Vacant Homes (www.vacanthomes.ie) and Privacy

GM228

Conspiracies, snitches, leprechauns, Pokéman, oh and the Dáil Éireann being a vacant home of democracy......

.......all in one thread, dear god.

GreeBo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

God bless the innocence of some posters on here.

They'll learn.

Can I suggest infowars might be a better home for you than the legal forum?

I'd be very interested to see how you'd get on in life without this government that you so detest and distrust.

Its publicly available information, just like Googles pics are.

Ya'll know that you are on a shared planet right?

Ronaldinho

The site itself wouldn't really bother me. It's what's planned to do with the data that does.

I had a read through the FAQS for the Repair and Leasing Scheme and it looks an awful option for the owner. Below market rents, 10-20 year leases, can sell during the lease but lease must continue with the new owner, internal maintenance looked after by the relevant council (could be doing shoddy work), property to be returned to same condition ex fair wear and tear (pretty subjective terminology).

For a private owner where the property is likely to be a large proportion of their net worth, it seems like an awful idea imho.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

runawaybishop

testicles wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0807/895719-vacant-homes/

Speaking on RTɒs Morning Ireland, the council's Director of Services, Thomas Gilligan, .....
He added that they are working with the Data Protection Commissioner at the moment in relation to privacy concerns arising from the site.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Legal or otherwise, if I stood outside someone's house, a house I have no connection with, and took several photographs of it (as the site requests turncoats to do) I shouldn't be surprised if someone saw fit to call the Gardai.

Ahh, do you have any idea how important tourism is in this country.

Houses, people, whatever are photographed by strangers all the time.

Occasionally a busker complains about having their photograph taken without a donation given. The guards get a good laugh out of that, and basically say "don't go out on the street so".



To respond to your earlier point, this isn't about ratting on your neighbours. It's about identifying abandoned houses which could be put to better use - including ones that were just walked out on when the recession hit.

The councils have power that can be applied when such buildings become derelict. But they have to get to a dreadful state before those apply. Surely it's better to stop that happening, and get existing houses occupied again - including by people currently stuck in emergency accommodation.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, do you have any idea how important tourism is in this country.

Houses, people, whatever are photographed by strangers all the time.

Occasionally a busker complains about having their photograph taken without a donation given. The guards get a good laugh out of that, and basically say "don't go out on the street so".



To respond to your earlier point, this isn't about ratting on your neighbours. It's about identifying abandoned houses which could be put to better use - including ones that were just walked out on when the recession hit.

The councils have power that can be applied when such buildings become derelict. But they have to get to a dreadful state before those apply. Surely it's better to stop that happening, and get existing houses occupied again - including by people currently stuck in emergency accommodation.

I don't disagree with you at all - but I don't think that's what the proposed measures are actually about. I won't say what I actually think it's about.

Punishing people with penalties and CPOs is wholly unethical not to mention counterintuitive.

If the penalties and risks are too severe we could actually see a sharp exodus of rental properties being sold or pulled from the market contracting rental supply even further.

Well done Eoghan Murphy.

Victor

Ronaldinho wrote: »

I had a read through the FAQS for the Repair and Leasing Scheme and it looks an awful option for the owner.

Better than vacant.

Below market rents,

Higher rent than vacant.

10-20 year leases,

Long term income.

can sell during the lease but lease must continue with the new owner,

Understandable.

internal maintenance looked after by the relevant council (could be doing shoddy work),

When councils do maintenance, they tend to do it well. The issue is that in normal council tenancies is that maintenance rests with the tenant, who sometimes don't have the wherewithal to do maintenance.

property to be returned to same condition ex fair wear and tear (pretty subjective terminology).

I'm sure the lease will be more detailed than a FAQ.

For a private owner where the property is likely to be a large proportion of their net worth, it seems like an awful idea imho.

Better than vacant.

Victor

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

If the penalties and risks are too severe we could actually see a sharp exodus of rental properties being sold or pulled from the market contracting rental supply even further.

