The Frederick St protest and reaction

homerjay2005

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

3,000????

Where did you get that from.

Interesting

current "homeless" figures.

theres 1000s of houses currently planned in the private sector which will cater for everything else.

Trasna1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Here's something I genuinely don't understand. Irish households are earning more now than we did during the boom; rental and property prices are higher than they were during the boom, and the country is almost at full employment.

So with these combination of factors, even if a person took out a mortgage at the height of the boom, why exactly are they unable to service and repay it? The economic conditions are better now than they were when the mortgage was drawn down.

Because lots of people over paid and more importantly over extended themselves. They may have taken mortgages with initial holiday/discount periods at the start or assumed their careers would be further progressed than they are.

In my own field, wage progression now takes twice as long.

Sweet.Science

homerjay2005 wrote: »

we dont need 100,000 social houses. 3,000 maximum would solve most of the issue. opening up vacant council houses would solve more and moving people into empty units around the country also would help more.

The need for social housing is not sustainable. The more that are built the more that will sign on and pursue one and live a certain lifestyle to try get one.

I dont know what the solution is.

yourdeadwright

I think its the timing of the whole thing that has people upset 
New Garda commissioner with Mi5 links is only in the door, Then that van last registered to the Manchester police force turns up in Dublin with English reg ,Masked men and not taxed and no insurances, No id (some claim they didn't need them so say they did)  
The Garda released in there statement they checked and the Van was taxed , which is a lie you can check online yourself, It hasn;t been taxed since 2014 , 
I'm not saying any of the above is right or wrong but its what has upset some people 
Then on top of that  the new commissioner made a statement last month that the biggest threat currently to Irish people is " Republican paramilitaries " which raised serious eyebrows , As its clear its the drug gangs and the problems they have been causing are far worse in current times 
Its easy to see why the Sinn Fein heads are worried when that came from a former PSI officer's mouth whos father was killed by the IRA, Its very very out of touch of what currently happing and seems obvious he would have problem with Republicans due to his past, who wouldn't to be fair to the man , 
Again i'm not saying i agree or its right  , I'm just saying this is why u'll see a lot of people on Facebook and what not giving out,

Amirani

homerjay2005 wrote: »

current "homeless" figures.

theres 1000s of houses currently planned in the private sector which will cater for everything else.

If the state announces a plan that they're going to start giving social housing to all the homeless, then anyone who is living at home and wants to move out,is living in substandard accommodation or accommodation they can't afford will suddenly just declare themselves homeless overnight. You'd be crazy not to if you're automatically going to be housed.

homerjay2005

homerjay2005 wrote: »

.......... moving people into empty units around the country also would help more.

Many folk won't and don't want to be moved to places around the country.

Sweet.Science

Sweet.Science wrote: »

The need for social housing is not sustainable. The more that are built the more that will sign on and pursue one and live a certain lifestyle to try get one.

I was a child in the 1990s, and I grew up in a small, thriving town with no poverty-related social problems. Yet half the kids in my primary school class lived in houses that were (or had been) local authority houses.

Go back another generation, to our parents' generations, and that figure is probably even higher, especially in urban centres. In fact, plenty of the one-off bungalows you see dotted around the countryside were built using local authority mortgages, not privately.

This moral panic that 'if the Government build social housing, the people will turn into a nation of shirkers' is entirely vacuous. Almost every household in the country gets some kind of welfare transfer as things are, and productivity is at an all-time high.

Relax lads. If anything is 'new', it's the idea that local authorities shouldn't build social housing. That's the great experiment here, and it isn't working.

yourdeadwright

See its the timing and the use of english reg , People already of Harris's back

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

....... Almost every household in the country gets some kind of welfare transfer as things are, and productivity is at an all-time high............

You must be including children's allowance or mortgage interest relief etc in that?

Augeo

Augeo wrote: »

You must be including children's allowance or mortgage interest relief etc in that?

Of course; and medical cards, and pensions, and jobseekers' payments.

