Protesters occupy privately owned house to raise awarness?

dav3

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.

Most of the data being used is taken from the 2016 census.

One person's definition of habitable my differ to another person's. The definition that the majority of people use is

https://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2017pressreleases/pressstatementcensus2016resultsprofile1-housinginireland/

Dwellings under construction and derelict properties were not included in the count of vacant dwellings. As a result, the empty housing units were classified as vacant houses, vacant apartments or holiday homes only if the dwelling was considered fit for habitation by the enumerator. In the case of newly constructed dwellings, that meant that the roof, doors, windows or walls had to be completely built or installed. For older dwellings that were unoccupied, the roof, doors and windows had to be fully intact.

Yer Da sells Avon

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote: »

while hard working people get stuck with punitive rates of income tax.

Punitive rates of rent too.

padd b1975

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Punitive rates of rent too.

That depends on where you choose to live.

Yer Da sells Avon

padd b1975 wrote: »

That depends on where you choose to live.

And if you don't mind a very long daily commute.

Wheeliebin30

blackwhite wrote: »

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.

60% refusal in dun laoighaire.

end of the road

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!

the church are not due to pay anything back for legally not paying tax. something that they have been allowed to do by the state.
where they do owe money is in relation to the redress scheme, all though the state has so far, and will likely continue to, refuse to persue them for the money owed. but they don't owe anything for not paying tax as they are legally able to not do so.

Wheeliebin30

end of the road wrote: »

the church are not due to pay anything back for legally not paying tax. something that they have been allowed to do by the state.
where they do owe money is in relation to the redress scheme, all though the state has so far, and will likely continue to, refuse to persue them for the money owed. but they don't owe anything for not paying tax as they are legally able to not do so.

Awake now and ready for your nightshift?

Might take you a while to catch up with the thread but sure you had plenty of rest so I’m sure you’ll manage.

Yer Da sells Avon

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

60% refusal in dun laoighaire.

Do you have a source for that? Seems very high.

Wanderer78

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote:

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

Socialism? We actually live in a fairly standard free market economy, with fairly average elements of protectionism

end of the road

blackwhite wrote: »

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”.

those people are a tiny minority, and they would refuse any house that didn't meet their requirements. however that's not a problem, as there are plenty more people availible and willing to take the houses.

blackwhite wrote: »

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.

we actually can't imagine it because we cannot say the refusal rates would jump. even if they did, like the current situation with refusals, there are plenty more who will take the house.

blackwhite wrote: »

There needs to be strict rules around refusals, and consequences for those that refuse a suitable housing offer.

i believe that is already in place, such people are put down to the bottom of the list.

Wheeliebin30

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Socialism? We actually live in a fairly standard free market economy, with fairly average elements of protectionism

Good it’s worked for the majority of people who want to strive towards something.

The rest well tough luck, try harder.

Mutant z

You cant just invade someone elses propery and claim its as your own it amounts to trespassing there are other ways to make a stand this isnt it.

blackwhite

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Do you have a source for that? Seems very high.

The latest I can see online is for 2015, which was 42%.

Still shockingly high, but not 60% either.

When reasons volunteered for refusal include demanding a larger house than the council have assessed they actually need, then you know exactly how “desperate” these “homeless” people are :rolleyes:

Wanderer78

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

The rest well tough luck, try harder.

You do realise, that sounds almost sociopathic? And has it actually truly worked for the majority?

end of the road

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote: »

Socialism is slowly killing this country.

it's not and we don't have actual socialism here.

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote: »

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.

i should think they will be in the courts very soon with an eviction order granted. they will not be staying in that property very long i should think. there will be consiquences for their actions.
ireland is a small country with a small population, which means unfortunately that we end up needing to pay a high rate of tax to sustain ourselves. i no more like it then the next person but it is what it is . a bigger population, a lot more jobs, and we should be able to either lower the tax or at least get way more for what we pay.

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote: »

Why bother trying to progress

because you will be in a much better position by doing so. one is always in a much much better position by working and if affordible, buying their house.

blackwhite

end of the road wrote: »

those people are a tiny minority, and they would refuse any house that didn't meet their requirements. however that's not a problem, as there are plenty more people availible and willing to take the houses.



we actually can't imagine it because we cannot say the refusal rates would jump. even if they did, like the current situation with refusals, there are plenty more who will take the house

i believe that is already in place, such people are put down to the bottom of the list.

