Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

James Brown

lola85 wrote: »

Emmm.

Once again where does it say those people were paying their way before going into emergency accommodation?

Have you a clever 'gotcha' coming anytime soon?

lola85

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Have you a clever 'gotcha' coming anytime soon?

No just looking for evidence of something you claimed as I can’t see it in the link.

pinkyeye

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/homeless-campaigner-erica-refused-two-house-offers-34981951.html


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/homeless-families-refuse-tenancies-in-private-sector-report-finds-1.3536716


theyre camping out for '4eva homes'


also :
so we pick up their hotel bills too...

So no back up to your statement then that the "majority had turned down offers of housing??"

What a joke you are.

Eric Cartman

pinkyeye wrote: »

So no back up to your statement then that the "majority had turned down offers of housing??"

What a joke you are.

that entire second article is about the issue, the entire first one is about a 'homeless activist' turning it down . I gave you exactly what you ask for. I think your post is being intentionally obtuse trying to pretend that this isnt a massive scam by these people for the most part.

recedite

FTA69 wrote: »

I don’t get this “foreva home” b*llocks that comes up everytime someone suggests building social housing.

What social housing was originally for and when it was at its most successful, it provided affordable rental accommodation for people in work. It was only in relatively recent times these estates become dumping grounds for the socially marginalised.

The amount of money it takes to buy a home in terms of percentage income has skyrocketed, rents are through the roof and the idea that a cabal if developers are going to provide enough housing to meet the common good has been shown across the world to be utter rubbish.

The system is bigger than w*nkers like Gary Gannon or Hazel Chu so bashing them as people is probably the wrong approach, but the current housing situation is a farce and needs a radical overhaul.

+1 The whole system broke down when they decided to let the tenants buy out the houses. I have seen it many times; an ex -council house being sold by somebody who grew up there, soon after the parents have died.

The seller has done well in life, thanks to growing up in a good home, with a stable family and free education. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then it proves that the original "working man's rent" system was a success.
The sellers don't even need the money because they already have their own (bigger) house, privately bought. Now they have inherited this asset, and so they turn it into cash. The ex-council house goes on the open market, fetches a huge price, and some hardworking young couple end up with a millstone round their neck. Any notion of the buyer couple having kids is put on the long finger for a few more years.

Boggles

recedite wrote: »

+1 The whole system broke down when they decided to let the tenants buy out the houses. I have seen it many times; an ex -council house being sold by somebody who grew up there, soon after the parents have died.

The seller has done well in life, thanks to growing up in a good home, with a stable family and free education. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then it proves that the original "working man's rent" system was a success.
The sellers don't even need the money because they already have their own (bigger) house, privately bought. Now they have inherited this asset, and so they turn it into cash. The ex-council house goes on the open market, fetches a huge price, and some hardworking young couple end up with a millstone round their neck. Any notion of the buyer couple having kids is put on the long finger for a few more years.

Sorry, what? Everyone who bought a private house are rich as pirates apart from the couple who bought the ex council house privately.

It seems you have a problem with the concept of inheritance.

recedite

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry, what? Everyone who bought a private house are rich as pirates apart from the couple who bought the ex council house privately.

It seems you have a problem with the concept of inheritance.

Different stage in life. By the time their parents died, the sellers were middle aged, mortgage free, and well "set up" in life.
Vacant council houses in the centre of Dublin should be for a young couple or (working single parent) Rent should be affordable for people on average or lower than average wages, as typically earned in Dublin.
The house should never become a capital asset to be passed on to the next generation, regardless of how well off the next generation becomes.
If the program succeeds, the next generation won't need a leg up anyway.
If they do need a leg up, let them rent a different council house.

Boggles

recedite wrote: »

Different stage in life. By the time their parents died, the sellers were middle aged, mortgage free, and well "set up" in life.

Yes, it's called inheritance, it's not illegal, it's not based on how one does in life.

recedite wrote: »

Vacant council houses in the centre of Dublin should be for a young couple or (working single parent) Rent should be affordable for people on average or lower than average wages, as typically earned in Dublin.

