know renters, medical students, who had to deal with these lads. Their feedback was far from positive!

mahamageehad

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

mahamageehad wrote: »

This house in question has been vacant 2 months though. But yes, levies on houses vacant over 2 years or whatever time frame is a good idea. Pity this stunt will do absolutely nothing towards accomplishing that or anything that will help.

I think this house was picked more because it is owned by a slum lord than anything else. People like the LL of that property who have the gall to ram 20 desperate people in 1 property shouldn't just be fined, they should be jailed. The Agency who oversaw it should be fine massively too. There's far too much of this ****e going on in Dublin.

They seem to be protesting the “illegal” eviction of those people rather than the conditions they were in. I agree that there should be stricter controls on ramming people like sardines into a property, again a bunch of eejits illegally occupying a private house will do nothing to achieving that. The failure of our current housing market is not only will people not protest cramped conditions, they’ll pay through the nose for it because there are few other options. None of this excuses breaking and entering and squatting imo.

andekwarhola

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.

I wasn't moaning.

I was just assessing the students union chorus that we'd probably be surprised about how many landlords are accidental ones just paying a mortgage as opposed to rapacious moneybags types throwing hundreds of households on the street.

Uriel.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It's important to out those who are pro landlord or landlords themselves.

"out"

Why?

PlaneSpeeking

Berserker wrote: »

Glen is performing in the Czech Republic. He'll be home in a few days to sing a few songs and read a few poems to them.



Fair enough. The post I reacted to declared that all properties should be subject to this. Also, I know renters, medical students, who had to deal with these lads. Their feedback was far from positive!

What have the Czech Republic ever done to us ??????

MarinersBlues

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I fail to see the added extra struggle from increasing equity in a property, at no cost to them once all the other bills were paid.

That bit seems easy to those who have none to pay doesn't it ?????

Have another look at it.

andekwarhola wrote: »

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.

Now spell out to me what I am missing here.
They are increasing equity in a house - at no cost to them.

Explain it slowly, because one of us is missing the point here.

Gatling

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It's important to out those who are pro landlord or landlords themselves.

Lol

PlaneSpeeking

Uriel. wrote: »

"out"

Why?

Apparently if you are a landlord it's shorthand for evil Rackman level scum.

In some heads anyway.

Uriel.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Are you a landlord too?

how many properties do you own?

Ken.

Mod- This thread has produced more reported posts in the last 3 hours than all other threads in the last few days.

So to stop it The following people are thread banned cause they can't play nicely with others.

Squatter
DONTMATTER
Gatling
PlaneSpeeking
AfterLife


Leaving locked for 10 minutes for the above to see it.

Ken.

Mod-Reopened. Play nice.

sexmag

Well my thread certainly took off

andekwarhola

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Now spell out to me what I am missing here.
They are increasing equity in a house - at no cost to them.

Explain it slowly, because one of us is missing the point here.

To be fair, it may not be the case for all accidental landlords. Some may be taking a big hit and stuck in a negative equity mortgage.

badtoro

Might have been a better idea to formulate a practical plan listing vacant properties that would work for all stakeholders, ensure plan is received by relevant persons then if no action taken have a sit in at the proper government ministry/ies.

Embarrassing them works. But, if you get momentum, never give it away for promises regardless of how concrete, only verifiable action.

Wheeliebin30

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Are you a landlord too?

No I’m someone who works hard to pay a mortgage.

I seen enough of these wasters in my class in school acting the bolix, distracting people who wanted to make something of themselves.

Now they have grown up and realized life isn’t one big doss the chickens are coming home.

Now they expect me to fund their gaff they pay 40 euro a week for while I pay 10 times more for mine.

**** that ****.

Kitty6277

mahamageehad wrote: »

They seem to be protesting the “illegal” eviction of those people rather than the conditions they were in. I agree that there should be stricter controls on ramming people like sardines into a property, again a bunch of eejits illegally occupying a private house will do nothing to achieving that. The failure of our current housing market is not only will people not protest cramped conditions, they’ll pay through the nose for it because there are few other options. None of this excuses breaking and entering and squatting imo.

From what I read (and I stand to be corrected if there's any proof otherwise), that the tenants were evicted because of fire safety protocols (or lack of in these such houses).