Over 20% is a “tiny minority”?

Facts don’t back you up there eotr (but then again that’s not something you’ve ever let slow you down in the past is it? :pac:)

Mrs OBumble

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!

Do ypu have a source for the claim about attendance?

The institution doesn't pay corporation tax, for sure. But they do pay VAT and an increasing amount of employer PRSI as the clergy age. So its not a no-tax situation.

Many of their properties are not zoned residential, and contain historic buildings which cannot be converted to residential use or demolished. (Eg Lenaboy Castle - the nuns tried to get planning for housing there a number of times before giving up and gifting it to the council.)

Set it on fire, have them done for arson, collect the insurance, buy where ownership rights mean something.

Yer Da sells Avon

blackwhite wrote: »

When reasons volunteered for refusal include demanding a larger house than the council have assessed they actually need, then you know exactly how “desperate” these “homeless” people are :rolleyes:

Completely anecdotally, I've also heard of cases where people have refused because they're quite hap...hap...happy with the HAP scheme, renting in Dún Laoghaire, and aren't too keen on moving to Ballyogan (because they work/have family in DL, don't drive and the 63 bus isn't a very frequent or direct way of getting there). Not all reasons are completely invalid or frivolous.

end of the road

blackwhite wrote: »

Over 20% is a “tiny minority”?

a lot of those refusals will be for genuine reasons, so yes over all the type of people you are talking about who would be refusing because the gardin is to small or the house is to small would be in a tiny minority.

Deleted User wrote: »

Set it on fire, have them done for arson, collect the insurance, buy where ownership rights mean something.

i don't think you have thought this through.
whoever sets it on fire will be the one who will get done, not the protesters. the insurance companies would quickly find out that the fire was set deliberately and wouldn't pay out.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

i don't think you have thought this through.
whoever sets it on fire will be the one who will get done, not the protesters. the insurance companies would quickly find out that the fire was set deliberately and wouldn't pay out.

If you ever see nonsense posts about arson and insurance fraud, it's highly likely the poster hasn't thought it through.

corner of hells

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!

When you say the "church" , it's worth being aware various religious orders have given over properties or housed quite a few homeless families and individuals in buildings belonging to them.

gctest50

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.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Honourable mention also to the unvetted volunteer staff.

And the icing on the cake, it's chef during the occupation :

Watson was jailed for 18 months in April 2008 after he was convicted in Bendigo County Court in the state of Victoria of indecently assaulting two girls under the age of 16.

He was later jailed after a court heard he knowingly passed on the HIV virus to a woman.

After he was deported to Ireland Watson began sleeping rough and in homeless shelters across the city.

During the Home Sweet Home protest last December/January Watson cooked for those who occupied Apollo House.

weldoninhio

gctest50 wrote: »

And the icing on the cake, it's chef during the occupation :

But, but, but awareness!!!!

sexmag

corner of hells wrote: »

When you say the "church" , it's worth being aware various religious orders have given over properties or housed quite a few homeless families and individuals in buildings belonging to them.

I cringe linking to the sun but this article is spot on

https://www.thesun.ie/news/948902/religious-wealth-revealed-as-catholic-church-has-assets-worth-almost-e4-billion/

Declining attendances and increasing homelessness that requires people to "break Into private property of (scumbag) landlords" should be enough for the government to make a change with the church,over 3.2 billion euro is far more than they need in property and why they aren't being made CPO for property is beyond me,the church has had sickening hold on this country for too long,the grip is being loosend but this should be a no brainer

If they can break into a private persons house to make a statement why don't they do it too the church too? The landlord and church are no different in my opinion bar the fact the church doesn't pay tax

Uriel.

sexmag wrote: »

I cringe linking to the sun but this article is spot on

https://www.thesun.ie/news/948902/religious-wealth-revealed-as-catholic-church-has-assets-worth-almost-e4-billion/

Declining attendances and increasing homelessness that requires people to "break Into private property of (scumbag) landlords" should be enough for the government to make a change with the church,over 3.2 billion euro is far more than they need in property and why they aren't being made CPO for property is beyond me,the church has had sickening hold on this country for too long,the grip is being loosend but this should be a no brainer

If they can break into a private persons house to make a statement why don't they do it too the church too? The landlord and church are no different in my opinion bar the fact the church doesn't pay tax

Because these knacks arent that stupid. No matter what you say about the church dying, it's still got a large membership and even those who don't attend still have a strong cultural link to growing up Catholic etc. Occupying a church would, I suspect, damage their "campaign"

The church and landlords are very different.

