The Frederick St protest and reaction

hatrickpatrick

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

I see the bullsh1t memes have started: one featuring a painting of impoverished tenants in 19th century rural Ireland being turfed out of their home, with no rights, no protections, no resources, no supports, brutal colonial power over them... side by side with a photo of the police and balaclava'd guys (why is that such a big deal? Oh yeah, it's not - but you gotta find outrage where you can!) from last night... as if they're comparable. Because the squatters who chose to break into and illegally occupy someone else's private property are OF COURSE just like the actual tenants who got evicted in the 19th century. :rolleyes:

How can they complain about dishonesty from Trump supporters etc and then pull that kind of sh1t? The hypocrisy is galling.

What specifically is the difference between the people who got fleeced with unfair rents (hence the "Fair Rent" demand) and evicted (hence the "Fixity of Tenure" demand) during the Land League era, and those who are being fleeced with unfair rents and evicted if they can't pay them today? Break it down for me. Why was it ok to oppose the use of land as a pure commodity with no social responsibility element back in the late 19th century, but it's suddenly totally unacceptable and outside the Overton Window today?

Galwayguy35

It was on the news there now, some posh young wan basically said people delayed getting home because they blocked the traffic should have more important things to worry about.

The rest of them were dirty looking crusties.

McMurphy

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me that some of those who shout the loudest attended schools where a years tuition fees would nearly cover a years rent ; Paul Murphy (St. Killians €5150 p/a and Institute of Education €7295 p/a), Richard Boyd-Barrett (St Michaels €5500) and Republican Harry Potter, Eoin O'Broin (Blackrock, €6900 p/a). Real friend of the working man and woman :rolleyes:

Years rent in Dublin? What part?

And what relevance is it where someone's (presumably parents) sent them to be educated?

Are only politicians from low to middle income families allowed to point to crises of any shape or form within society or what?

If we use this train of thought, what righr would a wealthy/millionaire/landlord/politicians know about problems in some of the poorer regions in the state, and how dare they speak up or highlight them?

hatrickpatrick

DChancer wrote: »

A free forever home is not a right, nobody has the right to demand that "someone else pay for all my stuff"!

Question: Do you believe that healthcare is a right, or would you support a US-style "Can't afford to pay for cancer treatment? Die of cancer" system here? Yes or no?

For Forks Sake

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You could have also included Mary Lou.

I have her mentally blocked. But now that you mention it, Notre Dame des Missions (€4300 p/a). But they're closing next year.

20Cent

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me that some of those who shout the loudest attended schools where a years tuition fees would nearly cover a years rent ; Paul Murphy (St. Killians €5150 p/a and Institute of Education €7295 p/a), Richard Boyd-Barrett (St Michaels €5500) and Republican Harry Potter, Eoin O'Broin (Blackrock, €6900 p/a). Real friend of the working man and woman :rolleyes:

Why is it so hard to believe that someone with a privileged upbringing could care about others less privileged?

Gimme A Pound

20Cent wrote: »

Memes aren't supposed to be taken literally.

There is still supposed to be a grain of truth to them.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What specifically is the difference between the people who got fleeced with unfair rents (hence the "Fair Rent" demand) and evicted (hence the "Fixity of Tenure" demand) during the Land League era, and those who are being fleeced with unfair rents and evicted if they can't pay them today? Break it down for me. Why was it ok to oppose the use of land as a pure commodity with no social responsibility element back in the late 19th century, but it's suddenly totally unacceptable and outside the Overton Window today?

Seriously? It was crystal clear that I was talking about the disingenuous comparison of the people who chose to break into a private property and illegally occupy it... with actual tenants who were evicted so cruelly during the Land League era. I mean, I even said it.

I completely agree that there are disgustingly greedy landlords. Not sure why the government are to blame for them. The government are responsible for drafting legislation for sure, but these things take time unfortunately. And I'm certainly not sure how breaking into a private property - committing an offence that is going to lose your credibility - will effect change at government level.

Gimme A Pound

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Question: Do you believe that healthcare is a right, or would you support a US-style "Can't afford to pay for cancer treatment? Die of cancer" system here? Yes or no?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Your posts are as aggressive as those of some on the right. If anything, overall I find the right to be more accepting of my mostly centrist, sometimes liberal, views.

