Mica Redress

Be reasonable. Market regulators cannot and should not take over the legal liabilities of the companies they regulate.

The more the issue is mulled over, the more it seems unfair that the Government is actually entertaining this campaign.

On another note, 821 property on sale in Donegal at the moment.

Only 82 have an asking price over €350,000

Most (516) have an asking price under €200,000.

Bonkers to be thinking about giving people €350,000 so they can rehire their brother-in-law to rebuild the house that he used inadequate material to construct in the first place, when properties are available for half that price.

Move to Donegal, its a lovely place..

Seriously though I think this issue is having a massive affect on the housing market, everyone is afraid to buy a house built in the last 20 years even without obvious signs of mica. Not sure if this is affecting prices though they are generally lower than the rest of the country, but i think it is affecting the number of sales.

The suppliers in question were all certified as meeting the minimum standard required for blockwork blanch. The very idea that builders would get some "black market blocks" from a rogue concrete & quarrying operation to save a few pennies is absurd. There are places you can cheap out on a build, but blockwork is not one of them. Blocks are far from the most expensive part of a build, and even if black market dealers did exist, there would be no significant saving.

Pie in the sky stuff from yourself, par for the course really.

Let me ask you this - for the Dublin pyrite scandal in the last 20years, were the homeowners affected all buying foundations on a nod and a wink? Black market foundations for their homes? lol

Legally that have no responsibility as confirmed by the minister yesterday. They agree that they have a moral responsibility to help.

It's mainly because they if don't, Sinn Fein will bang on and on about it and both FF & FG could lose a seat in Donegal, giving SF a possible clean sweep. In the same position, SF wouldn't be agreeing to 100% redress either. The optics of a socialist party handing a blank cheque of taxpayer money to someone to build an investment property or holiday home for themselves would destroy them in the rest of the country.

But they're also entertaining it because there's a recognition that completely abandoning these people will not be acceptable to most of the rest of the country.

I think you are right that it's about finding a balance - with the 100% demand being way, way over what most would see as reasonable. As the issue is teased out, people can see the chain of compliance and regulation does not point at Government.

And the cost is so great, that folk find themselves wondering what the difference is between these two claims.

"I'm living in a crumbling house that will continue to deteriorate, which is unsustainable. I can't possibly afford to buy another property as I'm making loan payments every month. Government has an obligation to pay 100% of the cost of rehousing me now, leaving me with an owner-occupied home."

"I'm sharing a rented house with no security of tenure, which is unsustainable. I can't possibly afford to buy another property as I'm making rent payments every month. Government has an obligation to pay 100% of the cost of rehousing me now, leaving me with an owner-occupied home."

As folk are pointing out, renting households are being expected to pay 100% of the cost of restoring the wealth of house owners, including investment properties.

Empathise with the human situation, but it's only one group of people with a housing problem and all have an equal right to Government support.

O'Broin has said that 100% compensation isn't realistic iirc. I think that was on TWIP before the Summer recess.

Listen, there are no blank cheques so why not state facts. Yesterday you rambled on about a restaurant analogy that backfired spectacularly . What sort of crap are we going to read next?

How would you describe the protesters ask which is an uncapped scheme where the homeowner pays 0 of any of the associated costs? How would you determine an overall budget for such a scheme? It's impossible.

When people describe this as a "blank cheque", what they mean is a project with an unlimited unknown budget - just "whatever it takes". There is no way you can control costs without a hard cap when the key stakeholder has no incentive to.

No-one is discrediting homeowners. Everyone appreciates its a bad situation to be in, just as being in expensive and unsuitable rental accommodation is a bad situation to be in. I can well appreciate why its difficult for someone in that situation to get a sense of perspective, but its doing no-one favours to avoid pointing out plain facts.

I can't see why you've a problem with folk stating their expectation that many of these homes will be one-offs and self-builds; 64% of Donegal housing stock are one-offs, and most housing completions in Donegal in recent years are one-offs. So, yes, I take it many if not most of the homes involved will be one-offs, with many being self-builds or builds by relatives in the trade.

So, indeed, in many cases the demand for 100% costs is a demand for someone to rebuild a self-build, or a build by a family member on their behalf. Not all houses involved. But that's how very many houses get built in places like Donegal.

Again, no-one is particularly saying its your fault, in the sense that you didn't set out twenty years ago to buy a house that would get impacted by mica. But, then, its not the fault of the general population, either.

I know these messages are hard to hear. As to self-builds, bear in mind I was commenting because, for some reason, you seemed to feel it wrong to note that many of these homes would be in that category. And I won't repeat why that is an aspect worthy of mention.

Really hard paying into something and getting nothing from it. Its like those sad cases of people paying in to pensions and not getting the return expected, or cases of folk in 2008 who'd bought at the peak and felt they'd never see the value of their money again.

But the rhetoric in the campaign just doesn't seem to withstand scrutiny. Sorry about that.

To be fair, most fair minded people do not think that no assistance should be offered and opposition to the protesters demands should not be seen as that. My own reservations are based on the demands placing an undue burden on the state, when it wasn't the state that caused this. When other solutions are suggested, such as timber frame rebuilds, smaller houses, repair, shared equity, they are rejected out of hand and it points to the campaign being a bit disingenuous. These other solutions would also result in safe homes for the homeowners, but wouldn't make them financially whole. It certainly points to a conclusion that this campaign is not just about safe homes, but protecting asset values too. The state shouldn't be financially protecting anyone's investment, even if it's the family home - not unless it's willing to do it for everyone.