Why? Because there's this notion that only a minority are availing of welfare transfers, and that such transfers are somehow dangerous to the industriousness of the society. Which as we can see if we look around us, or look at the literature on universal basic incomes, is BS.

Amirani

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I was a child in the 1990s, and I grew up in a small, thriving town with no poverty-related social problems. Yet half the kids in my primary school class lived in houses that were (or had been) local authority houses.

I grew up in Cabra/Finglas in social housing areas and it was pretty awful, lots of poverty and very rough in parts. Lots of drugs and quite unsafe a lot of the time.

That said, I am supportive of the state providing social housing. But I'm massively against the model of putting a large volume of social houses in the same spot, or having 100% social housing developments. We need mixed accommodation.

Sweet.Science

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I was a child in the 1990s, and I grew up in a small, thriving town with no poverty-related social problems. Yet half the kids in my primary school class lived in houses that were (or had been) local authority houses.

Go back another generation, to our parents' generations, and that figure is probably even higher, especially in urban centres. In fact, plenty of the one-off bungalows you see dotted around the countryside were built using local authority mortgages, not privately.

This moral panic that 'if the Government build social housing, the people will turn into a nation of shirkers' is entirely vacuous. Almost every household in the country gets some kind of welfare transfer as things are, and productivity is at an all-time high.

Relax lads. If anything is 'new', it's the idea that local authorities shouldn't build social housing. That's the great experiment here, and it isn't working.

Thats not the point i was making.

The point was if we get our country to an unsustainable amount of debt to build social housing to rid us of the crisis we will be in the same position in 10-15 years time with a waiting list as high

In order to do it low income earner will have to be taxed at 40% . State pensions cut . Everything will have to be cut .

There would really be no point in working.

The need for social housing would be out of control

Deebles McBeebles

Its unsustainable anyway, we can't keep up with population growth, and not just in Ireland. There are housing issues all over the world.

hatrickpatrick

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

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!

If you want to accept that, that's your business. Some of us haven't bought into the relatively recent political ideology that people should just accept that.

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.

It was how we solved it before. Nobody so far has managed to give credible reasons as to why we couldn't do so again.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course; and medical cards, and pensions, and jobseekers' payments.

Why? Because there's this notion that only a minority are availing of welfare transfers, and that such transfers are somehow dangerous to the industriousness of the society. Which as we can see if we look around us, or look at the literature on universal basic incomes, is BS.

I'd not class children's allowance or the contributory pension with jobseekers and HAP etc.

There's clearly a difference, anyone with kids gets children's allowance, anyone who contributed enough gets the contributory pension.

If loads and loads more was in receipt of medical cards, non contributory pensions and jobseekers' payments etc the country would be bust.

Sweet.Science

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Thats not the point i was making.

The point was if we get our country to an unsustainable amount of debt to build social housing to rid us of the crisis we will be in the same position in 10-15 years time with a waiting list as high

In order to do it low income earner will have to be taxed at 40% . State pensions cut . Everything will have to be cut .

I'm not talking about a house-building programme comparable in volume to that of the 1930's.

I'm just talking about a semi-decent programme where the Local Authorities just up their game. Dublin City Council built just under 200 units last year, for their entire area. Relatively small adjustments to the tax code, such as a restoration of the VAT rate for cafes and restaurants, could probably see that kind of number doubled.

Amirani

Sinn Fein celebrating 500 new homes being cancelled: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plan-to-build-more-than-500-homes-near-dublin-s-st-anne-s-park-rejected-1.3627993

'The scheme was proposed under “fast-track” planning legislation, allowing applications to proceed directly to the Bord without local authority involvement. Thursday’s decision is the first time this process has been successfully challenged in the courts.

“We are absolutely ecstatic about it, all the residents. Hopefully it’s the end of it,” local Sinn Féin Cllr Ciaran Moore said of the decision.'

10000maniacs

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Occupy vacant houses lying idle for profit in the midst of a housing crisis? While done peacefully and respectfully (i.e. not ruining the interior of the property or violently resisting, etc) I'm behind you.