20Cent wrote: »

Why is it so hard to believe that someone with a privileged upbringing could care about others less privileged?

It's not in fairness - I prefer privileged people caring about those who are less privileged, than being rotten snobs. But what I don't agree with is privileged people pretending they are working-class and lecturing middle-class people.

hatrickpatrick

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Who has the most seats on Dublin City Council?

Sinn Fein.

What's that got to do with anything? I don't support SF and I never have, I think they're full of sh!t and they'll say anything to get elected before lazily wasting their time in office, like so many other political factions.

There is the fact that our local councils aren't fully democratic though, and that's something which needs to change ASAP. The idea that a democratically elected council can literally be "overruled" by the unelected bureaucracy behind it (as happened with the O'Devaney Gardens redevelopment and nearly happened with the St Teresa's Gardens redevelopment) is absolutely abhorrent.

By the way there is already 4,000 social houses built this year, how is it true the government don’t build social houses anymore?

They're not being built by the councils, they're being built by developers and part of the land is being sold to developers or on the private market. They're not being retained in council ownership.

Have you a costing for building houses for everyone who wants one?

I'm talking more about flats more so than houses to be honest. As far as I know, phase one of the Dolphin's Barn regeneration will cost somewhere in the region of €25 million and deliver roughly 100 flats, so that comes down to roughly €250,000 per unit. Do you have any inflation adjusted figures for how much it cost Herbert Simms to build that estate in the first place, if you're claiming that building those units today is so much more expensive than it was back then?

I reckon it’s 100,s of billions of euro.

Even the bank bailouts didn't cost that much FFS. This kind of hyperbole destroys your argument.

We don’t have that money it’s as simple as that.

I respectfully disagree. And even if we don't have the money do do all of it, we should be spending the money we do have on fixing some of it. Not wasting it on, to take one obvious recent example, hosting the head of an extremely wealthy international paedophile ring as a guest of the state, on the taxpayer's dime. In fact, that cost €32 million while as I've just pointed out, redeveloping the first three blocks of Dolphin House costs €25 million - does that not say it all? Discretionary spending by councils and government needs to end until after we've sorted this problem out.

hatrickpatrick

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

Why does it have to be one or the other? Your posts are as aggressive as those of some on the right. If anything, overall I find the right to be more accepting of my mostly centrist, sometimes liberal, views

How does it not have to be one or the other? You either have publicly funded healthcare for those who need it, or you don't. I don't see how you can have a half way house on that issue - unless you're suggesting that some people who can't pay for cancer treatment should be left to die, while others should be covered by public healthcare? I genuinely don't understand what you mean by this. And I respect everyone's right to an opinion contrary to mine, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shy away from explicitly and unapologetically spelling out my views. In my view, land is a public resource first and a private asset last, and that's the way it should be if our priority is a society which maximises quality of life across the board and minimises inequality.

hatrickpatrick

20Cent wrote: »

Why is it so hard to believe that someone with a privileged upbringing could care about others less privileged?

To those who believe that the priority in everything should be how someone can profit from it, the idea of caring about others' plight must be rather difficult to comprehend :pac:

Gimme A Pound

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It was on the news there now, some posh young wan basically said people delayed getting home because they blocked the traffic should have more important things to worry about.

The rest of them were dirty looking crusties.

Easy to say when you don't have to work because doddy finances you.

Trasna1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What specifically is the difference between the people who got fleeced with unfair rents (hence the "Fair Rent" demand) and evicted (hence the "Fixity of Tenure" demand) during the Land League era, and those who are being fleeced with unfair rents and evicted if they can't pay them today? Break it down for me. Why was it ok to oppose the use of land as a pure commodity with no social responsibility element back in the late 19th century, but it's suddenly totally unacceptable and outside the Overton Window today?

With the advent of rent control, have the not the majority of those evicted not been because the landlord wants to sell? Should people be prevented from selling their property?

