Richard Hillman wrote: » The place will turn into a drugs den when the Slebs get bored and go home, leaving a few fool hardy volunteers. And as a previous poster has said, this has a large scale fire written all over it. The Government are better off doing what they do best, do nothing, but emphasise the fact that the beds are already there.
Kh1993 wrote: » They're not staying out on the streets because they want to.
Maybe some groups like AAA or Ogle etc will of course benefit from publicity, but that's a by-product of things like this.
hmmm wrote: » The news today is full of people wanting to dip into the working persons pockets. We spend vast sums on the homeless charity industry already, we're spending enough - someone must be making an awful lot of money out of it.
Widdershins wrote: » Interesting idea. How will it work out? It remains to be seen.. Do squatters rights still exist and is it still a minimum of 12 years?
Flimpson wrote: » They said a flick of a pen would solve the issue, not get the solution started. It would do neither - this is a very complex issue and simplifying cheapens it, whatever direction it comes from; whether it's "Shur can't they just go to homeless shelters" or "This is all the government's fault - they could solve it in an instant." These kinds of proclamations are not helpful. The government is giving money to local authorities for housing resources. It's not enjoying people being homeless. But there are people in steady employment being exploited by greed because they simply cannot afford to pay the rent, there are also people whose mental illness, addiction and traumatic experiences have damaged them to the point that they strangely choose to sleep rough (how this is the government's fault is beyond me), there are people who are too afraid to stay in hostels because of intimidating elements, there are people who take the piss themselves too and expect the state to house them - in a hotel until a house or flat is provided. With regard to the needy, help is on offer but some folk are too disenfranchised to take it - it's nobody's fault. I like to think idle buildings will be converted to housing stock - I don't know if this is a panacea but it doesn't make sense for them to be left unused. Everyone has to contribute towards their housing though - nothing is for free. What I do know is: those of us who don't have this worry should thank our lucky stars and give money to/volunteer at Focus Ireland/Simon instead of "Waaaa, it's the government's fault - someone else should do something?!"
Wanderer78 wrote: » They are absolutely right, it really is a flick of a pen to get this started, as that's how one of the most critical ingredients of this problem is created, I.e. money
Berserker wrote: » We could have guessed most of those names. Wonder how many of them are willing to put some actual money towards buying the property and donating it to charity. Bet most, if not all of them, wouldn't be as forthcoming if it came to that.
Richard Hillman wrote: » What these people fail the recognise is that so many of these people are homeless because of their own doing. Rent prices are not the reason why Boxcar Fred has been sleeping rough for the last 6 years. Give him a house and he'll still spend his money on booze or drugs and will get evicted for not paying rent. Occupy what you like, it's not going to stop people being trainwrecks
MRnotlob606 wrote: » Providing homeless people with social housing is probably the most effective way of providing them with shelter and a somewhat decent, sustainable way of living.
FTA69 wrote: » Stealing my hole. If it's owned by anyone it's owned by some speculator who has been bailed out to the nth degree with public money and is now sitting on this asset waiting for it to appreciate in value.
tomwaterford wrote: » If nama is state owned.....is this not public property??
tomwaterford wrote: » An empty building state-owned and you want to throw people out in the middle of winter???
The proposed development consists of the demolition of the existing Apollo House and the construction of a commercial office building including the provision of café/retail units and associated services.
Kh1993 wrote: » I walked up Henry St. last night at 10.30pm, 14 people in doorways in sleeping bags. They're not staying out on the streets because they want to. To us, its unseasonably mild, but I dont think I'd be calling it mild if I had to sleep on the ground for 6 hours in a doorway.
donkeyoaty0099 wrote: » Reports I've read and seen about the homeless shelters around Dublin suggest that people won't stay in them due to drug use, violence and theft. What's going to stop this happening in apollo house?
Kh1993 wrote: » You can't do try and do anything these days without being labelled a 'SJW'. Predictable.
tomwaterford wrote: » So you know all of the people occupying this place so?? 1 person who has to ando deosnt want to sleep on the streets is 1 too many?? Its 2016 ffs
Wheeliebin30 wrote: » Because people say none of these people want to sleep on the streets. I'm showing that's not true.
tomwaterford wrote: » What's he got to do with this Are the homeless a hive mind???
Wheeliebin30 wrote: » But Johnathan currie refused accommodation the night he died and sold 2 houses to stay on the streets. Some people do choose to live that life. That's a fact.
Kh1993 wrote: » You can't do try and do anything these days without being labelled a 'SJW'. Predictable. It may or may not work, but it's an attempt. They are looking for plumbing/fire safety volunteers at the moment. Yeah the government is providing more beds, but its not enough, despite the figures. I walked up Henry St. last night at 10.30pm, 14 people in doorways in sleeping bags. They're not staying out on the streets because they want to. To us, its unseasonably mild, but I dont think I'd be calling it mild if I had to sleep on the ground for 6 hours in a doorway. Maybe some groups like AAA or Ogle etc will of course benefit from publicity, but that's a by-product of things like this. There'll always be the type who denounce this because their political opponents are involved, that's petty. They're allowed help if they want, as are all parties/people, don't write off the whole group because Ogle is involved or because you want to throw around the 'sjw' crap from your pedestal. Surely, at the very least, there is a discussion to be had about using state owned (or previously state owned) derelict and empty buildings for a good reason
tomwaterford wrote: » So we are to assume you don't want people to help themselves or be put up in empty state owned buildings No poor about should be you life phrase
Wheeliebin30 wrote: » Nama don't have control over it anymore they released a statement today.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Whether it's empty or not isn't the point, people can't just start entering properties and squatting in them. Yes the Government needs to get the finger out and start to tackle homelessness but the point SJW never want to hear is that help is available and some people just don't want to avail of it for whatever reason best known to themselves.
tomwaterford wrote: » An empty building state-owned and you want to throw people out in the middle of winter??? Your arguement has no sound reasoning behind it??? For all the faults of those involved....it's better than people sleeping rough surly? ??
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Well in that case you could say the place I work in is public property because it's in Nama as well. Don't think it quite works that way.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Anyone that trespasses on to private property should be thrown out immediately.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/33ff51e6843dec62476295b286496533.svg)