The sit down stuff on O'Connell street doesn't help your cause however. It fuels the divide and conquer narrative the media successfully peddle to the sheep and is so frequently expressed here on boards. It's just not good strategy. This happened a couple of times during the water protests. The protests would successfully march and rally through town, then a rump end of extremists blocked O'Connell bridge. I support the former I don't support the latter. And you want my support.

Seriously? The next time you go on holiday how would you like a posse of squatters living in your house when you return "peacefully" (passively aggressively) refusing to leave?

Thatnastyboy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you want to accept that, that's your business. Some of us haven't bought into the relatively recent political ideology that people should just accept that.



It was how we solved it before. Nobody so far has managed to give credible reasons as to why we couldn't do so again.

So your solution is to give me and every other citizen a free house? How in the hell does that work? What pays for it?


It didnt solve anything, it created some absolute hell hole no-go areas around the country with generational poverty & crime.

Hence spending 25 odd million trying to "regenerate" dolphins barn..

It failed, and failed miserably.


It didn't work for the soviets, and it won't work here, comrade.

Amirani

Amirani wrote: »

“We are absolutely ecstatic about it, all the residents. Hopefully it’s the end of it,” local Sinn Féin Cllr Ciaran Moore said of the decision.'

Weren't local representatives from every political party opposed to that development? I know that I've heard Labour and FG councillors on the radio, speaking in opposition to it.

Dravokivich

Sweet.Science wrote: »

The need for social housing is not sustainable. The more that are built the more that will sign on and pursue one and live a certain lifestyle to try get one.

I dont know what the solution is.

My need is for affordable housing. Social housing is a terrible way to call it, because it doesn't properly relate to the majority of people that it's built for.

DwightSchrute1

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I think its the timing of the whole thing that has people upset 
New Garda commissioner with Mi5 links is only in the door, Then that van last registered to the Manchester police force turns up in Dublin with English reg ,Masked men and not taxed and no insurances, No id (some claim they didn't need them so say they did)  
The Garda released in there statement they checked and the Van was taxed , which is a lie you can check online yourself, It hasn;t been taxed since 2014 , 
I'm not saying any of the above is right or wrong but its what has upset some people 
Then on top of that  the new commissioner made a statement last month that the biggest threat currently to Irish people is " Republican paramilitaries " which raised serious eyebrows , As its clear its the drug gangs and the problems they have been causing are far worse in current times 
Its easy to see why the Sinn Fein heads are worried when that came from a former PSI officer's mouth whos father was killed by the IRA, Its very very out of touch of what currently happing and seems obvious he would have problem with Republicans due to his past, who wouldn't to be fair to the man , 
Again i'm not saying i agree or its right  , I'm just saying this is why u'll see a lot of people on Facebook and what not giving out,

You hardly think that this operation was organised by the new Commissioner.

A run of the mill deployment of the Garda Public Order unit does not need to be presanctioned by the Commissioner, it would be done by local level management.

More than likely that Drew Harris would not have known anything about this incident until it took place and received media attention.

Amirani

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Weren't local representatives from every political party opposed to that development? I know that I've heard Labour and FG councillors on the radio, speaking in opposition to it.

We're in a housing crises, we need emergency measures. If we're happy have CPOs on private land across the city, then these 500 homes should be built.

This is just 1 example of the hypocrisy of political parties across the spectrum. Sinn Fein continuously block large density schemes in Dublin City Council and yet blame the Government for all the homelessness. They're equally as responsible.

hatrickpatrick

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Two things strike me from your post above, and since you seem to be well clued up on all of this maybe you might answer my questions?

I'll do my best!

Firstly, if you want "widespread deflation" in the rental market, is that not going to lead to an even bigger scramble of landlords getting out of the rental business than is currently underway, as it will no longer be in any way profitable

Good, as far as I'm concerned. That would mean more housing would be provided and managed on a non-profit basis, which would mean that rents would be determined by what is regarded as acceptable rather than the maximum someone can get away with charging, with no regard for how that impacts a tenant's quality of life.