Taylor365

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

'Normal' folk on 'normal' wages can't afford to buy or rent a central property in any major city in the world though, the way people are going on you'd swear it was an Irish only problem. It's not, not even close. it is very much the way of the western world - not saying it's 'right' or 'wrong' but it's definitely how it is in many many other places.

Those on housing lists shouldn't really be housed in a 2k/month apartment etc. in the city centre though. Those are for people of large means who can afford it. Equality can't be extended to bank accounts, or else it's just heading towards communism. I am not entirely sure what this squatting exercise wants to achieve beyond the raising of awareness and division of people.

Yup. This should be a straight forward transition. Live where you work - costs €€€€€.


The major problems that led us to the current housing predicament are twofold i believe:


1. Building Height Restrictions - Not having the ability to build high-rise buildings in the city centre has led to a massive urban sprawl. This spreads the land value far out from the city centre, drawing a nice 15km semi-circle of "un-affordability". There are the occasional estate where houses are between €150-250k, but for obvious reason. This also forces many businesses into Industrial estates/Business parks, where they could have easily occupied 1 floor of an office building.



2. Apartments Requiring Car Spaces - MANY more apartments could have been built in the city centre over the last decade if not for this ridiculous requirement.

hatrickpatrick

Seriously? It was crystal clear that I was talking about the disingenuous comparison of the people who chose to break into a private property and illegally occupy it... with actual tenants who were evicted so cruelly during the Land League era. I mean, I even said it.

so in the Land League era, you'd only have sympathy with the actual tenants who were evicted, and not those from other walks of Irish society who chose to show solidarity with them and help them in their fight for justice because they believed that it was the right thing to do?

I put it to you that if participation in every single social issue fight in history was restricted only to those who were the direct victims of it, and not those who merely sympathised with them ideologically, a great multitude of successful fights for justice and human rights would at best have taken far longer to win, and at worst would have been lost altogether. That sucks, but it's a fact. The fight for civil rights in Northern Ireland couldn't have been won without the help and support of people from outside that jurisdiction. The civil rights movement in the United States could not have been successful without the help of sympathetic white legislators already in power. The fight against apartheid couldn't have been successful without international pressure as well as pressure from the actual downtrodden.

Your position is quite odd, to be honest. I genuinely don't think I can get my head around it.

I completely agree that there are disgustingly greedy landlords. Not sure why the government are to blame for them. The government are responsible for drafting legislation for sure, but these things take time unfortunately.

If this was a case of a lethargic and inefficient political system simply taking too long to fix a problem it was trying to fix, that would be far less infuriating than what's actually happening, which is that ideologically, too many politicians are ideologically opposed to the idea that land is not a mere private cash cow. This is a deficit of ideology, not merely an inefficient system which is trying to fix the problem. As I said earlier in the thread, as stated by Fintan O'Toole in his incredibly accurate article about this, this whole issue can be summarised as a problem of "won't", not "can't".

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-opposition-to-social-housing-is-matter-of-ideology-not-economics-1.2397695

And I'm certainly not sure how breaking into a private property - committing an offence that is going to lose your credibility - will effect change at government level.

It's designed to place PR pressure on the government by highlighting the waste that's going on in the midst of a crisis, in order to shame and embarrass them into taking legislative action. Fairly standard practise right down through the history of protest and civil disobedience. I could cite numerous examples of actions taken through history by protesters which they knew wouldn't by themselves solve the problem, but which they also knew would shame and pressure those with the power to solve it into actually solving it.

hatrickpatrick

Trasna1 wrote: »

With the advent of rent control, have the not the majority of those evicted not been because the landlord wants to sell? Should people be prevented from selling their property?

Of course not! And if they're selling, the council should be buying them, flattening them, and replacing them with higher density developments more appropriate for the city centre - again, as they did from the 1930s right up to and including the 1980s.

EDIT: I genuinely wonder if some people realise just how common this was. Every single time you drive or walk past one of these buildings in Dublin, you're literally walking past a block of housing where that is exactly what the council did, at some point during the 20th century:

dxhound2005

20Cent wrote: »

Why is it so hard to believe that someone with a privileged upbringing could care about others less privileged?

I find it hard to believe that a private fee paying education results in producing so many Marxist Leninists.

