Fr McVerry supporting lessons in how to occupy properties

mikhail

riffmongous wrote: »

You said enter

It seems pretty clear what the poster meant. Shall we continue with the pedantry, or can we accept that their initial post was imprecisely written?

Yer Da sells Avon

Jensen White Robot wrote: »

Also, why is it ok to break into someone else's private property that they worked hard for?

Would it be less unacceptable if they hadn't worked hard for it?

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

It seems pretty clear what the poster meant. Shall we continue with the pedantry, or can we accept that their initial post was imprecisely written?

I think it’s my lack of education coming out! I was too busy working for my living!

riffmongous

_Brian wrote: »

You see, any other business person and nobody cares that the business pays off the assets and they make a healthy profit.

People can protest all they want and scorn at landlords wanting to make a profit, but when less and less landlords are attracted to the rental business it means a less and less functioning rental sector which drives the remaining rents up.

I know where I live there were always houses available but as the profits became less and less houses that had been rented for decades were sold off into private ownership, plus the population has increased. Now when a house comes available there’s a scramble as there is no supply.
If it were sufficiently profitable there would be more properties available and with more units rents would settle to a more sustainable level.

What is a healthy profit though? And associated risk? Thats the question and if people have an overexpectation of what they are going to make that's not going to work out well for anyone

riffmongous

mikhail wrote: »

It seems pretty clear what the poster meant. Shall we continue with the pedantry, or can we accept that their initial post was imprecisely written?

Up to you, if you don't quote it I won't reply

MFPM

TheBoyConor wrote: »

It's all overblow imo.

Thank you for your opinion but do try not to confuse your 'opinion' with facts.

There are large amounts of people "homeless" but are living in their parents or siblings homes or in some cases with a friend and are probably paying something towards it. Yet they are registered as homeless in an attempt to get another notch up the housing list.

They are not, that's the point that has been made ad nausea about the homeless figures, they are understated not overstated as you seem to imply.

Then you have the long term street homeless, ie they are genuinely homeless but their not having a roof over their heads is not their primary problem. Their homlessness is a consequence of a whole host of things like drug addictions, alcoholism, mental health issues, etc etc.

The issues are clearly connected but the non housing problems they face is not an excuse to leave them on the street!

You could put them in a brand new semi D in a leafy suburb but they'd probably be sleeping in a doorway again within a few weeks because they don't want to be there because for any number of reasons, eg they fear their drug dealer to whom they owe money will come for them there, the house gets overrun with other junkies or whinos they have to get away from or they flood/burn down the house while whacked out of their heads.

What charming, humane language. You do know that not every one who is homeless is a 'junkie' and they don't all own money to drug dealers.

In reality the number of genuinely homeless but hard working decent honest people is actually quite modest by comparison. They are a minority of the total homeless number.

Do enlighten us with figures?

And that is because for most hard working ambitious people, if they cannot get a home they simply move away to where there are better opportunities whether that is to to another city, county or country and they are adult enough to fend for and look after themselves.

You're big on generalities aren't you - I suppose it's easy to hide behind them. Take a trip to London sometime and talk to the Irish homeless on the streets there or take a trip to Dublin and talk to some of the Polish lads who've ended up homeless.....the ambition of these sets of people clearly didn't save them from homeless as you seem to imply it would.

These "occupations" are just the usual mixture of social justice warriors like Fr McVerry & Fergus Finlay, champagne socialists like Claire Daly and Rich Boy Barrett and plain old crusties who will get on any band wagon going as long as there is a "stick it to the man" element to it

And finally the mask slips fully....more generalisations again...p.s. it's Clare Daly no 'i', accuracy not your strong point either

Hitman3000

love the free house bs that is thrown out here by the usual crowd of.....

BPKS

Discodog wrote: »

The reason there's a housing crisis is because the majority have a home & don't give a damn for those who don't. The same applies to health care.

It must be desperately upsetting for those that care, like McVerry, seeing the problem getting worse not better.

The majority of that majority burst their asses getting educated and employment in order to afford a mortgage and also afford to pay into the social welfare fund for those who didnt bother bursting their asses getting educated or employed.

Graces7

Jensen White Robot wrote: »

I actually don't. I've huge respect for him - he gave up a comfortable life and actually DID something for people rather than bitch about other people not doing something. He sacrificed so much for decades, and for the genuinely needy. Horrific stories of people being neglected as children and ending up on the streets.