(being a landlord is a business they're entitled to make a profit, they too have to live after all).

I don't ideologically believe that providing housing should be regarded as a business. It should be a public service in which the needs of society are the priority, not somebody's back pocket. As a society, we should democratically decide that housing is a right and that it should cost a reasonable amount, not the absolutely maximum some provider can get away with charging for it - just like we do with healthcare, water, education, etc. Of course there's still private education and healthcare, but everyone can avail of the public services if they need them, with 'upgrading' to the better resourced but expensive private option a discretionary extra. Basic housing should be a right, and that's exactly what Dublin Corporation used to provide before neoliberalism took hold. I again point to Fintan O'Toole's article on the subject - he described the housing built by the Corporation in Crumlin and Drimnagh as relatively basic - small and cramped units, for instance - but at the end of the day, as he pointed out, they had a roof over their head, and it was a hell of a lot better than having to either live on the streets or move out of their community and leave their social networks behind.

Secondly, almost all of the developments you sing the praises of have been demolished, Dolphin House is the only one I know of that's being redveloped in anything like its previous form. Does this not say something - like, that model failed?

This isn't actually true. The ones which have been demolished are the ones which were built towards the end of Simms' career when things began to fall apart economically for the country and as a result he was forced to scrimp on building materials - in fact, one of the reasons he ended his life was the stress of knowing that the projects he was embarking on were doomed to failure because he was badly under-resourced at the time. Chancery House, Oliver Bond House, Thorncastle Street and Countess Markievicz House are examples of the ones which are still standing, and do not have the issues which have led to these others being demolished. They were built earlier in his career, before his budget was gutted.

Clustering social housing in small areas like that was a disaster, the government seems determined not to go down that road again.

And I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm suggesting that the definition of "social housing" be expanded massively. It's no longer about people who can't work or have social problems, it's now about people who can and do work, but can't afford extortionate rents anyway.

dfx-

yourdeadwright wrote: »

The Garda released in there statement they checked and the Van was taxed , which is a lie you can check online yourself, It hasn;t been taxed since 2014,

So was it or wasn't it....

Sweet.Science

Dravokivich wrote: »

My need is for affordable housing. Social housing is a terrible way to call it, because it doesn't properly relate to the majority of people that it's built for.

Can you define affordable housing ?

Wheeliebin30

Amirani wrote: »

We're in a housing crises, we need emergency measures. If we're happy have CPOs on private land across the city, then these 500 homes should be built.

This is just 1 example of the hypocrisy of political parties across the spectrum. Sinn Fein continuously block large density schemes in Dublin City Council and yet blame the Government for all the homelessness. They're equally as responsible.

This situation suits Sinn Fein.

They have no interest in helping solve it, sure what could they rant and rave about then??

Amirani

Amirani wrote: »

We're in a housing crises, we need emergency measures. If we're happy have CPOs on private land across the city, then these 500 homes should be built.

i know, and I happen to agree that the opposition to that development is hysterial -- it was to be built on a tiny section of a very large park, and where better to build a developemnt like that, than next to a large sporting and recreational area? It seemed ideal to me.

My point is simply that it's a local, NIMBY issue. Was there are local representative, from any party, who *didn't* oppose it? If so, they're a brave councillor.

Aodhán O' Ríordan (lab), Seán haughey (FF) and Naoise Ó Muirí (FG) were the most vocal opponents to the development that I'd heard of, up until now.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Coppinger on Tonight there now "I wouldn't have the right to vote if people hadn't broken the law" Jesus wept.

Which specific part of this do you regard as untrue?

Brussels Sprout

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Here's something I genuinely don't understand. Irish households are earning more now than we did during the boom; rental and property prices are higher than they were during the boom, and the country is almost at full employment.

I'm not sure if that bolded bit is true.

As for the full employment bit. That's the same in a lot of OECD countries but a lot of that new job growth is in low-wage, low-benefit jobs. The kinds where people are off the dole queues but don't have anywhere near the disposable incomes that they did the last time that the unemployment rates were around the same values.