I guess the "occupation" is having the desired effect though because here we all are talking about it, but beyond that, it'll do sweet FA. "Raise awareness"? We all know there's a housing crisis and the government aren't doing anything about it, breaking into someone's house isn't going to change that. On their Facebook page it mentioned that they spoke to the gardaí who told them to leave the house, but they told the gardaí that it's a "civil matter" and not a criminal one?? Since when has B&E been a civil matter?

hatrickpatrick

lawred2 wrote: »

what would you like done?

Not addressed to me, but the same thing that was done in the mid 20th century. Compulsory purchase all these derelict and tenement-style houses and build proper flats in their place a la the designs of Herbert Simms.

hatrickpatrick

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.

This. Aldborough House is a good example - look at where it is on Google Maps and tell me it shouldn't be redeveloped into a high density mixed use housing block, not yet another f*cking commercial development.

whisky_galore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not addressed to me, but the same thing that was done in the mid 20th century. Compulsory purchase all these derelict and tenement-style houses and build proper flats in their place a la the designs of Herbert Simms.

That won't happen, because put simply, money won't be made out of it.

hatrickpatrick

whisky_galore wrote: »

That won't happen, because put simply, money won't be made out of it.

I realise this under the current neoliberal establishment, I was merely pointing out what should happen.

DCC solved a housing crisis in the 1930s with Herbert Simms, it's absolutely moronic that this is not being done again.

Taytoland

No point mentioning it is private property to these people. They believe the state should control everything anyway.

Fol20

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.

How about if you give all of your money from your day job to these charities after food and bills is taken out, oh wait ,you want to profit off your own hard work so you can buy the latest iPhones and nice stuff in life. How about if people stop being hypocrites when the landlord business is the exact same as you going out and working for a living.

Uriel.

Fol20 wrote: »

How about if you give all of your money from your day job to these charities after food and bills is taken out, oh wait ,you want to profit off your own hard work so you can buy the latest iPhones and nice stuff in life. How about if people stop being hypocrites when the landlord business is the exact same as you going out and working for a living.

well he's Communist leaning so probably doesn't have an iphone, but either way he's banned so can't reply to you.

Squatter

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Welcome aboard! We meet Thursdays, bring cake!!!

I'll be there! Your third property or mine?

Squatter

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This. Aldborough House is a good example - look at where it is on Google Maps and tell me it shouldn't be redeveloped into a high density mixed use housing block, not yet another f*cking commercial development.

It should be restored to its former glory and used as a HQ for some Government Department or Office.

Interestingly, C J Haughey (the great lover of Georgian houses) would have driven past it every day on his way to/from Kinsealy and it is a national scandal that he took no action to have it preserved even though it was State property.

sexmag

Kitty6277 wrote: »

On their Facebook page it mentioned that they spoke to the gardaí who told them to leave the house, but they told the gardaí that it's a "civil matter" and not a criminal one?? Since when has B&E been a civil matter?

I believe and I could be wrong, unless the owner of the house reports it the guards won't do anything, they may be unaware of this at the moment

CucaFace

As someone who knows this area very well, the best thing that has happened to the area where this house is (and previously Mountjoy Square) has been the fact that less and less of the houses in the area are being used for social housing. International students have for the most part replaced the feral people that lived in this area previously and this has lead to the area becoming far safer and better then it used to be.
And now these wasters want to take back these houses to give to the DCC to bring in these feral humans again to hang around the city centre... great idea.
All you had to do was listen to  the woman who was crying how she is homeless due to her anti social behaviour when she had a free social house in this area previously to know exactly the type of people who would be put back into this area if these houses were given back to social housing.
Id rather they knocked the houses and left them like that,  then to give them to the scum that would in no doubt get them and start they usual anti social (ie criminal activity).

Wheeliebin30

CucaFace wrote: »

As someone who knows this area very well, the best thing that has happened to the area where this house is (and previously Mountjoy Square) has been the fact that less and less of the houses in the area are being used for social housing. International students have for the most part replaced the feral people that lived in this area previously and this has lead to the area becoming far safer and better then it used to be.
And now these wasters want to take back these houses to give to the DCC to bring in these feral humans again to hang around the city centre... great idea.
All you had to do was listen to  the woman who was crying how she is homeless due to her anti social behaviour when she had a free social house in this area previously to know exactly the type of people who would be put back into this area if these houses were given back to social housing.
Id rather they knocked the houses and left them like that,  then to give them to the scum that would in no doubt get them and start they usual anti social (ie criminal activity).

