Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
MICA - Who should pay?
Options
Comments
-
-
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/it-s-a-disgrace-anger-in-thurles-as-traveller-homes-dispute-goes-to-court-1.3949521
there are people in ireland who have never worked a day in their life, yet get housed, fed, clothed and all the rest on our backs. they are parasites.
now take these people who worked hard and bought their houses and through no fault of their own their houses are falling apart in front of their eyes.
i hope they do get their houses re built and every euro spent on these houses means less money available for forever homes for the work shy and the scum0 -
-
FoFo1254122 wrote: »https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/it-s-a-disgrace-anger-in-thurles-as-traveller-homes-dispute-goes-to-court-1.3949521
there are people in ireland who have never worked a day in their life, yet get housed, fed, clothed and all the rest on our backs. they are parasites.
now take these people who worked hard and bought their houses and through no fault of their own their houses are falling apart in front of their eyes.
i hope they do get their houses re built and every euro spent on these houses means less money available for forever homes for the work shy and the scum
Quite a few of those that fall into that category have children and you don't put children into foster care in Ireland unless the parents are a danger to the kids, you give the kids a home and by extension the parents.
In other circumstances a wife leaves with the kids because she is being beaten.
Anyway, regardless of whether or not the government pay the mica bill it won't affect social housing throughout the country, it will just add the cost on to our national debt.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Firstly, your calculations don't factor in that we could take out a loan and finance over many years. Its a once off cost, meaning that while it sounds massive its actually e a pittance in the grand scheme of things. You mention a cost of 2500e per head, we'll if that was financed over 20 years it is literally nothing
Secondly, the government should pay for the whole lot, for the simple reason that it's the right thing to do. None of these taxpayers set out to defraud anybody, they just wanted a house over their heads and did the right thing - worked hard, saved, got mortgages etc etc, and through no fault of their own find themselves homeless and in massive debt.
The blame for this undoubtedly lies with the block manufacturers. They should be punished, and regulations tightened to ensure adequate testing of blocks in future, but let's face it they will never afford to fix this issue. The only people who can afford to finance a redress scheme is the government
In a civilised country this is the type of bailout that the government can both afford and should be underwriting, on behalf of a large chunk of their citizens. Its a safety net that should be available to all of us if we ever end up in a similar situation, through no fault of our own0 -
Why should the taxpayer pay 100% of the cost to build you a new house?
As has been answered many times on many of your threads, they should not.
Suppliers of critical structural materials should be properly insured, and such suppliers should be properly inspected by the state, and the existing legislation regarding critical structural materials should be enforced, but it has not been, and is not being enforced as we speak.
The house owners effected, who are full taxpayers as well, have tried every other avenue without success and the state has had to step in to this emergency situation. The state should obtain as much money back as possible for the taxpayer, just like they have tried to do in other such scandals.0 -
There was no explanation. There was something about restorative justice which is something I think someone got off TV and which they don't really understand.
So far in this poll the majority of people don't want to pay 100%.
If you don't want to explain it to me but perhaps you would explain it to them why you are demanding they pay 100% of the cost to rebuild your house?
It should be a quick easy and concise answer.
I'm not demanding anything, I'm not a homeowner so less of the "your" house please and I'll give you whatever answer I feel like. Easy and concise, as if it's a simple issue. You're attitude says it all there
As I said you didn't like the results of a nationwide red C poll so you jumping on a snapshot of 20 people fully backs up my point that you're just searching for a snapshot to "back you", and let's face it the long winded opening post is designed to role people to a no vote... So you talk of "skewed pole" in politics, it's clear that's what you want.
You're also talking about a lack of understanding but you clearly fail to see how a government works on a social scale for its people.
I could just as easily say though why am I paying for the bank bailout? I had nothing in the bank at that time, but I understand the cost of not doing it would have been worse.
Why did the people of Dublin & Leinster get 100% redress for pyrite, and to be clear this is rental and other ancillary costs inclusive while mica is offered 90% of construction costs only?
I'm an architect and have almost 1000 social and affordable houses on my desk in county Dublin now in just 2 projects, Why should I be paying for that? I can't even afford my own place? (Rhetorical)
The NSAI was set up to establish standards, why hasn't local authorities building control been implementing these and seeking proof of compliance? (Because they have no staff frankly, back when I worked in Donegal I even got told I was uploading too much information to the bcar/commencement notice system and that Dublin would be onto them!)
You're aware cassidys the block supplier have been pursued and had no insurance so there is no pot there for the works. This is where the fault and costs should lie but this is where you end up when a hands off approach is taken to standards
These people have paid their taxes, built their homes to see them crumble through no fault of their own, cassidys weren't even the cheapest blocks around as I'm sure you noted on the Donegal thread. The state has failed to enforce standards to prevent this scenario and on top of that still the state carries a social responsibility towards its citizens. How many here could afford to pay for 2 houses in their life time? So the state's options are redress or new build social housing. These cases are spread out over a large area. There isn't the dispersed land banks or likely resources to take on responsibility so many projects on their end to make the latter a viable option.