Yeah, you just described social housing, it's not just for the center of Dublin.

recedite wrote: »

The house should never become a capital asset to be passed on to the next generation,

Of course it should. The people who lived, invested in and paid for their house is entitled to do what they wish (once they completely own it - as the rules are different). That is nature of buying a house.

The primary reason your made up couple are buying a house in an ex council estate is because it is at a certain standard this is largely down to the previous tenants and their neighbors.

But there is nothing stopping anyone or any couple going into a council estate which doesn't have a high rate of tenant purchase, pick out one of the boarded out houses, go to the council and make them a cash offer.

Their arm will be bitten off.

beauf

The problem with your thinking is that the paradigm has changed. People won't be mortgage free in middle age. The following generations will be worse off than their parents.

Also if there is no means to pass on property there is no incentive to invest in it. if no one invests in it, where will it come from.

There has to be balance between making it sustainable as a business or investment, while at the same time this is controlled so that it funds/provides social and affordable housing.

markodaly

lola85 wrote: »

Sorry where does it say in any of that people were paying their own way before going into emergency accommodation?

When you say anything but build social housing can you explain why there was 10,000 social houses built last year and another 11,000 this year?

Dont mind Matt, he likes to debate in absolutes to try and make his point stronger. Unfortunately not for the first time he is wrong and will no way acknowledge his mistake.

markodaly

lola85 wrote: »

No just looking for evidence of something you claimed as I can’t see it in the link.

See, I told yat! :D:D

recedite

Boggles wrote: »

Yes, it's called inheritance, it's not illegal, it's not based on how one does in life.

There is a problem (in my mind) with private inheritance of what was originally a public asset. Mainly, that the chain ends there. No more low income workers can benefit from renting that house.
Now, you can say that the tenants rented the house all their life, and are entitled to buy it out at half nothing. But real life is not like that. If you rent all your life, then you die without leaving property as an inheritance. Its no big deal. You can still live a good life and rear good kids.

recedite

beauf wrote: »

The problem with your thinking is that the paradigm has changed. People won't be mortgage free in middle age. The following generations will be worse off than their parents.

You don't know that following generations will be better or worse off.
Its true mortgages have gone from 20 years to 30 years, and age of having kids has gone from 20 something, to 30 or even 40 something. So the paradigm is changing.
However the examples I gave are real people, living now. They are private property owners, mortgage free in middle age, having grown up in council houses. And now with large cash lump sums to spend or invest.

beauf wrote: »

Also if there is no means to pass on property there is no incentive to invest in it. if no one invests in it, where will it come from.

As above, if you rent all your life, then you die without leaving property as an inheritance. Its no big deal. They have been living like this for generations on the continent. Ownership is not what they aspire to. The flip side of it is that private tenants need much greater security than they have right now in Ireland.
They need to feel secure enough that they will go down to Woodies, buy some paint, and redecorate the rented property at their own expense. Just so they can have it looking nice for the next few years.

beauf

Those part ownership schemes seem to have over time improved the social issues of those areas.

Rather than creating ghetto's is the plan now to dilute the concentration of social housing so its more integrated through society. Not that there aren't other problems with that.

beauf

recedite wrote: »

You don't know that following generations will be better or worse off.
Its true mortgages have gone from 20 years to 30 years, and age of having kids has gone from 20 something, to 30 or even 40 something. So the paradigm is changing.
However the examples I gave are real people, living now. They are private property owners, mortgage free in middle age, having grown up in council houses. And now with large cash lump sums to spend or invest.



As above, if you rent all your life, then you die without leaving property as an inheritance. Its no big deal. They have been living like this for generations on the continent. Ownership is not what they aspire to. The flip side of it is that private tenants need much greater security than they have right now in Ireland.
They need to feel secure enough that they will go down to Woodies, buy some paint, and redecorate the rented property at their own expense. Just so they can have it looking nice for the next few years.

You are only seeing one side of this. If there is no demand for property ownership who will provide it? Why build it, if theres no one to buy it.

We know current generations are worse from the data. This thread wouldn't exist otherwise.

Boggles

recedite wrote: »

There is a problem (in my mind) with private inheritance of what was originally a public asset. Mainly, that the chain ends there. No more low income workers can benefit from renting that house.
Now, you can say that the tenants rented the house all their life, and are entitled to buy it out at half nothing. But real life is not like that. If you rent all your life, then you die without leaving property as an inheritance. Its no big deal. You can still live a good life and rear good kids.