J_E

You're having circular arguments about rent and property prices.

Can we remember that Gardai assisted private thugs that used brute force and peaceful protesters ended up in hospital?

This was entirely avoidable and it's chilling to see a side of the police force that is willing to forego due process and lawfulness.

Wheeliebin30

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course not! And if they're selling, the council should be buying them, flattening them, and replacing them with higher density developments more appropriate for the city centre - again, as they did from the 1930s right up to and including the 1980s.

EDIT: I genuinely wonder if some people realise just how common this was. Every single time you drive or walk past one of these buildings in Dublin, you're literally walking past a block of housing where that is exactly what the council did, at some point during the 20th century:

Have you a costing for this?

hatrickpatrick

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

'Normal' folk on 'normal' wages can't afford to buy or rent a central property in any major city in the world though, the way people are going on you'd swear it was an Irish only problem. It's not, not even close. it is very much the way of the western world - not saying it's 'right' or 'wrong' but it's definitely how it is in many many other places.

Those on housing lists shouldn't really be housed in a 2k/month apartment etc. in the city centre though. Those are for people of large means who can afford it. Equality can't be extended to bank accounts, or else it's just heading towards communism. I am not entirely sure what this squatting exercise wants to achieve beyond the raising of awareness and division of people.

No one's suggesting extending it bank accounts, just to housing itself.

dxhound2005

J_E wrote: »

You're having circular arguments about rent and property prices.

Can we remember that Gardai assisted private thugs that used brute force and peaceful protesters ended up in hospital?

This was entirely avoidable and it's chilling to see a side of the police force that is willing to forego due process and lawfulness.

A good number of people on the thread found it a very warming experience to observe.

Gimme A Pound

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that a private fee paying education results in producing so many Marxist Leninists.

Extremely easy to be a Marxist Leninist when growing up in privilege in the West.

hatrickpatrick

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Have you a costing for this?

I'd have to do some maths to adjust those for inflation once I find out (which I'm currently attempting to, have been in contact with the OPW about this) but I've already given one costing for Dolphin House redevelopment which is happening right now, and that cost so far has been €25 million for 100 units of housing.

That means that for the €44 million Dun Laoghaire County Council spent on a locally despised and unasked-for vanity project, they could have built roughly 176 new flats in FitzGerald Park / Mounttown, a huge, vacant, council-owned site where a group of badly designed tower blocks were demolished in 2008. Instead - you guessed it - they've sold half of it to the private market in order to pay for the redevelopment. More badly needed public land gone. Whoop-de-doo. :mad:

weldoninhio

J_E wrote: »

You're having circular arguments about rent and property prices.

Can we remember that Gardai assisted private thugs that used brute force and peaceful protesters ended up in hospital?

This was entirely avoidable and it's chilling to see a side of the police force that is willing to forego due process and lawfulness.

By all accounts the eviction went quietly and the scuffles happened outside the house, between the crusties and the Gardaí. Hence the arrests.

hatrickpatrick

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that a private fee paying education results in producing so many Marxist Leninists.

Were the governments of Ireland from 1930-1990 Marxist-Leninist as well? Was the government which built Mountjoy and Summerhill in the 1950s and 60s after compulsory purchase of the tenements a Marxist-Leninist government? How about the government of the 1930s which hired Herbert Simms to build social housing projects from Dublin 2 to Crumlin, and from Dublin 1 to Stoneybatter?

Your hyperbole is idiotic and is totally undermining any argument you might be trying to make.

HeidiHeidi

J_E wrote: »

You're having circular arguments about rent and property prices.

Can we remember that Gardai assisted private thugs that used brute force and peaceful protesters ended up in hospital?

This was entirely avoidable and it's chilling to see a side of the police force that is willing to forego due process and lawfulness.

Eh, what?


What about the court order to vacate the premises? There was no report of the "private thugs" using brute force. And the "peaceful protesters" got themselves arrested scuffling outside the premises.


It was all avoidable, I'll grant you that.



Nice revisionism, though :rolleyes:

rosser44

20Cent wrote: »

Why is it so hard to believe that someone with a privileged upbringing could care about others less privileged?

