Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote: »

Latest reports is that they are still there and no one has intervened.

It shows a need to me for better laws around property defense and the use of force to regain ownership of your property.

Don’t think that they’re getting as much support as they hoped for. I’d imagine that they won’t be there too long. There’s mold on the walls and dust everywhere. It’s amazing that they don’t want people living in those conditions. Yet, they say that those houses should House the homeless.

Uriel.

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Security of tenure would equally root a huge core of people to the area. I think it would be better to, first of all, cater for those who don't really want to take out a mortgage, but currently feel that they have no choice because they want a level of security that the private rental sector can't provide. And private ownership doesn't provide any security if your circumstances change and you can no longer afford the mortgage. At least with the Workers' Party's proposals, a decrease in earnings would be accompanied by a proportional decrease in rent.

Who's paying the capital costs in their proposal?

soiseztomabel

Hopefully they pick up their discarded Amber Leaf pouches when their done with them.

Yer Da sells Avon

Uriel. wrote: »

Who's paying the capital costs in their proposal?

With income-indexed rents, the proposal would, in the long-term, be a lot cheaper to the state than giving billions to private landlords every year through the HAP scheme.

Edgware

Raise awareness about the housing shortage!

FFS thats all we have heard about for the last five years

Uriel.

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

With income-indexed rents, the proposal would, in the long-term, be a lot cheaper to the state than giving billions to private landlords every year through the HAP scheme.

You answered a question I didn't ask.

I'm going to take it that the answer to the question I actually asked is that the State will pay the capital costs?

Yer Da sells Avon

Edgware wrote: »

Raise awareness about the housing shortage!

FFS thats all we have heard about for the last five years

And nothing has been done about it. Maybe it's time to get out on the streets and smash shit up*. Make 'middle-Ireland' shit themselves. I say we start with the symbolic act of chopping the Spire down. I'm not sure what it would symbolise, but we can think of that later. And then we can burn stuff. Anyway, who's with me.

*Coronation Street is on twice tonight, so after the second episode.

beauf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Those properties should be rented out by he council during he period that they will be empty for, and returned to the homeowner at the end of the period, when it's a defined and temporary vacancy. It's not as complicated as you're suggesting.

You're right it's a LOT more complicated than he was suggesting....

Yer Da sells Avon

Uriel. wrote: »

You answered a question I didn't ask.

I'm going to take it that the answer to the question I actually asked is that the State will pay the capital costs?

Yes, the state would make the investment, which would - in the long term - be a lot cheaper than handing over billions to private landlords in Housing Assistance Payments (a scheme that many of them aren't particularly fond of anyway).

BalcombeSt4

Austin Currie of the SDLP did it in a house in Dungannon in the 1960's & it raised awareness all over Ireland & parts of Britain, so the tactic clearly works.

beauf

They should really occupy a local authority or govt building, like their office. Isn't that who is ignoring the crisis...

sexmag

The occupation has slipped so far down news sites it's not visible anymore.

They'll be gone by tomorrow I'd say

Uriel.

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Yes, the state would make the investment, which would - in the long term - be a lot cheaper than handing over billions to private landlords in Housing Assistance Payments (a scheme that many of them aren't particularly fond of anyway).

And do they propose that the State furnish the houses? Maintain them? Provide repairs? All part of the rental contract?

Uriel.

sexmag wrote: »

The occupation has slipped so far down news sites it's not visible anymore.

They'll be gone by tomorrow I'd say

Which is the best response to give to attention seeking criminals.

Yer Da sells Avon

Uriel. wrote: »

And do they propose that the State furnish the houses? Maintain them? Provide repairs? All part of the rental contract?

When you're paying rent, it's normal for the landlord to take care of maintenance as part of the rental contract.

Amirani

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Yes, the state would make the investment, which would - in the long term - be a lot cheaper than handing over billions to private landlords in Housing Assistance Payments (a scheme that many of them aren't particularly fond of anyway).

How much is that going to cost up front? It's going to be a very large capital expenditure, probably talking in the billions here. Are we going to start raising taxes or cutting public services to pay for these?

Not against your plan entirely, but it's not as simple as the State just going on a massive building spree.

Rjd2

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Yes, the state would make the investment, which would - in the long term - be a lot cheaper than handing over billions to private landlords in Housing Assistance Payments (a scheme that many of them aren't particularly fond of anyway).

This is wrong.

I think what's best to do is sit back and hope the market will take care of it. :pac:

For Forks Sake

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Yes, the state would make the investment, which would - in the long term - be a lot cheaper than handing over billions to private landlords in Housing Assistance Payments (a scheme that many of them aren't particularly fond of anyway).

Any actual numbers to back this up, or are the WP (as per usual) plucking figures from the Magic Money Tree?

Phoebas

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Fair play to them. Raising awareness to the absolute state of the housing situation in Dublin and elsewhere has to be commended. Something has to be done.

I'm glad they are raising awareness. I had no idea that we had a housing problem and now I know.

With this action, I'm sure the problem is now thankfully on the mend.

Fann Linn

Well in fairness, one hotel in Cork last year made €10,000,000. That was just for the beds, no meals were provided.

Donald Trump

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Any actual numbers to back this up, or are the WP (as per usual) plucking figures from the Magic Money Tree?

Don't be silly.


The 1% and vulture funds and bankers will pay it

blackwhite

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the alternative is ridiculous numbers of people being homeless or essentially in poverty once rent is deducted from take home pay, surely the "lesser of two evils" mentality has to prevail here?

Most young people I know would happily live in a tiny studio apartment provided it didn't cost four figures per month to rent the feckin' thing.

Given we still have huge numbers of refusals for social housing offers (ove 20% of offers refused) because they’re in the “wrong area”, “not close enough to me ma”, “the garden isn’t big enough for a trampoline” and countless other spurious reasons, how naive do you need to be to make a claim like that?

jobbridge4life

Amirani wrote: »

How much is that going to cost up front? It's going to be a very large capital expenditure, probably talking in the billions here. Are we going to start raising taxes or cutting public services to pay for these?

Not against your plan entirely, but it's not as simple as the State just going on a massive building spree.

How about 3 billion over five years?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/government-will-spend-3bn-on-rent-subsidies-over-next-five-years-1.3280973

Or 28 million in June of this year alone?

http://www.thejournal.ie/housing-hap-4112275-Jul2018/

Make no mistake the money is being spent. The question is how it is being spent.

Fann Linn

jobbridge4life wrote: »

How about 3 billion over five years?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/government-will-spend-3bn-on-rent-subsidies-over-next-five-years-1.3280973

Or 28 million in June of this year alone?

http://www.thejournal.ie/housing-hap-4112275-Jul2018/

Make no mistake the money is being spent. The question is how it is being spent.

i'd guess you'd build a lot of houses for €3billion.
if you had the will to.

Fann Linn

Fann Linn wrote: »

i'd guess you'd build a lot of houses for €3billion.
if you had the will to.

Or the site with planning permission.

jobbridge4life

Fann Linn wrote: »

i'd guess you'd build a lot of houses for €3billion.
if you had the will to.

Indeed. And as HatrickPatrick has illustrated recently in this thread, a model that was proven successful already exists. For some reason this Government refuses to utilize that method, content to see rents continue to spiral and house price increases outstrip wage growth by many multiples.

The question is why?

jobbridge4life

Deleted User wrote: »

Or the site with planning permission.

You mean like the many lands the State compulsorily purchased in order to traipse the nation with motorways?

Moreover the State already holds an enormous amount of land.

jobbridge4life

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You mean like the many lands the State compulsorily purchased in order to traipse the nation with motorways?

Moreover the State already holds an enormous amount of land.

Are you seriously suggesting that housing estates are built beside motorways?

Fann Linn

Deleted User wrote: »

Or the site with planning permission.

They can CPO gardens for train tracks and bus lanes in the middle of Dublin city. As I said Mary, if the will was there.

jobbridge4life

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that housing estates are built beside motorways?

Obvious deflection.

The state is well capable of acquiring land against the wishes of the owners when they want to, and have done so repeatedly.

sexmag

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Moreover the State already holds an enormous amount of land.

You know who else has an enormous amount of land?

The church

Who hardly have any people attending and get away without paying taxes. Maybe it's time that land was taking back to help the homeless crisis as the church are due to pay something back at this stage for not paying tax to help the country EVER!

weldoninhio

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.

What is the current market value of all of the vacant properties within Dublin City alone?? Because a CPO would mean paying the owners market value. Ireland is currently being run at a deficit. Where will this money come from to 1) buy these properties 2) redevelop these properties 3) maintain these properties??

blackwhite

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Indeed. And as HatrickPatrick has illustrated recently in this thread, a model that was proven successful already exists. For some reason this Government refuses to utilize that method, content to see rents continue to spiral and house price increases outstrip wage growth by many multiples.

The question is why?

The success if the 1930-1950s schemes is debateable, A’s has been shown on this thread already.

The reasons why that model wouldn’t be accepted in the current day (and by wouldn’t accepted, it fairly clearly wouldn’t be accepted by those it was supposed to house) has also been shown.

Fann Linn

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the current market value of all of the vacant properties within Dublin City alone?? Because a CPO would mean paying the owners market value. Ireland is currently being run at a deficit. Where will this money come from to 1) buy these properties 2) redevelop these properties 3) maintain these properties??

Here's what they did beside me in Galway.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/galway-bypass-raises-concerns-among-residents-1.2099768

P_1

sexmag wrote: »

You know who else has an enormous amount of land?

The church

Who hardly have any people attending and get away without paying taxes. Maybe it's time that land was taking back to help the homeless crisis as the church are due to pay something back at this stage for not paying tax to help the country EVER!

Oddly I think this should be our next referendum. Finally an opportunity for us to truly tell the bastards of Rome what we think of them

Yer Da sells Avon

Amirani wrote: »

How much is that going to cost up front? It's going to be a very large capital expenditure, probably talking in the billions here. Are we going to start raising taxes or cutting public services to pay for these?

Not against your plan entirely, but it's not as simple as the State just going on a massive building spree.