The scheme is still being ironed out, so costs aren't certain. At the minute it seems locked into like for like. Mr musician claimed on the Donegal thread that an exemption for current building regs apply and frankly I'm too up to my eyes to fact check him. Either way 50 or 100mm insulation boards, heat pump over oil boiler, and air tightness tapes aren't going to make or break it the costs of it. Sitting on this for years until so many houses are critical and a lack of resources is what's going to spiral the costs, mica isn't new it's just being pushed to the spotlight now.0 -
As has been answer many times on many of your threads, they should not.
Suppliers of critical structural materials should be properly insured, and the such suppliers should be properly inspected by the state, and the existing legislation regarding materials should be enforced, but it has not been, and is not being enforced as we speak.
The house owners effected have tried every other avenue without success and the state has had to step in to this emergency situation. The state should obtain as much money back as possible for the taxpayer, just like they have tried to do in other such scandals.
We can see from publicly available financial statement that the money they could recoup from the quarries/block manufacturers would be at most 1% which means the rest of the cost would be paid for by taxpayers.
Why should the taxpayers pay for 100% of your house?0 -
I don't know much about this case, but I had a quick Google and came across a reddit post from someone affected. They went on to say that they reckon 10,000 homes across Donegal alone, not including offices, public builds, etc, will have the same issue in a few years. Other replying that the same is happening in Mayo and possibly Clare. Are we going to pay for all these houses too?
The post did mention that Donegal Co. Co. are allowing this to happen, so maybe just put it back on them. If they don't have the money, tough titties. But I don't see why me, who lives on the opposite end of the country has to pay for this. I had a house, I had to sell it and I'll probably never own another one again, and here my tax money is being used to pay for someone elses private house to be knocked a rebuilt? How is that fair? It's already unfair that I'm paying for forever homes for people who won't work, when the best i can hope for is that my parents house is left to me and my 4 siblings don't start looking for money for their share, which will mean it will have to be sold, and the share may be enough for a deposit on another house, but I probably won't get one anyway.
Yes, it's a woe is me tale, but it's starting to get ridiculous. I'm being told to get a private pension because the future of state pensions is uncertain and, going by what the parents are getting, is barely livable. They wanted to raise it to 68 by 2028 but was shot down, but how long before they raise it again? What will it be by the time I get to the current pension retirement age, in 2050? It's just all getting too much for the average joe to be taking while getting little to nothing in return, simply because I don't want kids.
Rant over. I feel better. And I also know that most people reading this will scoff of throw their eyes, and that's ok. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. Just giving an opinion and padding out while I've become a social recluse.0 -
Advertisement
-
If this thread is any reflection of the nations intelligence then I think it's time to jump in the ocean and start swimming in any direction.
Nobody is denying how awful a situation the home owners are in, but to expect any redress at all from the government/tax payer is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.
Cowboys in the construction industry are ten a penny. Unfortunately, nobody (except for the cowboy/supplier etc. or maybe an insurer if you are covered) is responsible if you fall foul of one of them. It's nuts!0 -
We can see from publicly available financial statement that the money they could recoup from the quarries/block manufacturers would be at most 1% which means the rest of the cost would be paid for by taxpayers.
Why are the suppliers responsible allowed to operate and continue to operate in this fashion without any insurance, and not comply with any of the legislation and standards regarding the production of structural materials ?
Why are they still being allowed to supply the state with blocks for social housing and private developers for other homes ? Why are they being given a 25 year planning permission extension for the quarry in question, when they are in breach of existing planning conditions ?Why should the taxpayers pay for 100% of your house?
As has been answered many times on many of your threads in detail, they should not.
Suppliers of critical structural materials should be properly insured, and such suppliers should be properly inspected by the state, and the existing legislation regarding critical structural materials should be enforced, but it has not been, and is not being enforced as we speak.
The house owners effected, who are full taxpayers as well, have tried every other avenue without success and the state has had to step in to this emergency situation. The state should obtain as much money back as possible for the taxpayer, just like they have tried to do in other such scandals.0 -
...
I agree that we have a social contract in Ireland that we would look out for eachother in situations like this. I stated that we should help up to a limit set by the government, not leave these people high and dry.
My issue is that people are demanding we pay to rebuild like for like houses, some of which are more than what they need and that incremental cost could be put to better use.
Many of those demanding this don't have the courtesy to explain why we should pay for a 5 bed house for their two parent two child family when the country is heavily in debt.0 -
Why are the suppliers responsible allowed to operate and continue to operate in this fashion without any insurance, and not comply with any of the legislation and standards regarding the production of structural materials ?