Because its much more likely that he's co-opting a vocal and populist group of anti everything protesters to further his own political career? Like he's done from the get go?

Do you think he'd be there of there was no cameras or reporters, or a chance to get his name in the paper?

J_E

J_E wrote: »

You're having circular arguments about rent and property prices.

Can we remember that Gardai assisted private thugs that used brute force and peaceful protesters ended up in hospital?

This was entirely avoidable and it's chilling to see a side of the police force that is willing to forego due process and lawfulness.

you can remind me but its a total fantasy to ask anyone to believe it

people are well wise to the antics of this crowd from water protests and all the rest of it

Wheeliebin30

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd have to do some maths to adjust those for inflation once I find out (which I'm currently attempting to, have been in contact with the OPW about this) but I've already given one costing for Dolphin House redevelopment which is happening right now, and that cost so far has been €25 million for 100 units of housing.

That means that for the €44 million Dun Laoghaire County Council spent on a locally despised and unasked-for vanity project, they could have built roughly 176 new flats in FitzGerald Park / Mounttown, a huge, vacant, council-owned site where a group of badly designed tower blocks were demolished in 2008. Instead - you guessed it - they've sold half of it to the private market in order to pay for the redevelopment. More badly needed public land gone. Whoop-de-doo. :mad:

So how many houses do you want built with tax payers money?

We’re getting somewhere here thanks for the response.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Were the governments of Ireland from 1930-1990 Marxist-Leninist as well? Was the government which built Mountjoy and Summerhill in the 1950s and 60s after compulsory purchase of the tenements a Marxist-Leninist government? How about the government of the 1930s which hired Herbert Simms to build social housing projects from Dublin 2 to Crumlin, and from Dublin 1 to Stoneybatter?

Your hyperbole is idiotic and is totally undermining any argument you might be trying to make.

how did the majority of these projects end up then

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

you can remind me but its a total fantasy to ask anyone to believe it

people are well wise to the antics of this crowd from water protests and all the rest of it

And guess what? In that instance, through a combination of both peaceful protest and civil disobedience, we won. Activism can make a difference.

This evenings protest isn't about housing. It's in support of the 5 thugs arrested by Gardai after the legal eviction.

Wheeliebin30

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And guess what? In that instance, through a combination of both peaceful protest and civil disobedience, we won. Activism can make a difference.

Haha they won nothing.

Water will still have to be paid for sooner or later, they just kicked the van down the road like every government has done the last 50 years with water.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And guess what? In that instance, through a combination of both peaceful protest and civil disobedience, we won. Activism can make a difference.

and hows the water infrastructure of the country

ignorance, sheer ignorance

a child thinks it has won when it gets sweets after a tantrum

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

how did the majority of these projects end up then

The ones which failed failed due to bad planning, not design (except some of Simms' later ones when he was overworked and stressed out, these are the ones which have had damp issues and had to be redeveloped like Dolphin House - the earlier ones such as Oliver Bond are still standing and haven't had to undergo large scale redevelopment) - chiefly, the idiotic policy of creating ghettoes by housing only low income tenants and housing them all together in the same high density developments. Nobody is proposing that again. Some social housing in my envisaged mass-building scheme would be given to people earning average wages, and they'd be charged a reasonable rent. But nobody should be paying four figures per month for one bedroom apartment, regardless of where it happens to be. The basic part of life that it having a roof over one's head shouldn't be that much of a drain on one's income, end of story.

dxhound2005

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Were the governments of Ireland from 1930-1990 Marxist-Leninist as well? Was the government which built Mountjoy and Summerhill in the 1950s and 60s after compulsory purchase of the tenements a Marxist-Leninist government? How about the government of the 1930s which hired Herbert Simms to build social housing projects from Dublin 2 to Crumlin, and from Dublin 1 to Stoneybatter?

Your hyperbole is idiotic and is totally undermining any argument you might be trying to make.

It's only in modern times, broadly since we joined the EU, that the country has managed to support a growing population, currently 4.8 million. In 1960 it was 2.8 million. This has been done with a model of private home ownership for the most part. More recently private rental has become more common. Whatever those projects did, they did not support a growing population.