PlaneSpeeking

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Which specific part of this do you regard as untrue?

All of it.

Sweet.Science

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

i know, and I happen to agree that the opposition to that development is hysterial -- it was to be built on a tiny section of a very large park, and where better to build a developemnt like that, than next to a large sporting and recreational area? It seemed ideal to me.

My point is simply that it's a local, NIMBY issue. Was there are local representative, from any party, who *didn't* oppose it? If so, they're a brave councillor.

Aodhán O' Ríordan (lab), Seán haughey (FF) and Naoise Ó Muirí (FG) were the most vocal opponents to the development that I'd heard of, up until now.

Im walking distances from St Annes . I can tell you there would be a lot of locals outraged at our housing crisis .

Just dont build any near them

hatrickpatrick

Bethany Long Pensioner wrote: »

"So what you're saying is..."

Yeah there is utterly zero odd about my original stated position which was: directly comparing tenants being cruelly evicted from their home in the 1800s to the removal of squatters who accessed a private property without permission... is grossly dishonest. Nothing more. All the other bits were added by you.

Why is people being charged unfairly high rents and being cruelly evicted from their homes in the 1800s a legitimate issue to protest and agitate about, but people being charged unfairly high rents and being cruelly evicted from their homes in 2018 is not a legitimate issue to protest and agitate about? The people of the 1800s are more deserving of housing than the people of 2018? What's the distinction? The situation is the same except for the date, FFS.

Amirani

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

i know, and I happen to agree that the opposition to that development is hysterial -- it was to be built on a tiny section of a very large park, and where better to build a developemnt like that, than next to a large sporting and recreational area? It seemed ideal to me.

My point is simply that it's a local, NIMBY issue. Was there are local representative, from any party, who *didn't* oppose it? If so, they're a brave councillor.

Aodhán O' Ríordan (lab), Seán haughey (FF) and Naoise Ó Muirí (FG) were the most vocal opponents to the development that I'd heard of, up until now.

Yep, agreed on all of that. It's a cross party problem.

Another is the reduction in allowable heights by Dublin City Council in certain areas of Dublin during this housing crisis. For the past number of years, Sinn Fein has been the largest party in Dublin City Council and has fueled this: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-city-council-asked-to-reverse-apartment-height-limits-1.2759551

NIMBYs and politicians from left and right are causing this problem. Trying to lump it all onto Eoghan Murphy or the current Government is completely wrong. Sinn Fein's vote of no confidence is opportunistic bull****, they're a massive part of the problem.

hatrickpatrick

the_syco wrote: »

Was 34 Fredrick Street even a house, though? Or was it offices?

I know 41 Belvedere Place was 10 bedsits, and planning permission was given in June 26th.

It seems that making apartments to house people is not what the activists wanted. Or will they call the planning permission being granted about 2 and half months ago a win, somehow?

They want them to be public / council owned apartments, so they can be rented for rents that are below market rates and are calculated based on what's reasonable, not what is maximally possible given the shortage.

Nekarsulm

Whatever about Road Tax, there is no way a member of the public can find out if a van or car is insured to be driven by the driver.
I have an "Open Driving" clause on my insurance.
I am insured to drive any vehicle as long as I dont own it, and have the permission of the owner.

A Guard can't find out, so he will demand that I produce my insurance cert and show him the clause.

BarryD2

Amirani wrote: »

We're in a housing crises, we need emergency measures. If we're happy have CPOs on private land across the city, then these 500 homes should be built.

This is just 1 example of the hypocrisy of political parties across the spectrum. Sinn Fein continuously block large density schemes in Dublin City Council and yet blame the Government for all the homelessness. They're equally as responsible.

+1 It's quite depressing to hear the daily political football that is being made of the 'housing crisis' whilst the people who are doing most of the kicking are also leading objections when schemes are proposed.