You really haven't though that through, have you? How can (long-term) vacant properties be pulled from the market?

Mrs Shuttleworth

Sound familiar?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10352/germany-migrants-property-rights

Mrs Shuttleworth

The same spiel again, this time from Italy:

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/11/italian-interior-ministry-you-must-take-in-migrants-or-else/

Murphy and the current FG administration are merely Soros/Sutherland/EU's lapdogs. Solving the homeless crisis me ar$e.

Victor

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The same spiel again, this time from Italy:

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/11/italian-interior-ministry-you-must-take-in-migrants-or-else/

Murphy and the current FG administration are merely Soros/Sutherland/EU's lapdogs. Solving the homeless crisis me ar$e.

Or maybe you are just shilling the various versions of the slightly paranoid Gates Institute.

seamus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Sound familiar?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10352/germany-migrants-property-rights

Yeah. Seizing property and purchasing are not the same thing. Hamburg authorities have purchased vacant commercial property on an compulsory basis for a couple of years and then recently allegedly took over an apartment block that had been sitting vacant since 2012.

No big deal, the owners get market value for it.

Jaysus I feel lucky to be able to even *look* at houses listening to the frothing mouth rants out of people here.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Victor wrote: »

Or maybe you are just shilling the various versions of the slightly paranoid Gates Institute.

Wrong mate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4506552/Hamburg-confiscates-flats-ease-migrant-housing-crisis.html

I'd raise any property of mine to the ground before I'd let Murphy seize it to house migrants.

Victor

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I'd raise any property of mine to the ground before I'd let Murphy seize it to house migrants.

Who would be allowed live there?

evolving_doors

seamus wrote: »

To you.

Some people may see it as a civic duty to flag up vacant properties when the country is in the middle of a housing crisis.

Your use of inflammatory language - snitch, ninny, turncoat, Stasi, rat - illustrates that you automatically consider the state to be an enemy of the individual which seeks to undermine the rights of the individual.

So it doesn't surprise me why you'd have trouble understanding that other people don't feel the same way.

Anyway, your assertion that taking photos of a vacant property could find you liable for burglary charges is unfounded and hysterical.

If theres a housing crisis the onice is on the govt. to provide more houses. Naming and shaming vacant properties does ZERO to solve this as the govt simply can't just waltz in and start doing up your gaffe for rent without permission.

Also I think it leaves it open to burglary, squatters... I'd go so far as to say it advertisers it.

What did the govt do in 50's and 60's... where did drimnagh, Kimmage, Crumlin,cabra, Finglas come from? At a time when the country was pi55 poor the wherewithal was found to achieve it.

Listen to Ronan Lyons a lot of industrial space lying idle in cities around ireland(bluebell, kylemore etc) rezone it as residential and consolidate existing businesses. Most are just offices and lockups . Give em a tax relief to pay for moving costs.

Vacant homes.ie will do ZERO to go towards solving a housing shortage. It's pathetic, smoke and mirrors and just a ploy for time from the gvt.

gctest50

Gebgbegb wrote: »

If theres a housing crisis the onice is on the govt. to provide more houses. ..........

Carbon emissions - we are supposed to be reducing them

And there is no point in covering land with concrete if there are hundreds of thousands of houses vacant

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Wrong mate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4506552/Hamburg-confiscates-flats-ease-migrant-housing-crisis.html

I'd raise any property of mine to the ground before I'd let Murphy seize it to house migrants.

So you are like a [snip] then.

Robbo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Wrong mate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4506552/Hamburg-confiscates-flats-ease-migrant-housing-crisis.html

I'd raise any property of mine to the ground before I'd let Murphy seize it to house migrants.

Really Interested wrote: »

So you are like a [snip] then.

Moderation: Keep it civil please folks. Also, please keep it to the legal issues surrounding this (privacy, property rights etc). There are plenty of other outlets to discuss the political aspect of this.

