Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

TAPlank

The demand for free housing is ever increasing, there are many reasons.

1. Minimal emigration in the critical years. They have since produced children here, contributing to the population rise.

2. Not building social housing when the government was awash with money.

3. Ireland going broke when the housing demand started rising.

4. Inability or unwillingness by all sides to deal with the Elephants in the room, of (The bulk of which are modern day ones)

a} Broken homes,

b} Single parent families.

c} Benefits increasing with family size.

d} Irresponsible parenthood. (Have children when you can provide for them).

e} Unacceptance of entitlements being balanced by responsibilities.
Help should only be given to those who are unable to help them selves and to those who want to restart their lives. All should, in their own way, try to better themselves and in turn, the country


Those who may think that I'm right wing, couldn't be more wrong.



My qualifications: For much of my 85 years, as I made my way through life, I never relied on the state, I paid my taxes, had a lowish paid job, and the top marginal tax rate was then 62%, and "I looked the whole world in it's face, for I owed not any man."



How many realise, or even want to accept, that the helping hand they need is to be found at the end of their arm.


Here endeth the lesson.

Allinall

22michael44 wrote: »

not making any comment on the virtues or otherwise of vandalism but landlords are generally scum.

As are tenants.

So where does that leave us?

PlaneSpeeking

Allinall wrote: »

22michael44 wrote: »

not making any comment on the virtues or otherwise of vandalism but landlords are generally scum.

As are tenants.

So where does that leave us?

"Landlords are generally scum"- the PBP credentials are really coming out now.

Awful comment. Hateful.

Heres Johnny

Mike Hoch wrote: »

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I would always feel sorry for anyone who's property was vandalised by some pathetic jealous scrote who would prefer to wreck someone else's life than woek for their own.

I don't deny that those who would take part in such an act would likely be layabouts themselves, the whole no way we won't pay brigade.

But to put it in perspective:

- the cheapest 3 bed house for rent in Finglas today is listed at 1700 per month.
The cheapest 3 bed habitable house for sale in Finglas is on offer for 174,950 per month.

-The cheapest 3 bed for sale in Blackrock is for 435,000. The cheapest to rent is 2750.

A house for sale in a salubrious area like Blackrock is roughly 2.5 times more expensive than the cheapest in working class Finglas.

The cheapest rental in Blackrock is just over 50 percent more expensive than the cheapest rental in Finglas.

That is an outrageous price gap. In just over 8 years a tenant would have paid the entire value of the similar Finglas property in rent.

Value of property would be paid in 8 years but that landlord is paying interest. And tax. And upkeep. That 175k won't make it into landlords pocket for 20 years plus...

22michael44

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"Landlords are generally scum"- the PBP credentials are really coming out now.

Awful comment. Hateful.

laughing out loud, this thread. this thread....

after all the comments about sterilisation and dictatorships and steve bannon and wishing the poor didn't exist...

the line has been crossed by having a go at the poor old landlords. deary me.

good to know where the line is. bunch of Tories in here

PlaneSpeeking

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Mike Hoch wrote: »

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I would always feel sorry for anyone who's property was vandalised by some pathetic jealous scrote who would prefer to wreck someone else's life than woek for their own.

I don't deny that those who would take part in such an act would likely be layabouts themselves, the whole no way we won't pay brigade.

But to put it in perspective:

- the cheapest 3 bed house for rent in Finglas today is listed at 1700 per month.
The cheapest 3 bed habitable house for sale in Finglas is on offer for 174,950 per month.

-The cheapest 3 bed for sale in Blackrock is for 435,000. The cheapest to rent is 2750.

A house for sale in a salubrious area like Blackrock is roughly 2.5 times more expensive than the cheapest in working class Finglas.

The cheapest rental in Blackrock is just over 50 percent more expensive than the cheapest rental in Finglas.

That is an outrageous price gap. In just over 8 years a tenant would have paid the entire value of the similar Finglas property in rent.

Value of property would be paid in 8 years but that landlord is paying interest. And tax. And upkeep. That 175k won't make it into landlords pocket for 20 years plus...

And if they have to pay repairs from scumbag vandals even longer.

Sleeper12

Mike Hoch wrote:

Oh poor them.