But but 10,000 homeless through no fault of their own, fg neoliberalism or something, vulture funds rabble rabble.

lawred2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This. Aldborough House is a good example - look at where it is on Google Maps and tell me it shouldn't be redeveloped into a high density mixed use housing block, not yet another f*cking commercial development.

It shouldn't be redeveloped into a high density mixed use housing block.

Why should it?

It's a piece of architectural heritage.

hatrickpatrick

Taytoland wrote: »

No point mentioning it is private property to these people. They believe the state should control everything anyway.

The state bought tenenements in the mid-20th century through compulsory purchase in order to build much of the higher density housing which exists in Dublin 1 today. the sites of Gloucester Place, Rutland Court, Killarney Court, Railway Street, Gardiner Street Flats, Matt Talbot Court and FitzGibbon Court were all sites just like the current slums of Summerhill etc - overcrowded, derelict, disused, and in many cases absentee or speculative landlords. So the city council, recognising that the housing situation had reached crisis levels, issued compulsory purchase orders for the lot and built the numerous social housing developments I have linked to in my post.

This policy worked at that time to solve a housing crisis. There's absolutely no reason to suggest that it wouldn't work again this time.

hatrickpatrick

lawred2 wrote: »

It shouldn't be redeveloped into a high density mixed use housing block.

Why should it?

It's a piece of architectural heritage.

Well by that rationale it certainly shouldn't be developed into offices either. Personally I'd agree with that, but if it's going to be redeveloped at all, it should be redeveloped as housing.

CucaFace

How do you mean the current slums of Summerhill? Sorry but the area where this house is not a slum.
It will be a slum in the future if you put it back into the hands of the DCC to put social wasters into it again.

hatrickpatrick

CucaFace wrote: »

How do you mean the current slums of Summerhill? Sorry but the area where this house is not a slum.
It will be a slum in the future if you put it back into the hands of the DCC to put social wasters into it again.

Did you read the article? It's a slum if these buildings are being used to house multiple people to a room in dormitory style arrangements, as has been the case for several of the other buildings in the Dublin 1 area which have been the subject of this kind of protest.

irishproduce

The media should really not be reporting this stuff in the manner in which they are
It is just encouraging that element of society. Call them what you like but you know what I am referring to.

She said the occupation is a protest against the eviction of up to 120 tenants evicted from a row of houses in the same street earlier this year.

I have a feeling the comment above is an after thought and luckily fit the narrative post event. i.e. they broke in to occupy it, then attached it to significant event in the past as an after thought

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

dav3 wrote: »

Cork County Council are doing really poorly.

jam_mac_jam

There is a huge problem with vacant properties in the city, I am not sure this is the best way to do anything about it.  It needs to be addressed though, you don't see falling down houses in prime areas in other cities.
Could there not be some sort of penalty for leaving houses vacant for a long period of time which would increase the supply of housing and reduce rent. Its crazy having unused buildings in the centre of the city.

P_1

Longer term could this issue be addressed by say a March on the Dail or better yet a March on varadkars gaff?

gctest50

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The state bought tenenements in the mid-20th century through compulsory purchase in order to build much of the higher density housing which exists in Dublin 1 today...........

This policy worked at that time to solve a housing crisis. There's absolutely no reason to suggest that it wouldn't work again this time.

This policy worked at that time

whisky_galore

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Cork County Council are doing really poorly.

Huge area tbf.



Wonder what the breakdown is between houses in/near towns and houses in the arse end of nowhere.

whisky_galore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I realise this under the current neoliberal establishment, I was merely pointing out what should happen.

DCC solved a housing crisis in the 1930s with Herbert Simms, it's absolutely moronic that this is not being done again.

People were living in their own sh1te in the 30's in houses that were falling down in many cases. Maybe we have to get to that point before anything is done?

hatrickpatrick

gctest50 wrote: »

This policy worked at that time

It did. It hasn't worked at any time since because it hasn't been tried.

On what are you basing you apparent assumption that it wouldn't work this time?

hatrickpatrick

whisky_galore wrote: »

People were living in their own sh1te in the 30's in houses that were falling down in many cases. Maybe we have to get to that point before anything is done?

We just need a change of political ideology away from the post 1980s "third way" bullsh!t, which it actually economic conservatism dressed up with one or two liberal social causes to make it less unpalatable.