Mica Redress

Your missing the point. Whatever had to be done to rectify and make the homes safe was done. Only want the same done up here.

You'll get some of that information here:

Suffice it to say, so far, well short of the €3 billion figure. And, as we all appreciate, it not that the pyrite scheme is a precedent for some entitlement. The pyrite scheme either is or isn't better than having to rehouse a bunch of people. The (main) reason this fails for the Mica campaign is because the cost is just prohibitive.

And there's plenty of folk with pyrite in their homes not getting support under the scheme, who have homes that are unsellable (and, once again, let's not forget that even a house that has been through the pyrite scheme won't be attractive to prospective purchasers).

The mica campaign's demand for a full restoration of the market value of all properties is just not practical. And it's not what the pyrite scheme does, either. Nor does it apply to holiday/second homes.

I think that message is getting through - which is why you'll see the discussion moving away from the 100% case, and more on to attacking anyone questioning the 100% case. Fundamentally, the issue is that folk can see that taxpayers collectively have a lot of money. So folk want to be convinced that the taxpayer is to blame in some way, to justify demands for that money.

No, you are skirting around the point. €35,000 to €65,000 would probably meet 100% of the cost of fixing a pyrite house. Much less than the purchase price of a house.

What you are complaining about is that, in a case where the taxpayer pays €360,000 to rebuild a house under the Mica scheme, the homeowner (according to campaigners - to be clear) could still have additional costs of €65,000.

And, just to be plain, their solution is that the taxpayer should pay €425,000. To rebuild what they see as an "average" 2,400 square foot house (it's actually double the size of the average Irish house, and more than double the average price of a house in Donegal).

It's actually bonkers for the taxpayer to be providing €360,000 in any circumstances, and that's the scheme that folk say isn't good enough.

They aren't. The pyrite scheme saw houses repaired at a much less expense than even the repairs that are being provided for here. But the protesters are not seeking repair, they want replacement. For everyone. Including investment property. Including holiday homes.

And let's not forget there are people in Donegal that can afford to pay towards their repairs, they just don't want to.

You need to understand that fully state funded replacements for all is not a realistic ask and to come up with workable compromises, like a state loan scheme or equity scheme like fair deal for the affordability problem where it exists and repair is not an option.

I do fully understand something workable is going to have to be worked out.

But asking families to find tens of thousands to still have their homes fixed was how it was put to them with a sliding scale which no one in construction or architects have never heard of.

No workable compromise was put forward to families yet so that is why were still in stalemate.

How much are the homeowners looking for to get 100% redress? Just wondering how far apart the 2 sides are at the moment?

I wouldn't think there is much you miss sticking your oar in. As they say.

You'd like the State to project manage 6,000 individual sites, with bespoke designs for each home?

Have you taken leave of your senses?