Sweet.Science

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is people being charged unfairly high rents and being cruelly evicted from their homes in the 1800s a legitimate issue to protest and agitate about, but people being charged unfairly high rents and being cruelly evicted from their homes in 2018 is not a legitimate issue to protest and agitate about? The people of the 1800s are more deserving of housing than the people of 2018? What's the distinction? The situation is the same except for the date, FFS.

Its not their homes . I agree landlords can be horrible but come on

Dravokivich

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Can you define affordable housing ?

Single earner supporting a kid on less than the average wage.

PlaneSpeeking

Dravokivich wrote: »

Single earner supporting a kid on less than the average wage.

And sadly as rare as unicorn s***e these days.

Plenty of non earners doing it though.

Sweet.Science

Dravokivich wrote: »

Single earner supporting a kid on less than the average wage.

That system would be taken advantage of like HAP is now . No couple would get married then .

The mother can get an affordable home and the father can move in .

Amirani

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They want them to be public / council owned apartments, so they can be rented for rents that are below market rates and are calculated based on what's reasonable, not what is maximally possible given the shortage.

Who decides who gets those homes?

Why does someone on a council housing list deserve to live here more than a nurse working nearby in the Mater hospital who earns slightly too much to be eligible for social housing?

Thatnastyboy

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And sadly as rare as unicorn s***e these days.

Plenty of non earners doing it though.

The system is skewed so that you end up basically on the breadline if you work, where you have more money in your pocket for not working and taking what comes to you.

It's a massive fcuking pickle we have for ourselves here, and what's worse - when we're all old - our state pensions are going to be disastrous because there won't be the money to fund us.

hatrickpatrick

Just to add, I have quite the backlog of quoted posts from yesterday to reply to which I didn't get around to last night, so I'm replying to everyone's arguments in order today as I get a chance - I'm not ignoring any arguments or running away from backing up my positions, lest anyone make such scurrilous accusations

Thatnastyboy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just to add, I have quite the backlog of quoted posts from yesterday to reply to which I didn't get around to last night, so I'm replying to everyone's arguments in order today as I get a chance - I'm not ignoring any arguments or running away from backing up my positions, lest anyone make such scurrilous accusations

Keep it up, have to respect the commitment

Dravokivich

Sweet.Science wrote: »

That system would be taken advantage of like HAP is now . No couple would get married then .

The mother can get an affordable home and the father can move in .

For what it's worth... I'm the father btw. And Hap doesn't care about the relationship status between co-habiting adults.

You also shouldn't hold back, because of the potential for something to be exploited. The social welfare system is already there and being exploited. But there's no private residential market for people in my situation. That's why I'm making the distinction between social and affordable. Which tends to get missed quite a bit.

maccored

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Why?

What’s the difference without a mask?

I cant wait to see your reaction when mr RUC introduces more of their tactics down here. I can foresee a whingefest

I dont care about the gards wearing masks - the hired goons shouldnt be wearing them though in case one of the protesters decided to sue them

Amirani

Amirani wrote: »

Yep, agreed on all of that. It's a cross party problem.

Another is the reduction in allowable heights by Dublin City Council in certain areas of Dublin during this housing crisis. For the past number of years, Sinn Fein has been the largest party in Dublin City Council and has fueled this: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-city-council-asked-to-reverse-apartment-height-limits-1.2759551

It isn't reported in that article, but you should know that the height restrictions were agreed to by councillors within all the major parties.

Sinn Fein, contrary to popular opinion, does not control DCC.

Kermit.de.frog

The St Annes issue is indicative of a societal problem with planning. This is out and out NIMBYism.

500 homes in perfect location rejected.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plan-to-build-more-than-500-homes-near-dublin-s-st-anne-s-park-rejected-1.3627993?mode=amp

Will the protesters protest against the planners?

Amirani

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It isn't reported in that article, but you should know that the height restrictions were agreed to by councillors within all the major parties.

Sinn Fein, contrary to popular opinion, does not control DCC.

I know, that's why I'm blaming all parties. I'm particularly calling out Sinn Fein for hypocrisy though, as they're part of the problem yet claim it's all central Government's fault.