Mike Hoch wrote:

I'm not saying the state is to blame. It is. But when are charging working class people most of their income to live in a working class area, in some cases using a house you yourself were gifted at some stage and then bought off the council, you're a feckin lowlife. You're not rich by hard graft, you're rich because you got lucky and saw a way to profit off desperation.

There are many different types of landlords. The ones I feel sorry for are the accidental landlords. Some bought in 2007 and they are still in negative equity. Well at least they were until recently. Some moved home to parents house or rented somewhere smaller & at the same time rented their own homes out at a loss. They are now starting to break even after 10 years of losing money.

Blame who you will but someone took their eye off the ball and landed homeless and renters in a big pile of poo. We might have a lost generation from FFs mistakes but we now have the next generation suffering as badly and this one ain't FFs fault

Mike Hoch

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The logic gap here relates to the notion that people on low incomes should be able to live near the city centre. More productive members of society will always be able to outbid them.

.

This argument doesn't really fly though.

Very few Dubliners want to live between the canals, bar those who grew up there, most of them in social housing. I've never met a Dub not of that background who lives in town aside from junkies and alcos who grew up in Tallaght and the like but are living in hostels and such- it's crowded, it's noisy, it's polluted. The few Irish residents of the IC not originally from there are typically students.

The vast majority of houses and flats on the market there would be out of reach for most regular employed working class couples. They seem to be all investment properties full to the brim with foreign housesharing tenants from Europe and South America.

Of the Dubs from the inner city there's a strange paradox. By default, if they work full time they can't obtain a council house/ flat as the threshold means that virtually no couples in the state who both work qualify for social housing.

It's basically a state of, if you love the community you grew up in, if you get a job you will likely never live there and raise your own kids there.

But if you drop out of school at 15, get pregnant at 16, you will most likely stay there for the rest of your life. It will take longer to be allocated a flat than it did in your parents day, but it will eventually come to pass.

It really isn't a right state of affairs.

22michael44

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There are many different types of landlords. The ones I feel sorry for are the accidental landlords. Some bought in 2007 and they are still in negative equity. Well at least they were until recently. Some moved home to parents house or rented somewhere smaller & at the same time rented their own homes out at a loss. They are now starting to break even after 10 years of losing money.

Blame who you will but someone took their eye off the ball and landed homeless and renters in a big pile of poo. We might have a lost generation from FFs mistakes but we now have the next generation suffering as badly and this one ain't FFs fault

you live with your mistakes in that case. you don't rent out flats where one bedroom is converted into a space for 6 people and charge them through the eyes for it.

woejus

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I don't deny that those who would take part in such an act would likely be layabouts themselves, the whole no way we won't pay brigade.

But to put it in perspective:

- the cheapest 3 bed house for rent in Finglas today is listed at 1700 per month.
The cheapest 3 bed habitable house for sale in Finglas is on offer for 174,950 per month.

-The cheapest 3 bed for sale in Blackrock is for 435,000. The cheapest to rent is 2750.

A house for sale in a salubrious area like Blackrock is roughly 2.5 times more expensive than the cheapest in working class Finglas.

The cheapest rental in Blackrock is just over 50 percent more expensive than the cheapest rental in Finglas.

That is an outrageous price gap. In just over 8 years a tenant would have paid the entire value of the similar Finglas property in rent.

You're comparing the cheapest house in what you are arguing to be the cheapest area, with the cheapest house in what you are arguing to be the most expensive. This does not provide any more insight other than that houses are more expensive in one area than the other.

Finglas gross yield is 11.5% or so net income of around 20k
Blackrock gross yield is 7.2% or so net income of 33k

So by your logic BTL landlords should have piled into Finglas at the bottom. They did not. Why?

Mike Hoch

woejus wrote: »

You're comparing the cheapest house in what you are arguing to be the cheapest area, with the cheapest house in what you are arguing to be the most expensive. This does not provide any more insight other than that houses are more expensive in one area than the other.

Finglas gross yield is 11.5% or so net income of around 20k
Blackrock gross yield is 7.2% or so net income of 33k

So by your logic BTL landlords should have piled into Finglas at the bottom. They did not. Why?