Why are they still being allowed to supply the state with blocks for social housing and private developers for other homes ? Why are they being given a 25 year planning permission extension for the quarry in question, when they are in breach of existing planning conditions ?
As has been answered many times on many of your threads in detail, they should not.
Suppliers of critical structural materials should be properly insured, and such suppliers should be properly inspected by the state, and the existing legislation regarding critical structural materials should be enforced, but it has not been, and is not being enforced as we speak.
The house owners effected, who are full taxpayers as well, have tried every other avenue without success and the state has had to step in to this emergency situation. The state should obtain as much money back as possible for the taxpayer, just like they have tried to do in other such scandals.
Taxpayers can't recoup the costs therefore they have to pay it. You can't keep demanding taxpayers pay and then say they shouldn't have to pay. Pick a story and stick with it.
The rest of the post relates to future regulatory issues when we have a big issue that has to be resolved now and I'm still waiting for you to explain why the taxpayers should pay 100% of the cost of your house.0 -
Taxpayers can't recoup the costs therefore they have to pay it. You can't keep demanding taxpayers pay and then say they shouldn't have to pay. Pick a story and stick with it.
The rest of the post relates to future regulatory issues when we have a big issue that has to be resolved now and I'm still waiting for you to explain why the taxpayers should pay 100% of the cost of your house.
I don't demand taxpayers should have to pay. They should not being paying for negligent cowboy structural suppliers and lack of enforcement and allowing them to continue to operate regardless. I've made it very clear why the taxpayer should not be paying for these cowboys, and yet are allowed to get away with it, and are continuing to operate.0 -
Feel free to cite examples of houses with far more bedrooms than occupants being replaced. Tbh I've yet to do a house where more than one spare/guest room was ever design in and did plenty of bespoke houses before my current job.… but sure you need a bit of drama to rile people up.I agree that we have a social contract in Ireland that we would look out for eachother in situations like this. I stated that we should help up to a limit set by the government, not leave these people high and dry.
My issue is that people are demanding we pay to rebuild like for like houses, some of which are more than what they need and that incremental cost could be put to better use.
Many of those demanding this don't have the courtesy to explain why we should pay for a 5 bed house for their two parent two child family when the country is heavily in debt.
If you find it that example, you might also cite the costs of that 5 bed in Donegal v the costs of the apartments the government are taking from glenveagh in the docks. We are heavily in debt and 300k for a studio.... 640k for 3 beds, money is always there if they want it to be.0 -
Potential-Monke wrote: »But I don't see why me, who lives on the opposite end of the country has to pay for this. I had a house, I had to sell it and I'll probably never own another one again, and here my tax money is being used to pay for someone elses private house to be knocked a rebuilt? How is that fair?
But sure thats like saying you've never stayed in hospital, why are your taxes going to the hse?
It's all well and good saying **** them, but then what? You will have 5k+ families on the housing list, all with massive debt and no way to pay both a mortgage and rent/second mortgage. Your talking about thousands of people here - surely something should be done by the state to give them a dig out?0 -
Markus Antonius wrote: »If this thread is any reflection of the nations intelligence then I think it's time to jump in the ocean and start swimming in any direction.
Nobody is denying how awful a situation the home owners are in, but to expect any redress at all from the government/tax payer is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.
Cowboys in the construction industry are ten a penny. Unfortunately, nobody (except for the cowboy/supplier etc. or maybe an insurer if you are covered) is responsible if you fall foul of one of them. It's nuts!
What's the alternative- 5k or 10k homeless families, with mortgage debt hanging over them, who need to be housed. As a taxpayer youre still gonna have to pay for those people to be housed btw. If the state tells them "tough ****, you're on your own", who is the actual winner in that case?0 -
StupidLikeAFox wrote: »
Secondly, the government should pay for the whole lot, for the simple reason that it's the right thing to do. None of these taxpayers set out to defraud anybody, they just wanted a house over their heads and did the right thing - worked hard, saved, got mortgages etc etc, and through no fault of their own find themselves homeless and in massive debt.
Would that stop with houses? If the state is going to underwrite this why not underwrite multiple other things? You could say that housing is covered as it is a basic necessity however that opens the door to shoddy building work at rock bottom prices and when things go bad the government comes in with the funds and now the owner has a house worth much more than they paid the cowboy builder who has disappeared off into the sunset.0 -
I don't demand taxpayers should have to pay. They should not being paying for negligent cowboy structural suppliers and lack of enforcement and allowing them to continue to operate regardless. I've made it very clear why the taxpayer should not be paying for these cowboys, and yet are allowed to get away with it, and are continuing to operate.