Uriel.

end of the road wrote: »

it's not and we don't have actual socialism here.



i should think they will be in the courts very soon with an eviction order granted. they will not be staying in that property very long i should think. there will be consiquences for their actions.
ireland is a small country with a small population, which means unfortunately that we end up needing to pay a high rate of tax to sustain ourselves. i no more like it then the next person but it is what it is . a bigger population, a lot more jobs, and we should be able to either lower the tax or at least get way more for what we pay.



because you will be in a much better position by doing so. one is always in a much much better position by working and if affordible, buying their house.

Yeah and gob****e tax payer picks up the legal and administrative bill for the court action while these knacks get their free legal aid.

Would be great to see costs awarded against them on conviction and an order deducting payment from their dole.

No chance though.

um7y1h83ge06nx

It's not good at all to see this. What would be stopping people that this expanding out the so called "occupying" of property. People could go on holiday or off to work for the day and come back to find their houses "occupied". The law should be protecting the legal owners of property and the government should be fighting for this. Otherwise it's a case of possession is nine tenths of the law.

whisky_galore

Uriel. wrote: »

The church and landlords are very different.

Many church properties aren't suited for habitation as they are, a church is not a house. All those big old seminaries/convents would take a lot of spending to get them up to scratch.

whisky_galore

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote: »

It's not good at all to see this. What would be stopping people that this expanding out the so called "occupying" of property. People could go on holiday or off to work for the day and come back to find their houses "occupied". The law should be protecting the legal owners of property and the government should be fighting for this. Otherwise it's a case of possession is nine tenths of the law.

Scaremongering, they're not occupying some poor old granny's house who's in a nursing home.

I'm not really shedding any tears for the poor wee landlord owner with a heap of properties. Would welcome an occupation of one or more hoarded properties.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Many church properties aren't suited for habitation as they are, a church is not a house. All those big old seminaries/convents would take a lot of spending to get them up to scratch.

Just like the house they’ve broken into isn’t suitable for habitation as it is. Apart from the mold and dust (see video on Solidarity Facebook page, I cannot seem to be able to copy link), there is no electricity and the building needs a huge amount of work and money to bring it up to scratch.

Cee-Jay-Cee

If the owners make a statement of complaint to Gardahen the Gardaave no option but to prosecute every single person who has entered the house for burglary, whether they were the ones who broke in or simply walked in.

um7y1h83ge06nx

whisky_galore wrote: »

Scaremongering, they're not occupying some poor old granny's house who's in a nursing home.

I'm not really shedding any tears for the poor wee landlord owner with a heap of properties. Would welcome an occupation of one or more hoarded properties.

Not in this case but given this is precedence what is to stop anyone chancing their arm? Plus if they are smart they wouldn't target granny's house they would target a working professional's house where the owners are on good salaries. Taking from the "rich" would be easier to spin than taking from granny.

Wanderer78

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote:

Not in this case but given this is precedence what is to stop anyone chancing their arm? Plus if they are smart they wouldn't target granny's house they would target a working professional's house where the owners are on good salaries. Taking from the "rich" would be easier to spin than taking from granny.

The only problem is, the riches in are modern society are no longer human, the vast majority of wealth on this planet is stored as ones and zeros, we need to figure out how to distribute these ones and zeros more evenly

um7y1h83ge06nx

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The only problem is, the riches in are modern society are no longer human, the vast majority of wealth on this planet is stored as ones and zeros, we need to figure out how to distribute these ones and zeros more evenly

At one stage members of Fine Gael seem to define rich as a household making greater than €100k a year. Plenty of them around so not sure how wealth redistribution can be done without a major political upheaval or unrest. For numerous reasons I couldn't see it working - people in that bracket would emigrate and those left behind would have to run hospitals etc.

sexmag

whisky_galore wrote: »

Many church properties aren't suited for habitation as they are, a church is not a house. All those big old seminaries/convents would take a lot of spending to get them up to scratch.