The point is the disparity.

Is the average Blackrock resident only 50 percent wealthier than the average Finglas resident? Of course they aren't, yet the Finglas resident has to part with a much bigger chunk of their change to live in a rented property.

Let's be honest. In Leo's ideal world North Dublin would be populated with migrant workers living 10 to a house doing the minimum wage jobs, while the middle earners commute for hours from wherever in Cavan and Westmeath they've been exiled to. People are nothing more than producers of output to these people, their lives and needs matter for nothing.

Not to mention he dreams of a day when the likes of public transport are minimum wage jobs staffed by foreign contract staff. An Post and parts of the civil service are already offering disgraceful wages.

Galwayguy35

22michael44 wrote: »

laughing out loud, this thread. this thread....

after all the comments about sterilisation and dictatorships and steve bannon and wishing the poor didn't exist...

the line has been crossed by having a go at the poor old landlords. deary me.

good to know where the line is. bunch of Tories in here

I think we can all agree that the woman who this thread is about isn't one of these poor people that you have mentioned anyway.

22michael44

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think we can all agree that the woman who this thread is about isn't one of these poor people that you have mentioned anyway.

yeah you're right, should have put faux-poor there. i think people ar ok with the authentically poor (i think)

Galwayguy35

22michael44 wrote: »

yeah you're right, should have put faux-poor there. i think people ar ok with the authentically poor (i think)

Well many of the people who get up every morning to work and fund her reckless lifestyle are definitely a lot poorer than her, oh and she is by no means an isolated case, there are many like her playing the system like a fiddle.

woejus

Mike Hoch wrote: »

The point is the disparity.

Is the average Blackrock resident only 50 percent wealthier than the average Finglas resident? Of course they aren't, yet the Finglas resident has to part with a much bigger chunk of their change to live in a rented property.

Let's be honest. In Leo's ideal world North Dublin would be populated with migrant workers living 10 to a house doing the minimum wage jobs, while the middle earners commute for hours from wherever in Cavan and Westmeath they've been exiled to. People are nothing more than producers of output to these people, their lives and needs matter for nothing.

Not to mention he dreams of a day when the likes of public transport are minimum wage jobs staffed by foreign contract staff. An Post and parts of the civil service are already offering disgraceful wages.

If you're comparing average residents' incomes then it would be more informative to compare average rents and average prices of the assets they are renting or buying.

At any rate, if you want the state to intervene to set floors/ceilings on property prices or rental rates, then the state should be able to weed out bad actors such as Margaret Cash who are abusing the system to a certain extent.

I can't speak to the rest of what you say.

Mike Hoch

woejus wrote: »

If you're comparing average residents' incomes then it would be more informative to compare average rents and average prices of the assets they are renting or buying.

At any rate, if you want the state to intervene to set floors/ceilings on property prices or rental rates, then the state should be able to weed out bad actors such as Margaret Cash who are abusing the system to a certain extent.

I can't speak to the rest of what you say.

I don't necessarily believe that the state has a right to tell people what they can and can't do with their own private property. It's like this nonsense suggestion of people who own private property being penalised for not renting it- there's a myriad of reasons a person may want to leave a private property empty.

But I do think it takes a particular type of arsehole to rent a house in a working class area for 2300 quid.

woejus

Mike Hoch wrote: »

I don't necessarily believe that the state has a right to tell people what they can and can't do with their own private property. It's like this nonsense suggestion of people who own private property being penalised for not renting it- there's a myriad of reasons a person may want to leave a private property empty.

But I do think it takes a particular type of arsehole to rent a house in a working class area for 2300 quid.

The arsehole is the market I'm afraid. Any landlord renting below a market clearing price is giving away money essentially. Renting has become a desperate situation I agree.

Not that I believe Margaret Cash or her ilk are in any way concerned about house prices or rental rates, whether houses were €50k or €500k to buy in Finglas or Blackrock, it's quite likely that a) she wouldn't care/know that, and b) she'd want it for free anyway.

kittensmittens

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What annoys me more is the constant narrative the government and Leo don’t care about the most vulnerable blah blah.

Someone getting 1,000 a week cash for doing nothing, is certainly not a sign the government don’t care.