It would cost a huge amount up front, and would save a lot in the long-term (the current policy of handing money over to a reluctant private sector is projected to cost €23.8 billion in the next 30 years). It would also benefit a lot of people, taxpayers included. I suppose the real question is, would it be worth it?

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Any actual numbers to back this up, or are the WP (as per usual) plucking figures from the Magic Money Tree?

See for yourself. Although the kind of Tory language you're using automatically suggests that you won't be pleased.

jobbridge4life

sexmag wrote: »

You know who else has an enormous amount of land?

The church

Who hardly have any people attending and get away without paying taxes. Maybe it's time that land was taking back to help the homeless crisis as the church are due to pay something back at this stage for not paying tax to help the country EVER!

That is a point.

Worthy of discussion no less. It doesn't address the fact that a. the State has within its control an enormous amount of land and b. the power to acquire more land, in order to address the current crisis.

weldoninhio

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Well you just started a thread that will cover homelessness. You are actually raising awareness by posting. You wouldn't be posting on this subject if they didn't break into the house.

I'm not saying that the are right to do what they are doing but like Apollo House it certainly raises awareness

Yes, Apollo house with its criminal founder, scammer residents, lying spokespeople and it’s missing donations. It certainly did a lot for homelessness in the city.

jobbridge4life

blackwhite wrote: »

The success if the 1930-1950s schemes is debateable, A’s has been shown on this thread already.

The reasons why that model wouldn’t be accepted in the current day (and by wouldn’t accepted, it fairly clearly wouldn’t be accepted by those it was supposed to house) has also been shown.

The housing scheme that Hatrickpatrick mentioned managed to remedy the immediate issue of tenements, provided decent housing to countless thousands. Was it perfect, no. Would it be immediately replicable today, no. As I said it serves as a model for Government action today. Regardless if we do nothing billions will continue to be spent subsidising private landlords, primarily at the expense of the marginal working class.

awec

dav3 wrote: »

If I am not mistaken "vacant" just means nobody living there. We have no idea how many of the 35,000 vacant properties in Dublin are actually habitable.

Vizzy

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.

And if they sold the property, who would buy it ?


Somebody like the people who are currently in it ?

jobbridge4life

Vizzy wrote: »

And if they sold the property, who would buy it ?


Somebody like the people who are currently in it ?

Not being the renting family or the owner I can't possibly say. Can you?

The point, very clearly, was that saying you are 'stuck' with additional property, one that the owner himself says is paying for itself through rent, is a wonderful position to be in. Most especially when rent and house prices are growing in a completely unsustainable fashion. That is all.

awec

awec wrote: »

If I am not mistaken "vacant" just means nobody living there. We have no idea how many of the 35,000 vacant properties in Dublin are actually habitable.

Or are owned by people who may not wish to rent them out or sell them. People who may wish to live in them themselves at some point in the future.

Working class heroes

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057898185
Looks like they’re eyeing up potential targets down Wicklow way.

Vizzy

Deleted User wrote: »

Or are owned by people who may not wish to rent them out or sell them. People who may wish to live in them themselves at some point in the future.

Nor does it exclude properties that are unsuitable for housing (e.g a shop for instance )

whisky_galore

blackwhite wrote: »

The success if the 1930-1950s schemes is debateable, A’s has been shown on this thread already.

The reasons why that model wouldn’t be accepted in the current day (and by wouldn’t accepted, it fairly clearly wouldn’t be accepted by those it was supposed to house) has also been shown.

I'll wager a few contributers to this thread either live in or were brought up in one of those houses.

What model do you propose? The market?

padd b1975

weldoninhio wrote: »

Yes, Apollo house with its criminal founder, scammer residents, lying spokespeople and it’s missing donations. It certainly did a lot for homelessness in the city.

Honourable mention also to the unvetted volunteer staff.

professore

It's simple. Hammer anyone with vacant properties for say more than 12 months with punitive taxes. 25% of the property's value per year should do it.

blackwhite

whisky_galore wrote: »

I'll wager a few contributers to this thread either live in or were brought up in one of those houses.

What model do you propose? The market?

And yet we see now that those type of houses would be simply refused by those demanding that the state wipe their arses for them hand them a “forever home”.
We’ve over 20% of housing offers being refused as it is, and these aren’t budget mass built basic houses. We can imagine how the refusal rate would jump with those kind of homes on offer.
There needs to be strict rules around refusals, and consequences for those that refuse a suitable housing offer.


The first thing that needs to be done is to stop letting developers buy their way out of social and affordable housing provision within developments.
Mixed tenure developments are the way to go, with a mix of social, affordable and “normal” purchase houses. That way you get residents who have an ownership stake in and development/estate and have a starting point to try and avoid the social issues that plague so many social-only estates.

The state should be actively looking at suitable land banks and then tendering for developers/builders to come in and build 30% social, 40% affordable and 30% fully private housing in the development. Let them tender on the basis of what they’ll charge the state for the builds, plus what price they’ll charge on the private builds. Putting them for tender should ensure the state gets value for money, whilst avoiding the state taking on thousands of employees for life.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Socialism is slowly killing this country. These people get to break into a property and occupy it with no consequences while hard working people get stuck with punitive rates of income tax. Why bother trying to progress