Show me where the money will come from to rebuild your house if not from the taxpayers.0 -
Advertisement
-
StupidLikeAFox wrote: »What's the alternative- 5k or 10k homeless families, with mortgage debt hanging over them, who need to be housed. As a taxpayer youre still gonna have to pay for those people to be housed btw. If the state tells them "tough ****, you're on your own", who is the actual winner in that case?
I've said multiple times I don't propose leaving them high and dry.
The aim is to house the families, not build 5,000 houses to their original spec with builders having a field day with their fees once they see the government is picking up the bill.0 -
Feel free to cite examples of houses with far more bedrooms than occupants being replaced. Tbh I've yet to do a house where more than one spare/guest room was ever design in and did plenty of bespoke houses before my current job.… but sure you need a bit of drama to rile people up.
If you find it that example, you might also cite the costs of that 5 bed in Donegal v the costs of the apartments the government are taking from glenveagh in the docks. We are heavily in debt and 300k for a studio.... 640k for 3 beds, money is always there if they want it to be.
The docks in Dublin? Why are you introducing a few apartments on the docks into a conversation about 5000+ houses in Donegal?0 -
Nobody has explained to me, a taxpayer, why I should contribute towards more than the €222,750 offered by the government which I think is very generous considering I don't think that they taxpayer has any liability in this case and any contribution is a gift rather than an obligation when we are already heavily in debt.
Vote in the poll.
National spending (fortunately) isn't decided on the basis of liability.
Here we have a small but significant number of the population who have found themselves through no fault of their own with unfit housing.
While I don't think the state should become insurers of last resort, in cases like this and pyrite before it, yes. The state has a moral duty to intervene.
We're not talking about irresponsible borrowing, or reckless risk taking here. It is families that worked and bought homes with a realistic expectation they'd be safe to live in.0 -
Would that stop with houses? If the state is going to underwrite this why not underwrite multiple other things? You could say that housing is covered as it is a basic necessity however that opens the door to shoddy building work at rock bottom prices and when things go bad the government comes in with the funds and now the owner has a house worth much more than they paid the cowboy builder who has disappeared off into the sunset.
I was talking about a redress scheme for mica, which is a real issue. You are going on about a redress scheme for all sorts of dodgy builders, which only exists in your head0 -
StupidLikeAFox wrote: »But sure thats like saying you've never stayed in hospital, why are your taxes going to the hse?
It's all well and good saying **** them, but then what? You will have 5k+ families on the housing list, all with massive debt and no way to pay both a mortgage and rent/second mortgage. Your talking about thousands of people here - surely something should be done by the state to give them a dig out?
I have stayed in a hospital, once when I was a kid so couldn't exactly pay for that myself, second time was paid for by private health insurance. And let them join the housing list, they stuffed their noses at 90% so let em off now. Pure greed is all it is. Give them all a shipping container instead, they already have the land.0 -
I don’t know.
What are they doing to prevent it from happening again?
I don’t know why the company who supplied them are still allowed to go on. Even when these 5000 are covered, it’s not the end of it. That would’ve been 5000 new homes which is badly needed right now.
What are they doing to prevent it from happening Again?0 -
I've said multiple times I don't propose leaving them high and dry.
The aim is to house the families, not build 5,000 houses to their original spec with builders having a field day with their fees once they see the government is picking up the bill.
Well the you just have an issue with the parameters/regulation of the scheme, not the scheme itself right? I dont think anybody is proposing to knock a 3 bed and build a 5 bed on the government's dime - we are all agreed there0 -
National spending (fortunately) isn't decided on the basis of liability.
Here we have a small but significant number of the population who have found themselves through no fault of their own with unfit housing.
While I don't think the state should become insurers of last resort, in cases like this and pyrite before it, yes. The state has a moral duty to intervene.
We're not talking about irresponsible borrowing, or reckless risk taking here. It is families that worked and bought homes with a realistic expectation they'd be safe to live in.
I agree, the state should step in here. If the state just opens the chequebook it will be carnage and the effect on the national debt will be significant.0 -
StupidLikeAFox wrote: »Well the you just have an issue with the parameters/regulation of the scheme, not the scheme itself right? I dont think anybody is proposing to knock a 3 bed and build a 5 bed on the government's dime - we are all agreed there
I don't have an issue with 3 bed semi detached estate houses with a basic finish as costs and resources for that can be reliably measured. It's the ones that don't fit into that category that will drive the costs out of control and man of those houses are nice to have for the owner but definitely more that what is needed when the taxpayer is picking up the bill.
My issue by and large is that these families need to be housed which is what I believe we should do bit not in like for like houses but in houses that are broadly similar and can be mass produced at the lowest cost to be fair to the people affected and to the people picking up the bill.0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree, the state should step in here. If the state just opens the chequebook it will be carnage and the effect on the national debt will be significant.
Would it be fair to suggest 'open the chequebook' is meant to be the rabble-rousing equivalent of allocate spending to repair people homes so they're safe to live in?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement