The Frederick St protest and reaction

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I think its the timing of the whole thing that has people upset 
New Garda commissioner with Mi5 links is only in the door, Then that van last registered to the Manchester police force turns up in Dublin with English reg ,Masked men and not taxed and no insurances, No id (some claim they didn't need them so say they did)  
The Garda released in there statement they checked and the Van was taxed , which is a lie you can check online yourself, It hasn;t been taxed since 2014 , 
I'm not saying any of the above is right or wrong but its what has upset some people 
Then on top of that  the new commissioner made a statement last month that the biggest threat currently to Irish people is " Republican paramilitaries " which raised serious eyebrows , As its clear its the drug gangs and the problems they have been causing are far worse in current times 
Its easy to see why the Sinn Fein heads are worried when that came from a former PSI officer's mouth whos father was killed by the IRA, Its very very out of touch of what currently happing and seems obvious he would have problem with Republicans due to his past, who wouldn't to be fair to the man , 
Again i'm not saying i agree or its right  , I'm just saying this is why u'll see a lot of people on Facebook and what not giving out,

You hardly think that this operation was organised by the new Commissioner.

A run of the mill deployment of the Garda Public Order unit does not need to be presanctioned by the Commissioner, it would be done by local level management.

More than likely that Drew Harris would not have known anything about this incident until it took place and received media attention.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Two things strike me from your post above, and since you seem to be well clued up on all of this maybe you might answer my questions?

I'll do my best!

Firstly, if you want "widespread deflation" in the rental market, is that not going to lead to an even bigger scramble of landlords getting out of the rental business than is currently underway, as it will no longer be in any way profitable

Good, as far as I'm concerned. That would mean more housing would be provided and managed on a non-profit basis, which would mean that rents would be determined by what is regarded as acceptable rather than the maximum someone can get away with charging, with no regard for how that impacts a tenant's quality of life.

(being a landlord is a business they're entitled to make a profit, they too have to live after all).

I don't ideologically believe that providing housing should be regarded as a business. It should be a public service in which the needs of society are the priority, not somebody's back pocket. As a society, we should democratically decide that housing is a right and that it should cost a reasonable amount, not the absolutely maximum some provider can get away with charging for it - just like we do with healthcare, water, education, etc. Of course there's still private education and healthcare, but everyone can avail of the public services if they need them, with 'upgrading' to the better resourced but expensive private option a discretionary extra. Basic housing should be a right, and that's exactly what Dublin Corporation used to provide before neoliberalism took hold. I again point to Fintan O'Toole's article on the subject - he described the housing built by the Corporation in Crumlin and Drimnagh as relatively basic - small and cramped units, for instance - but at the end of the day, as he pointed out, they had a roof over their head, and it was a hell of a lot better than having to either live on the streets or move out of their community and leave their social networks behind.

Secondly, almost all of the developments you sing the praises of have been demolished, Dolphin House is the only one I know of that's being redveloped in anything like its previous form. Does this not say something - like, that model failed?

This isn't actually true. The ones which have been demolished are the ones which were built towards the end of Simms' career when things began to fall apart economically for the country and as a result he was forced to scrimp on building materials - in fact, one of the reasons he ended his life was the stress of knowing that the projects he was embarking on were doomed to failure because he was badly under-resourced at the time. Chancery House, Oliver Bond House, Thorncastle Street and Countess Markievicz House are examples of the ones which are still standing, and do not have the issues which have led to these others being demolished. They were built earlier in his career, before his budget was gutted.

Clustering social housing in small areas like that was a disaster, the government seems determined not to go down that road again.

And I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm suggesting that the definition of "social housing" be expanded massively. It's no longer about people who can't work or have social problems, it's now about people who can and do work, but can't afford extortionate rents anyway.

Dravokivich wrote: »

My need is for affordable housing. Social housing is a terrible way to call it, because it doesn't properly relate to the majority of people that it's built for.

Can you define affordable housing ?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Here's something I genuinely don't understand. Irish households are earning more now than we did during the boom; rental and property prices are higher than they were during the boom, and the country is almost at full employment.

I'm not sure if that bolded bit is true.

As for the full employment bit. That's the same in a lot of OECD countries but a lot of that new job growth is in low-wage, low-benefit jobs. The kinds where people are off the dole queues but don't have anywhere near the disposable incomes that they did the last time that the unemployment rates were around the same values.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

i know, and I happen to agree that the opposition to that development is hysterial -- it was to be built on a tiny section of a very large park, and where better to build a developemnt like that, than next to a large sporting and recreational area? It seemed ideal to me.

My point is simply that it's a local, NIMBY issue. Was there are local representative, from any party, who *didn't* oppose it? If so, they're a brave councillor.

Aodhán O' Ríordan (lab), Seán haughey (FF) and Naoise Ó Muirí (FG) were the most vocal opponents to the development that I'd heard of, up until now.

Im walking distances from St Annes . I can tell you there would be a lot of locals outraged at our housing crisis .

Just dont build any near them

Whatever about Road Tax, there is no way a member of the public can find out if a van or car is insured to be driven by the driver.
I have an "Open Driving" clause on my insurance.
I am insured to drive any vehicle as long as I dont own it, and have the permission of the owner.

A Guard can't find out, so he will demand that I produce my insurance cert and show him the clause.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is people being charged unfairly high rents and being cruelly evicted from their homes in the 1800s a legitimate issue to protest and agitate about, but people being charged unfairly high rents and being cruelly evicted from their homes in 2018 is not a legitimate issue to protest and agitate about? The people of the 1800s are more deserving of housing than the people of 2018? What's the distinction? The situation is the same except for the date, FFS.

Its not their homes . I agree landlords can be horrible but come on

Just to add, I have quite the backlog of quoted posts from yesterday to reply to which I didn't get around to last night, so I'm replying to everyone's arguments in order today as I get a chance - I'm not ignoring any arguments or running away from backing up my positions, lest anyone make such scurrilous accusations