Really Interested

Robbo wrote: »

Moderation: Keep it civil please folks. Also, please keep it to the legal issues surrounding this (privacy, property rights etc). There are plenty of other outlets to discuss the political aspect of this.

A person made a statement that they would commit criminal damage rather than let a house be used by people of a different race, I asked a question of the poster before I would engage. Is it now against boards policy to ask a poster their political opinion no matter how nasty?

BTW I had earlier linked the most up to date High Court case on the issue to my knowledge.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1991/act/31/section/2/enacted/en/html

(2) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

(a) intending to damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be damaged, and

(b) intending by the damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered,

shall be guilty of an offence.


It would depend if anyone could be hurt.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Really Interested wrote: »

A person made a statement that they would commit criminal damage rather than let a house be used by people of a different race, I asked a question of the poster before I would engage. Is it now against boards policy to ask a poster their political opinion no matter how nasty?

BTW I had earlier linked the most up to date High Court case on the issue to my knowledge.

Very malicious of you to twist my words. I said "seized by Murphy".

My last tenants were Chinese, my current tenant is Mexican.

But I will make that decision - not Murphy. I will not permit him to take my property, to do with as he wishes.

No doubt if he actually tries this some very powerful interests will haul him and his Department into Court.

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Very malicious of you to twist my words. I said "seized by Murphy".

My last tenants were Chinese, my current tenant is Mexican.

But I will make that decision - not Murphy.

Any vacant property purchased by the sate must allow the owner to be compensated. It seems your property is not vacant. So why is it an issue? There is no proposal by the Irish State to seize any property. Are you going to link to such a proposal.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Really Interested wrote: »

Any vacant property purchased by the sate must allow the owner to be compensated. It seems your property is not vacant. So why is it an issue? There is no proposal by the Irish State to seize any property. Are you going to link to such a proposal.

That is NOT the issue. If I buy a property, I am entitled to rent it out, live in it or do neither of those things.

A CPO isn't worth the paper it's written on. Some people don't have the money to refurbish a property, or may have an arrangement with their mortgage bank. Or they may not be actually able to let the property out.

If the property is seized under a CPO who is to say the price paid will meet the outstanding sum? That CPO could force the property owner into bankruptcy to meet the shortfall that the Bank would pursue. He'd also have to find the sums to pay solicitors to defend his position.

These proposals are a straight land grab. Harassment from the highest level.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

......

A CPO isn't worth the paper it's written on.

.....

That's not true

Mrs Shuttleworth

gctest50 wrote: »

That's not true

Support your position with evidence please.

A CPO only pays out on the market value at the time the order is made.

If CPOs were expanded today as Murphy has said it could put thousands of investors into a perilous financial situation as the mortgage sums outstanding would far exceed the compensation paid. The mortgage bank would also have to be put on notice and may depending on the case be joined to the case to resist the CPO.

These proposals are a legal minefield and will create chaos in the Courts and property/rental market if implemented.

But that's Fine Gael for you, they're the gold standard in engineering property slumps since the 1950s.

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That is NOT the issue. If I buy a property, I am entitled to rent it out, live in it or do neither of those things.

A CPO isn't worth the paper it's written on. Some people don't have the money to refurbish a property, or may have an arrangement with their mortgage bank. Or they may not be actually able to let the property out.

If the property is seized under a CPO who is to say the price paid will meet the outstanding sum? That CPO could force the property owner into bankruptcy to meet the shortfall that the Bank would pursue. He'd also have to find the sums to pay solicitors to defend his position.

These proposals are a straight land grab. Harassment from the highest level.

What proposals are a land grab? This is one councils idea to build a database of vacant houses! There is no law against vacant houses, there is no law or proposed law allowing for the State to take such house, and if there was it would in my opinion be unconstitutional.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Support your position with evidence please.

.......

lol - You made the claim :


.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

......

A CPO isn't worth the paper it's written on.

.....