Amirani

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course not! And if they're selling, the council should be buying them, flattening them, and replacing them with higher density developments more appropriate for the city centre - again, as they did from the 1930s right up to and including the 1980s.

EDIT: I genuinely wonder if some people realise just how common this was. Every single time you drive or walk past one of these buildings in Dublin, you're literally walking past a block of housing where that is exactly what the council did, at some point during the 20th century:

Don't suppose you had the pleasure of living in one of these Simms developments during your lifetime? I can tell you first hand, most of them are complete ****holes, and completely inappropriate for modern living.

HeidiHeidi

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And guess what? In that instance, through a combination of both peaceful protest and civil disobedience, we won. Activism can make a difference.

Seriously? Won what, exactly?


Ask everyone who had to ration water all summer long during our lovely heatwave. Asfar as I know the water restrictions are still in place in some areas.



Our water system is still in a total heap, with no money to pay for it.


I won't disagree that the IW setup (like most other state bodies) was a shambles, but jaysus.

dav3

J_E wrote: »

You're having circular arguments about rent and property prices.

Can we remember that Gardai assisted private thugs that used brute force and peaceful protesters ended up in hospital?

This was entirely avoidable and it's chilling to see a side of the police force that is willing to forego due process and lawfulness.

It's certainly helped highlight the issues and as a result increased the number of people willing to protest. The riot squad and the hired goons handled the whole thing disastrously.

I wouldn't worry about the ramblings by the youth wing of fine gael, nobody takes them seriously on here.

HeidiHeidi

Deleted User wrote: »

and hows the water infrastructure of the country

ignorance, sheer ignorance

a child thinks it has won when it gets sweets after a tantrum

This x 100.



Could not have put it better.

lawred2

J_E wrote: »

You're having circular arguments about rent and property prices.

Can we remember that Gardai assisted private thugs that used brute force and peaceful protesters ended up in hospital?

This was entirely avoidable and it's chilling to see a side of the police force that is willing to forego due process and lawfulness.

What's peaceful about breaking and entering?

What's lawful about breaking and entering?

Stop chatting shoite

Trasna1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd have to do some maths to adjust those for inflation once I find out (which I'm currently attempting to, have been in contact with the OPW about this) but I've already given one costing for Dolphin House redevelopment which is happening right now, and that cost so far has been €25 million for 100 units of housing.

That means that for the €44 million Dun Laoghaire County Council spent on a locally despised and unasked-for vanity project, they could have built roughly 176 new flats in FitzGerald Park / Mounttown, a huge, vacant, council-owned site where a group of badly designed tower blocks were demolished in 2008. Instead - you guessed it - they've sold half of it to the private market in order to pay for the redevelopment. More badly needed public land gone. Whoop-de-doo. :mad:

Just so you know the cost of construction is much much more in real terms than it was back when the council was building those dens of social deprivation that you've in the picture above. Materials cost about 70% and labour 30%. (If you look at buildings from this era you'll see how clever the designers were in minimising materials) The reverse is now true since all site work is skilled to some extent and regulations in building are far more stringent. The overheads in relation to BCAR some estimate to add up to 10% to the build cost.
Labour has just over doubled in cost in real terms while materials have tracked inflation.


But that's not the primary reason why there is low house building - there are simply not enough construction workers available to do the work. Sure we could import labour, but the constraints on credit limit this (lesson from last time), so we are stuck with a construction industry that it's at capacity.

I suppose one way to get more houses built would be if we could mobilise the 400k permanently unemployed, but that's wishful thinking... They have protests to go to...

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The ones which failed failed due to bad planning, not design (except some of Simms' later ones when he was overworked and stressed out, these are the ones which have had damp issues and had to be redeveloped like Dolphin House - the earlier ones such as Oliver Bond are still standing and haven't had to undergo large scale redevelopment) - chiefly, the idiotic policy of creating ghettoes by housing only low income tenants and housing them all together in the same high density developments. Nobody is proposing that again. Some social housing in my envisaged mass-building scheme would be given to people earning average wages, and they'd be charged a reasonable rent. But nobody should be paying four figures per month for one bedroom apartment, regardless of where it happens to be. The basic part of life that it having a roof over one's head shouldn't be that much of a drain on one's income, end of story.

i agree with a lot of your thrust

i think its madness to link these cogent and logical arguments to the activities launching this thread

madness.