But I agree this is disappointing crap by him.

Sacrificed what ? did what? He has free housing, a good salary. It has all been empty talk. Had be need seriou s and sincere he would have shamed his church into giving up some of their vast empty buildings that are still lying vacant..

Graces7

BPKS wrote: »

McVerry's employers (the people who paid his salary, gave him free board and transport for decades) have thousands more unoccupied properties around the country than any of these landlords.

Indeed yes.

MFPM

BPKS wrote: »

The majority of that majority burst their asses getting educated and employment in order to afford a mortgage and also afford to pay into the social welfare fund for those who didnt bother bursting their asses getting educated or employed.

Is that simple is it - the lazy versus the non lazy? Do you apply such binary analysis to everything in life?

Gimme A Pound

Graces7 wrote: »

Sacrificed what ? did what?

Wow, you really do enjoy pretending not to understand stuff for the craic.

Look him up i suppose?

Wheeliebin30

Hitman3000 wrote: »

love the free house bs that is thrown out here by the usual crowd of.....

I remember you were all over the ms cash thread defending her and saying let’s not jump to conclusions.

You vanished after around page 3 of the thread.

Loves_lorries

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I heard him this morning saying they need to occcupy 50 or a 100 houses because the gards can’t evict all of them at the same time.

Sick of him and his sniggering attitude to anyone who disagrees with him.

Makes people who own a property feel guilty for not handing it to some homeless person.

Not to mention his ceo on a 100k a year.

To be homest I find him a bit of a well I can’t say it here..

Maybe his beloved Catholic Church might take some of the 200 billion they own and house the homeless.

Used to admire the man but he comes across as a right demagogue this last few years, he also receives nothing but softball interviews which tells you all you need to know about the politics of rte and the Irish media.

Much prefer brother who runs the capuchin Centre, best charity out there, no revolutionary political baggage.

Graces7

kneemos wrote: »

Anybody on any kind of assisted accommodation counts as homeless I think,even if they have a flat or a house.

They count those in hotels and hubs. Not those on eg HAP. If you have a house or aprtment you are not counted as homeless. If you ar staying with family then yes you are homeless.

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it’s my lack of education coming out! I was too busy working for my living!

Ok Mary, apologies if I took you up the wrong way! But there are people here who post that property rights are absolute, both legally and societaly, and I have no qualms with addressing that

Graces7

Jensen White Robot wrote: »

Wow, you really do enjoy pretending not to understand stuff for the craic.

Look him up i suppose?

I know his career and my words stand. He has given up nothing. sacrificed nothing.

MFPM

Loves_lorries wrote: »

Used to admire the man but he comes across as a right demagogue this last few years, he also receives nothing but softball interviews which tells you all you need to know about the politics of rte and the Irish media.

Much prefer brother who runs the capuchin Centre, best charity out there, no revolutionary political baggage.

he also receives nothing but softball interviews

What you like him to be asked?

which tells you all you need to know about the politics of rte and the Irish media.

Does it, enlighten us? All the Irish media share a similar politics....intriguing?!!

_Brian

riffmongous wrote: »

What is a healthy profit though? And associated risk? Thats the question and if people have an overexpectation of what they are going to make that's not going to work out well for anyone

But it’s nobody’s business what the profit is of tue market is functioning, but it’s not functioning and so fewer units to rent drives rents up.

The rental market must serve both landlords and tenants, trying to stack it so it only serves tenants turns landlords away, this has lost much of the rental stock and prevents landlords investing in more property.

BPKS

MFPM wrote: »

Is that simple is it - the lazy versus the non lazy? Do you apply such binary analysis to everything in life?

Of course its not that simple, but it certainly is a contributory factor.

If you have spent your life watching the people all around you getting housing for little or nothing, weekly social welfare payments, monthly payment for every child they have, getting a medical card, back to school allowance and so on and so on, then why would they bother getting themselves into a situation where they could afford to pay out of their own pocket for education, a mortgage etc.

Fr_Dougal

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

People have some nerve criticising Peter McVerry. He does more work to help vulnerable people in one day than any of the whingers here will do in their lifetime. He sees the reality of the housing problem and the hugely negative impact it's having currently, and the damage it is causing young children now which will have severe repercussions in the future, day in and day out. Unbelievably selfish attitude most of ye have. Not surprising though.