Neither was apollo house suitable for habitation but look what happened there.

and im talking about tearing down churchs and using the valuable land for the people of this country

Churchs can look nice and have some history but having 25 in a 5 km sqaured area is ridiculous and should be utitlised for the people of this day and age and the future people of this country

Wanderer78

Jalen Nutritious Stockyard wrote:

At one stage members of Fine Gael seem to define rich as a household making greater than €100k a year. Plenty of them around so not sure how wealth redistribution can be done without a major political upheaval or unrest. For numerous reasons I couldn't see it working - people in that bracket would emigrate and those left behind would have to run hospitals etc.

Yea it's a tough one to resolve but I suspect we ll eventually be forced to, when we eventually get sick of crashes and what not. If you still have a home, just be thankful

sexmag

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The only problem is, the riches in are modern society are no longer human, the vast majority of wealth on this planet is stored as ones and zeros, we need to figure out how to distribute these ones and zeros more evenly

sounds like communism to me

Wanderer78

sexmag wrote:

sounds like communism to me

Not at all, believe it or not, there has been far more prosperous and settled periods of capitalism in the past, there's nothing stopping us from creating that again only will.

sbsquarepants

P_1 wrote: »

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

20% of the population crowding fawningly into the phoenix park will tell the bastards of Rome all they need to know!

vicwatson

sbsquarepants wrote: »

20% of the population crowding fawningly into the phoenix park will tell the bastards of Rome all they need to know!

80% of that 20% will be foreigners I reckon.

sexmag

vicwatson wrote: »

80% of that 20% will be foreigners I reckon.

Resident foreigners or visiting foreigners?

weldoninhio

They've taken over a second house. Time for the Gardai to move in before the virus spreads even more.

Wanderer78

weldoninhio wrote:

They've taken over a second house. Time for the Gardai to move in before the virus spreads even more.

The virus of asset price inflation is already here, so too late

Technocentral

Apparantly that house was a fire hazard and had 6 - 8 people per bedroom paying cash, how can any decent person support the scumbag owners?

Technocentral

Technocentral wrote: »

Apparantly that house was a fire hazard and had 6 - 8 people per bedroom paying cash, how can any decent person support the scumbag owners?

The people appear to want back in?

Boom_Bap

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The people appear to want back in?

I think that the local want the house (and others around) to not remain in the unlivable condition and be made fit for housing purposes....rather than left in that state to drive down property prices in the area.

Technocentral

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Technocentral wrote: »

Apparantly that house was a fire hazard and had 6 - 8 people per bedroom paying cash, how can any decent person support the scumbag owners?

The people appear to want back in?

Out of desperation, do you seriously think deathtraps are acceptable for people to live in, shamful.?

Donald Trump

sexmag wrote: »

I cringe linking to the sun but this article is spot on

https://www.thesun.ie/news/948902/religious-wealth-revealed-as-catholic-church-has-assets-worth-almost-e4-billion/

Declining attendances and increasing homelessness that requires people to "break Into private property of (scumbag) landlords" should be enough for the government to make a change with the church,over 3.2 billion euro is far more than they need in property and why they aren't being made CPO for property is beyond me,the church has had sickening hold on this country for too long,the grip is being loosend but this should be a no brainer

If they can break into a private persons house to make a statement why don't they do it too the church too? The landlord and church are no different in my opinion bar the fact the church doesn't pay tax

Before people start proposing seizing of church (or any other) lands as somehow a "solution", they might want to do some research on the land already in public ownership and left sitting there.


You might be better off pressuring local authorities to develop what they already have before letting them grab more to sit on indefinitely

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

Not at all, believe it or not, there has been far more prosperous and settled periods of capitalism in the past, there's nothing stopping us from creating that again only will.

When in Ireland did this period happen? I presume you aren't talking about 2002-2007 which caused a lot of the current problems.

It would be nice if the protesters actually did something useful. I know the whole charade is good for their egos but it does nothing to sort out the problem. Going off and actually helping get houses built whether it be working as a trades person, designing the houses, helping speed up the planning process, encouraging politicians off all stripes not to listen to NIMBYs etc would be far more effective. It's very unglamorous work but if they were serious about tackling the housing issue its what they would be doing.