Of course you can, but it is a widely accepted fact that estates with higher levels of tenant purchases have better outcomes than ones that don't.

The council is no longer financially on the hook for that house, in maintenance and upkeep so long term it saves the council money which should be invested in new stock and maintaining existing stock, they also earn money from the sale. Also the usual cost of been effectively a land lord disappears.

Refreshing the stock of social housing is best practice.

No one will want to buy an ex LA house if it is in an area of high anti social behavior or if the house was not maintained properly, it is the 2 reasons we have 1000s of vacant boarded up houses. So market value does not apply.

The benefits of the tenant purchase scheme far out weight the perception of the negatives.

It's only an issue because our governance at national and local level have failed miserably at providing affordable homes.

recedite

beauf wrote: »

You are only seeing one side of this. If there is no demand for property ownership who will provide it? Why build it, if theres no one to buy it.
We know current generations are worse from the data. This thread wouldn't exist otherwise.

Of course there is demand for private housing. But council houses should still be available as well.
Where is the data that says the current generation is worse off than previous? You're making an assumption. 100 years ago there were barefoot kids walking around in Dublin.

Boggles wrote: »

No one will want to buy an ex LA house if it is in an area of high anti social behavior or if the house was not maintained properly, it is the 2 reasons we have 1000s of vacant boarded up houses. So market value does not apply.
The benefits of the tenant purchase scheme far out weight the perception of the negatives.
It's only an issue because our governance at national and local level have failed miserably at providing affordable homes.

Firstly, I'm not advocating selling them anyway.
Secondly, why would the market value be so low? Because they have been given to scumbags. I refer you back to this excellent point...

FTA69 wrote: »

What social housing was originally for and when it was at its most successful, it provided affordable rental accommodation for people in work. It was only in relatively recent times these estates become dumping grounds for the socially marginalised.

Boggles

recedite wrote: »

Secondly, why would the market value be so low?

Like I have all ready said because the area may be less than ideal and the house itself not properly maintained by the council for the past 40-50 years. Your own anecdote of the family you knew who bought their house is exactly what I am talking about.

County Councils sell off stock all the time to the private market.

A mate of mine bought one a few years, it cost an absolute fortune just to make it safe because it had been completely neglected by the local council.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

The benefits of the tenant purchase scheme far out weight the perception of the negatives.

It's only an issue because our governance at national and local level have failed miserably at providing affordable homes.

You know you are ignoring an entire continent that doesn't do it the way we do it Ireland.

Perpahs we need to re-examine our love of private property ownership.

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

You know you are ignoring an entire continent that doesn't do it the way we do it Ireland.

Perpahs we need to re-examine our love of private property ownership.

Really?

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/home-ownership-rate?continent=europe

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/home-ownership-rate?continent=europe

They by and large do not sell off social housing stock. You will find that is largely a UK/Irish phenomenon. In the UK it was largely pioneered by Thatcher. So, you are in agreement with this policy. LOL

Mezzotint

I think we need to be a little careful that we don't just try to do everything as it's done in Germany. Our economy is structured completely differently and largely around the notion that a house would be paid for by retirement. That house is then typically became an asset.

What I don't understand is how exactly we're going to house older people? We're pushing towards this model of eternal renting from large landlords, with weak tenure arrangements and no provision for the income drop after retirement.

So what's going to happen in a couple of decades' time? Mass homelessness of elderly people? Huge crisis and need to build social housing ? Or do we end up paying enormous rental supplements to older folks in private rental housing? That will end up being utterly unsustainable.

There's a lot not adding up in current policy and a lot of short-term thinking.

We're stripping out our economy by allowing high rental yield, low tenure and removing normal households from the ability to buy homes.

The prices need to come down. That's the only thing the government needs to be focused on. Instead, they're coming up with convoluted schemes that are benefiting property funds which they're confusing for inward investment.

Also we need to just build a % of social housing. It's needed and it always was part of the mix here.

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

You know you are ignoring an entire continent that doesn't do it the way we do it Ireland.