I have helped fundraise for years for the Peter McVerry Trust, but I’m cutting all ties with them now because of this.

Very disappointed with his comments, he has gone down a lot in my estimations, scumbag mentality.

Loves_lorries

TheCitizen wrote: »

The notion that landlords can make profits is ludicrous, they're just greedy for more.

Rent is astronomical in Irish cities, it's scandalously extortionate and yet we have right wing mopes moaning about student protests.

High Market rent becomes less seductive when you realise nowhere in Europe does it take longer to evict a rogue tenant and nowhere is there less sanction for tenants who go rogue.

Some might say landlords price high so as to cushion against likely future non payers.

PlaneSpeeking

Smug gob****e. He's lost every last ounce of credibility now.

Encouraging scumbag lawbreakers, how Christian of him.

Loves_lorries

mikhail wrote: »

I'm in broad agreement with their aims, but not their tactics. People like you, who associate left wing politics with half assed sit-in protests and disrespect for the rule of law, are why the left can't win a double digit percentage of Dail seats.

Despite having such a pawltry Dail representation, the hard left receive a huge amount of media coverage.

riffmongous

_Brian wrote: »

But it’s nobody’s business what the profit is of tue market is functioning, but it’s not functioning and so fewer units to rent drives rents up.

The rental market must serve both landlords and tenants, trying to stack it so it only serves tenants turns landlords away, this has lost much of the rental stock and prevents landlords investing in more property.

But renting is such a highly regulated area that it's not just as simple as the market driving the profit, and rightly so since we are talking about people's homes here. The government plays a large role in deciding the profit, also from the supply side.

I do agree with your 2nd paragraph though, a proper balance is needed but the way things are now we are a long way from it, on both sides.

Gimme A Pound

Graces7 wrote: »

I know his career and my words stand. He has given up nothing. sacrificed nothing.

Interesting when you're the one constantly preaching at people here to help others.

He had a life of great privilege - well off family, big house, private school, universities, teaching job... and he gave it all up to help people on the streets, depending on fundraising, living in tough communities when he could have lived in a nice place and had a teaching job.

And you have the gall to say he sacrificed nothing?! I can tell you he did a lot more for people in need than preaching on the internet.

Surely he's the kind of person you'd look up to? What's your real issue with him?

NIMAN

People also need to realise that Dublin is now a major European capital city. Like Paris, Rome, Madrid, Berlin etc. It is very attractive to major employers and multi-nationals, and as a result we have tens of thousands more people looking for accommodation. This is turn drives up rent and house prices.

If you think you are going to find nice houses for little money/rent, you are sadly mistaken. Those days are gone.

MFPM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Smug gob****e. He's lost every last ounce of credibility now.

Encouraging scumbag lawbreakers, how Christian of him.

I'd suggest you get yourself a history book, read it and then come back and edit or delete this idiotic sentence.

TheCitizen

Loves_lorries wrote: »

High Market rent becomes less seductive when you realise nowhere in Europe does it take longer to evict a rogue tenant and nowhere is there less sanction for tenants who go rogue.

Some might say landlords price high so as to cushion against likely future non payers.

Nah, I'm not buying that at all. I know people who have property abroad and have had similar issues evicting rogue tenants. I don't have figures to hand but IIRC it costs similar to rent in Dublin as it does in cities like Paris. That just shouldn't be happening and if there are more rogue tenants on the go maybe that's as a reaction to the farcical rental and property prices in this country.

Looks to be a bit of a chicken and egg situation but short sighted greed of landlords makes it difficult to break the cycle. They are the one's in position of the private market in Ireland are they going to do anything about the problem bar complain about rogue tenants and student protests?

_Brian

Risk, Risk, Risk.
Landlords are expected to hand over a €300-€500k asset to strangers with a €1500 deposit, the law is structured so tenants are safe to overstay and stop paying and probably get to stay for six months at this carry on, and then get the sympathy of every bleeding heart who listens.

Then there is damage to property that needs to be repaired. Our local council have substantial empty property but much of that was left uninhabitable by previous tenants who likely were moved to another good house.

If landlords are expected to take that risk the potential profits need to be substantial.