Is there any other country in the world where you would get that???????

Excuse my ignorance but are you saying that this woman is getting €1000 per week in social welfare payments?
If so can you elaborate please? (Genuine question btw)

satguy

Seven kids is six more than I have, I think if she has one more she might qualify for a 4 bedroom house.

I really think that councils should be building more 4 bedroom houses, people need homes.

Wheeliebin30

kittensmittens wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but are you saying that this woman is getting €1000 per week in social welfare payments?
If so can you elaborate please? (Genuine question btw)

It’s been shown on the thread everything she is claiming for and it amounts to 51k a year.

Maybe someone has the link handy.

woejus

kittensmittens wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but are you saying that this woman is getting €1000 per week in social welfare payments?
If so can you elaborate please? (Genuine question btw)

arctictree

Stheno wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homeless-mother-rejects-totally-unsuitable-accommodation-1.3594909?mode=amp

she's refused accommodation offered as its only for one night, despite the housing executive saying it will be on a continuous basis and she stayed there in the past

If she has refused the accommodation, where is she staying then?

tuxy

She's not getting HAP yet so she is getting about €35,856 a year atm.
I think the HAP payment will be €1900 in Tallaght as she turned down a house that was €2,900 as she would have to pay €1000 herself.

tuxy

arctictree wrote: »

If she has refused the accommodation, where is she staying then?

One of the charities has offered to provide accommodation until she finds somewhere.

fritzelly

arctictree wrote: »

If she has refused the accommodation, where is she staying then?

The ICHH are paying for her to stay in private accommodation (til the money runs out that is)
What the DRHE offered was good enough in the past but not anymore apparently.

dartboardio

Maybe it’s not nice for me to say but I’m not surprised a 28 year old woman with seven children who hasn’t worked a day in her life, is homeless.

And yes I completely believe she’s on €1000 a week. I work in a job where I see different families income on a daily basis. It’s shocking I’ve actually seen a family with eleven children one day, and the income was about €3000 a month from child benefit and Jobseeker’s Allowance. And pay about €50 a week in rent. No disability/ illness preventing them from work.

Why do we bother eh!?

NIMAN

tuxy wrote: »

One of the charities has offered to provide accommodation until she finds somewhere.

The charity has said they will house her until she is given a new house........so in other words that puts pressure on the government to find her a place that she's happy with fairly sharpish.

I would say this woman will be in the spotlight for a while yet. Until she gets a house in front of some other deserving family.

fritzelly

NIMAN wrote: »

The charity has said they will house her until she is given a new house........so in other words that puts pressure on the government to find her a place that she's happy with fairly sharpish.

I would say this woman will be in the spotlight for a while yet. Until she gets a house in front of some other deserving family.

She keeps turning down what they are offering, problem is now she's in a cushty position of private accommodation (one could say not homeless) so she's been very choosy about what she takes
Then again one would have to wonder about the ulterior motives of ICHH who get no government funding trying to be front and center of the story (I mean fairytale)

tuxy

NIMAN wrote: »

The charity has said they will house her until she is given a new house........so in other words that puts pressure on the government to find her a place that she's happy with fairly sharpish.

I would say this woman will be in the spotlight for a while yet. Until she gets a house in front of some other deserving family.

If it works facebook and twitter will be flooded with pictures of people sleeping in Garda Stations.

One eyed Jack

dartboardio wrote: »

Maybe it’s not nice for me to say but I’m not surprised a 28 year old woman with seven children who hasn’t worked a day in her life, is homeless.

And yes I completely believe she’s on €1000 a week. I work in a job where I see different families income on a daily basis. It’s shocking I’ve actually seen a family with eleven children one day, and the income was about €3000 a month from child benefit and Jobseeker’s Allowance. And pay about €50 a week in rent. No disability/ illness preventing them from work.

Why do we bother eh!?

I can’t answer for you, but the reason why I don’t claim benefits is because I wouldn’t want to be on the other side of the counter to you when I’d be claiming benefits to which I am legally entitled and you’re eyeballing me like it’s coming out of your own pocket :pac:

If your question was meant to be asking why do you bother complaining about it, I don’t know.