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep, pick up their kids from a €1500/2000 a month creche whatever the cost of it is, and then commute home to the arse end of Westmeath or wherever and probably muttering every mile of the way home about their miserable lifestyle. We did this during Celtic Tiger 1 and moaned mightily about it. Celtic Tiger 2 The Sequel finds us doing the exact same thing again and seemingly willing to do nothing about it.

F**k it, you know what, the Pavlovian worshippers of the system deserve their long miserable commutes if they continue to buy into a concept that treats them so badly in the long run.

As said earlier - the mask slips every now and again.

The contempt for the working people of Ireland, the ones who get of their holes and try and provide for themselves and their families, is sickening.

hatrickpatrick

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

So how many houses do you want built with tax payers money?

We’re getting somewhere here thanks for the response.

As many as it takes to cause widespread deflation in the rental market and ensure that nobody has to obliterate their disposable income just to have a roof over their head. I don't have figures for how much social housing DCC had to build during the 1930s in order to ease the crisis, but I can do some rough estimates given that I've studied a lot of those blocks fairly substantially and can give a rough estimate as to how many units fit in each estate and how many of these estates there are across the city. It's made more complicated by the fact that some of them have been demolished though. I'll try and source these figures and do some calculations for you so we can at least have the benchmark of how many they had to build in the first half of the 20th century.

I know that the number stretches into the thousands at the very least (even just three - Dolphin House, O'Devaney Gardens and Teresa's Gardens - break the 1,000 figure easily when put together) but just to give you an idea, one of those red-bricked blocks with the circular stairwell towers adjacent holds exactly 48 flats over five storeys - technically eight flats per storey, but the upper two rows are in fact duplexes. Most of those developments in the city are built in groups of 2-5 blocks - Stephen's Green / Cuffe Street has two, Bishop Street has three, Chamber Street used to have three, Charlemont Street used to have 5 - so straight away in a relatively small stretch of the South Inner City, 13 such blocks with 48 flats in each, for a grand total of 585 units. And that's scraping the tip of the iceberg to be honest - the Mercer Street development beside the Cuffe Street one is absolutely vast, it's just harder to count it because several of its blocks are internal ones with buildings surrounding them, so you don't just pass them by when walking through town. I'll have a look on Google Street View later.

So this could take me a while, but I'll attempt to get figures for you on what we did before, right up until the end of the 1980s when the God-awful era of "the free market matters more than human life and happiness" began.

dav3

dav3 wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about the ramblings by the youth wing of fine gael, nobody takes them seriously on here.

this is about the standard quality of your stuff across any issue that requires paying for, as far as i can tell

fantasy money, nobody pays, really baseless stuff.

J_E

lawred2 wrote: »

What's peaceful about breaking and entering?

What's lawful about breaking and entering?

Stop chatting shoite

It's the duty of Gardai to follow the law... why were they helping this group?

Many protests and calls for change have had to sometimes challenge laws. Laws don't define the morality of a nation.

lawred2

blackwhite wrote: »

As said earlier - the mask slips every now and again.

The contempt for the working people of Ireland, the ones who get of their holes and try and provide for themselves and their families, is sickening.

Contempt for the same people whose taxes will pay to house all these incapables

lawred2

J_E wrote: »

It's the duty of Gardai to follow the law... why were they helping this group?

Many protests and calls for change have had to sometimes challenge laws. Laws don't define the morality of a nation.

Keepers of the peace. Nothing peaceful about breaking and entering.

Thatnastyboy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No one's suggesting extending it bank accounts, just to housing itself.

Housing is unequal by nature though.

For instance - I have to commute from the sticks because I can't afford Dublin rent. It's my tough shít and I can accept that. If i was on 150k i could afford to live in gc dock or somewhere, but i'm not - so i can't!

I don't deny theres a housing problem here, but siezing peoples assets & demanding free accommodation in the most expensive part of the country is not the way to solve it.