Perpahs we need to re-examine our love of private property ownership.

I just did that and I found we are closer to the bottom in terms of private ownership than the top in relation to the "entire Continent".

We are in fact right at the average for the EU28.

markodaly wrote: »

They by and large do not sell off social housing stock. You will find that is largely a UK/Irish phenomenon. In the UK it was largely pioneered by Thatcher. So, you are in agreement with this policy. LOL

Frantically moving goal posts aside, your point failed miserably.

BattleCorp

markodaly wrote: »

Perpahs we need to re-examine our love of private property ownership.

Here's my fear for people renting all of their life.

My big fear for people in private rental is that when they retire their income will substantially reduce (unless you are one of the few with a good pension) but your rent won't reduce. That will make expensive rents even more unaffordable. That's why I'm in favour of owning my own property. I'm not at the whim of a landlord.

Mezzotint

Well we're moving from a situation where people can build up a significant asset to one where that money flows out the economy permanently and into global speculative funds.

I don't understand the logic of encouraging this kind of speculation in housing in Ireland (and elsewhere). We risk undoing the 20th century and returning to the days of the faceless absentee landlord.

We aren't structuring this like the German model where a large % of homes were invested in by public entities and long term investors that had a social motivation.

The German model isn't that common in Europe and also we're implementing only the renting but of it, without all the vast array of tenure rights, stability, rent controls and so on that came with it. Instead we're going got some kind of unregulated, speculator driven dystopian version and selling it as something it clearly isn't.

A lot of the German style approaches would have more in common with the Dublin Artisan Dwellings Company of the late 19th and early 20th century. The current models are like something Trump would agree with.

We seem to have no housing strategy at all. It's just plug the holes with whatever random short term solution we can find and then let some future generation sort it out.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

I just did that and I found we are closer to the bottom in terms of private ownership than the top in relation to the "entire Continent".

We are in fact right at the average for the EU28.



Frantically moving goal posts aside, your point failed miserably.

Goalposts?

This is a thread about social housing is it not?
My point is a relation to it specifically, and our unique, along with the UK propensity in selling off social housing stock, i.e. privatizing it ala Thatcher.

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

Goalposts?

This is a thread about social housing is it not?

No. It's about a development in Dublin essentially.

beauf

recedite wrote: »

...
Where is the data that says the current generation is worse off than previous? You're making an assumption. 100 years ago there were barefoot kids walking around in Dublin.t...

100 yrs ago is many generations ago.

We are talking about now.

While living standards have risen modestly, the country finds itself faced with high income inequality and soaring wealth inequality, with our wealth inequality score increasing by over 10 points in the past five years....

...The high levels of wealth and income inequality is attributed to decades of prioritising economic growth over social equity, the WEF's report found.

Your premise is that because people used to have their mortgages cleared in middle age they are well off. That age is increasing. I can't get stats on it for irleland but I think other places have the same issue.

http://theconversation.com/more-people-are-retiring-with-high-mortgage-debts-the-implications-are-huge-115134


This is not the same thing, but its hint of whats comming.
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/mortgage-for-life-thousands-will-have-to-pay-mortgages-well-into-their-retirement-36157537.html

recedite

Boggles wrote: »

Like I have all ready said because the area may be less than ideal and the house itself not properly maintained by the council for the past 40-50 years. Your own anecdote of the family you knew who bought their house is exactly what I am talking about.

County Councils sell off stock all the time to the private market.

A mate of mine bought one a few years, it cost an absolute fortune just to make it safe because it had been completely neglected by the local council.

If somebody has been given a house at a cheap rent for their whole lifetime, why would they not look after the basic maintenance? Its their own home. If they wreck the house they are scumbags - kick them out.

beauf

We've (successive Govts) havebroken the system that was building social housing. Nothing has replaced it.

markodaly

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's my fear for people renting all of their life.

My big fear for people in private rental is that when they retire their income will substantially reduce (unless you are one of the few with a good pension) but your rent won't reduce. That will make expensive rents even more unaffordable. That's why I'm in favour of owning my own property. I'm not at the whim of a landlord.

It is understandable perhaps as an Irish person given the abysmal way we treat both landlords and tenants, that most people gravitate towards owning their own home. In the context of a couple or individual who can afford a mortgage, then why not.

However, we seem to want people in social housing to follow the same model when its a very different situation. That is, we subsidise their rent first and foremost, then sell off much needed social housing stock on the private market, with a discount, and then not replace it due to the cost along with other reasons.

As I said before, then we have some people point out what governments have done in Austria to help with social and affordable housing, while ignoring the obvious fact, that they do NOT sell off their stock on the private market, like we do.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

No. It's about a development in Dublin essentially.

Thread Title: Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests

Goalposts you said? :pac::pac::pac:

beauf

markodaly wrote: »

...As I said before, then we have some people point out what governments have done in Austria to help with social and affordable housing, while ignoring the obvious fact, that they do NOT sell off their stock on the private market, like we do.

I would be interesting to see how they deal with the social issues we ignore.

markodaly

beauf wrote: »

I would be interesting to see how they deal with the social issues we ignore.

As would I, but given their rules-based civic nature and unwillingness to put up with the same carry on we in Ireland seem to do, I would wager there are stiff and severe penalties for anti-social behavior.

recedite

beauf wrote: »

Your premise is that because people used to have their mortgages cleared in middle age they are well off. That age is increasing.

I'm saying that applies now. I agree it won't always be the case. The people who are selling council houses right now are typically in the 50-65 age group (late middle aged?) Their parents are 20-30 years older, and falling off their perches.

So these are council houses being put on the open market for the very first time, by people who aren't exactly short of a few bob themselves.

beauf

Let the council buy them back then.

I'm not sure what you want to have happen here.
They invested and it's worked out. Once the authorities set this deal they should have built more stock to replace it. They didn't. That's not the fault of the home owner.

They effectively outsourced the provision of social housing. It's a bit late in the day to go back and turn the clock back now.

recedite

beauf wrote: »

They invested and it's worked out.

No the people selling the house didn't invest, they inherited. The taxpayer invested, but lost the investment.
That's privatisation of a social asset.

Via an inheritance by somebody who already has enough money to live on, comfortably.

Surely the very worst form of capitalism?

recedite

beauf wrote: »

It's a bit late in the day to go back and turn the clock back now.

It is when the council houses have already been bought out by the tenants. But the lessons for the future are clear.


1. Knock O'Devaney Gardens and rebuild the estate with nice A-rated houses and apartments.
2. Rent them out to low or average wage working families, on secure tenures. Tenants to repaint and do general maintenance themselves.
3. Any scumbaggery, and the keys get taken back. The tenants go to live in a DP centre on Achill Island.
4. Never sell the houses.


What we need in this country is more national socialism.

Boggles

recedite wrote: »

If somebody has been given a house at a cheap rent for their whole lifetime, why would they not look after the basic maintenance? Its their own home. If they wreck the house they are scumbags - kick them out.

It's not about wrecking the house, it's about maintaining it. They are 2 different things.

I take it you are not a home owner?

It can cost a considerable amount of money to do even the basic maintenance.

James Brown

lola85 wrote: »

No just looking for evidence of something you claimed as I can’t see it in the link.

I posted the quote and a link to the quote. Your inability to read or access it says nothing about it. Also what about your false claim re social builds? Sweep that under that carpet or put it in the wheelie bin to save your blushes

beauf

recedite wrote: »

No the people selling the house didn't invest, they inherited. The taxpayer invested, but lost the investment.
That's privatisation of a social asset.

Via an inheritance by somebody who already has enough money to live on, comfortably.

Surely the very worst form of capitalism?

I think your only seeing the capital value of the property.
Not the wider social benefits these schemes created.
Not that it was successful everywhere.

When you say lost investment. It implies there was no return.
That's not true apart from the part payment from the tenant
there was the stability this brought to communities.
Social provision, housing etc. is usually lost making.

Most this your issue is with inheritance. That's a whole different discussion.

But if you have a better solution where socialism has worked.
Lets have some examples.

recedite

beauf wrote: »

I think your only seeing the capital value of the property.
Not the wider social benefits these schemes created.

I do see the social value, that's why I recognised that exact point...

recedite wrote: »

+1 The whole system broke down when they decided to let the tenants buy out the houses. I have seen it many times; an ex -council house being sold by somebody who grew up there, soon after the parents have died.

The seller has done well in life, thanks to growing up in a good home, with a stable family and free education. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then it proves that the original "working man's rent" system was a success.
The sellers don't even need the money because they already have their own (bigger) house, privately bought. Now they have inherited this asset, and so they turn it into cash. The ex-council house goes on the open market, fetches a huge price, and some hardworking young couple end up with a millstone round their neck. Any notion of the buyer couple having kids is put on the long finger for a few more years.

recedite wrote: »

Different stage in life. By the time their parents died, the sellers were middle aged, mortgage free, and well "set up" in life.
Vacant council houses in the centre of Dublin should be for a young couple or (working single parent) Rent should be affordable for people on average or lower than average wages, as typically earned in Dublin.
The house should never become a capital asset to be passed on to the next generation, regardless of how well off the next generation becomes.
If the program succeeds, the next generation won't need a leg up anyway.
If they do need a leg up, let them rent a different council house.

recedite

Boggles wrote: »

It's not about wrecking the house, it's about maintaining it. They are 2 different things.

I take it you are not a home owner?

It can cost a considerable amount of money to do even the basic maintenance.

Surely basic maintenance is not too much to ask, when somebody is getting a secure long term tenancy, with cheap rent, close to the city centre.
If they think that is too much work/expense, then off to the DP centre on Achill with them. Nothing to do there, not even basic cooking. It should suit better.

Boggles

recedite wrote: »

Surely basic maintenance is not too much to ask,

So you are not home owner?

recedite wrote: »

when somebody is getting a secure long term tenancy, with cheap rent, close to the city centre.
If they think that is too much work, then off to the DP centre on Achill with them. Nothing to do there, not even basic cooking. It should suit better.

Da fuq?

James Brown

recedite wrote: »

Surely basic maintenance is not too much to ask, when somebody is getting a secure long term tenancy, with cheap rent, close to the city centre.
If they think that is too much work/expense, then off to the DP centre on Achill with them. Nothing to do there, not even basic cooking. It should suit better.

AFAIK, they still have the Tenancy Agreement which you'd have to sign up to. This includes maintaining the property.

recedite

Boggles wrote: »

So you are not home owner?

None of your business.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

AFAIK, they still have the Tenancy Agreement which you'd have to sign up to. This includes maintaining the property.

That's fine then. No problem. Just start enforcing the contracts.

Boggles

Matt Barrett wrote: »

AFAIK, they still have the Tenancy Agreement which you'd have to sign up to. This includes maintaining the property.

Keeping it clean basically, including the garden etc.

Councils demand bin receipts and in certain circumstances these have to paid 6 months in advance.

You can't make any alterations without permission, this has to be all costed and formulated before any work can be carried out.

The reality is the councils are not maintaining their stock, they aren't even inspecting it.

Boggles

recedite wrote: »

None of your business.

Fair enough, I'll take it as a no to make my point.

Even basic wear and tear on a home can cost a considerable amount annually.

This work is far more likely to be carried out if the person owns the property.

James Brown

Boggles wrote: »

Keeping it clean basically, including the garden etc.

Councils demand bin receipts and in certain circumstances these have to paid 6 months in advance.

You can't make any alterations without permission, this has to be all costed and formulated before any work can be carried out.

The reality is the councils are not maintaining their stock, they aren't even inspecting it.

Unless this has changed, no. Repairs. Broken doors, windows, letter boxes, guttering etc. Keeping it clean and maintained too. They will replace older windows for energy efficient etc.

Each tenant has they same set up, unless a special case, like a family member with a disability or watched for anti-social behaviour or a record for damaging property to get newer items, like causing a flood to try get new carpet.

The councils only have skeleton crews. Everything is outsourced. They do have inspectors but likely they'll only go out if called as they've a large volume to over see. Each depot has a clerk and a couple of inspectors, generally trades people.

Alterations is not repairs.

Boggles

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They will replace older windows for energy efficient etc.

They will like fun.

Look up the BER rating of any ex local authority houses and there will be a picture of a penguin eating a cone.