Court orders demolition of family home.

Dohnny Jepp · 30-06-2010 07:50PM

why does he deserve his money back?

mikemac · 30-06-2010 07:56PM

Ok, money back was first reaction but thinking on it, it seemed fair but it's actually way too much!
CPO it so, agricultural land values and not site values so as they do with road building.
And an average offer on construction estimates, whatever the council spend themselves when they build

The owner can take the offer and the council gets a cut-price home for housing multiple families, definitely not just one family.

Or it just gets demolished.

ricman · 30-06-2010 08:00PM

ITS like he made a bet, i,ll build it, it won,t go to court, they won,t get a demolition order, he lost.I see no reason to admire him, no more than someone who bets 300k, on a horse and loses, unfortunately theres no shortage of foolish reckless people out there. I Think its sad for the family.
It reminds me of a story i heard on rte,documentary about gamblers, some eejit goes to a card game on friday, comes home at 12.30 ,tells his wife and 2 kids ,we,ll have to move out tommorow , i lost the house.
HE bet the whole house on a hand of poker.
Theres a selfish idiot not thinking of his familys welfare.

walshb · 30-06-2010 08:03PM

But, why are we assuming it was the man who was pushing this?
Maybe, just maybe it was an intolerable wife pushing this build...

starbelgrade · 30-06-2010 08:07PM

walshb wrote: »

But, why are we assuming it was the man who was pushing this?
Maybe, just maybe it was an intolerable wife pushing this build...

There had to be two of them behind the decision. A wife might nag you to go & put the bins out or go to the shop for some bread & milk, but I seriously doubt that she kept saying to him, " I want a house & I want it NOW", up to the point where he said - as you do when you're about to put the bins out - "OK, I'll do it NOW, if it'll shut you up!"

walshb · 30-06-2010 08:14PM

starbelgrade wrote: »

There had to be two of them behind the decision. A wife might nag you to go & put the bins out or go to the shop for some bread & milk, but I seriously doubt that she kept saying to him, " I want a house & I want it NOW", up to the point where he said - as you do when you're about to put the bins out - "OK, I'll do it NOW, if it'll shut you up!"

Yes, two of them in it is being fair and diplomatic; it is just that most here seem to be
mentioning him him him him......Hey, a nagging wife can be real hell
to live with.

mikemac · 30-06-2010 08:21PM

ricman wrote: »

It reminds me of a story i heard on rte,documentary about gamblers, some eejit goes to a card game on friday, comes home at 12.30 ,tells his wife and 2 kids ,we,ll have to move out tommorow , i lost the house.
HE bet the whole house on a hand of poker.
Theres a selfish idiot not thinking of his familys welfare.

Gambling debts aren't enforceble and no family ever moved out if the house was bet on a game on cards.
Unless this guy was betting with the mafia :eek:

ricman · 30-06-2010 08:25PM

Sounds like you are saying theres 2 fools involved here, i just presumed it was the man saying i want a big gaff and feck the begrudgers.
i think theres a code of honor among professional gamblers, nothing to do with the mafia,you make a bet, you honor it.

loobylou · 30-06-2010 08:39PM

walshb wrote: »

He should have got Pamela Izewayu' on the case, I am sure she would have got
this thing dragged on for years, eventually leading to them keeping the house

Dunno.... 24 months is'nt a bad start.:p

30-06-2010 08:41PM

K-9 wrote: »

The house is 6,500 sq. ft.

Those figures would be skewed by box sized apartments and tiny 3/4 bed semis built during the bubble.

yeah exactly my point. We should have bigger houses and 6,000 sq ft + is a good thing not a bad thing who are you to tell someone else they wont use something?

walshb · 30-06-2010 08:48PM

loobylou wrote: »

Dunno.... 24 months is'nt a bad start.:p

Not to mention the fact that they have been living there since 2006? 4 year start...:)

Mike 1972 · 30-06-2010 09:13PM

baldbear wrote: »

A 3 year jail sentence with a bit suspended and let him keep the house,

So people who break the law should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crimes ?

30-06-2010 09:19PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So people who break the law should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crimes ?

the family didnt steal anything

your confusing civil law with criminal law they did not rob and bank and keep the money

cazzycaz · 30-06-2010 09:27PM

A big gamble but i know people who have built big swanky houses without permission and gone for retention and got it. Seems to be one law for some and another law for others. Will be interesting to see what happens in two years time...something will save it i suspect.

Mike 1972 · 30-06-2010 09:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

your confusing civil law with criminal law

Nowhere did I specify civil or criminal law

danbohan · 30-06-2010 09:32PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So people who break the law should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crimes ?

how could we forget , been rich in ireland is a crime , dont you just love it

30-06-2010 09:34PM

cazzycaz wrote: »

A big gamble but i know people who have built big swanky houses without permission and gone for retention and got it. Seems to be one law for some and another law for others. Will be interesting to see what happens in two years time...something will save it i suspect.

That begs the question, should rentention be abolished due to the abuse?

K-9 · 30-06-2010 09:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah exactly my point. We should have bigger houses and 6,000 sq ft + is a good thing not a bad thing who are you to tell someone else they wont use something?

Whatever, I'm sure he thought he could afford it. It worked out well for him in the end. Build it and they will come and all that.

Wonder did he read The Secret?

Mike 1972 · 30-06-2010 09:48PM

danbohan wrote: »

how could we forget , been rich in ireland is a crime , dont you just love it

Unemployed plumber = rich ?

ricman · 30-06-2010 09:53PM

Google sites for sale county meath, theres a big difference between a site x and a site that has outline planning permission for a house.A house needs acess to esb, water supply etc do you think it costs the council zero to provide services to houses.
WE need planning regulations otherwise we,d have chaos plus massive environmental damage to the water supply.And theres plenty of legal sites for sale in meath or old houses that need modernisation.
if he had built an 800 sq ft house ,he might had a chance of going for retention or some sort of compromise with the council.

El Weirdo · 30-06-2010 09:59PM

danbohan wrote: »

how could we forget , been rich in ireland is a crime , dont you just love it

No. Being rich in Ireland is not a crime but thinking that the laws don't apply to you because you are rich is fucking retarded and I'm glad to see that this guy didn't get away with it.

ricman · 30-06-2010 10:07PM

i could go to my aunt and build a shack on her land with old bricks,recycled wood from buynsell ETC ,would not cost much ,it would still be against the law ,i have no planning permission.being rich he was able to build a large house,thats a side issue.

danbohan · 30-06-2010 10:09PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Unemployed plumber = rich ?

well if an unemployed plumber can build this mortgage free i wonder what an employed one could do , always said sw rates are too high in ireland !

Mike 1972 · 30-06-2010 10:11PM

He wasnt unemployed when he built it

Do pay attention FFS

K-9 · 30-06-2010 10:13PM

danbohan wrote: »

well if an unemployed plumber can build this mortgage free i wonder what an employed one could do , always said sw rates are too high in ireland !

Oh Good God of almighty.

He was employed, he is now unemployed.

30-06-2010 11:00PM

ricman wrote: »

Google sites for sale county meath, theres a big difference between a site x and a site that has outline planning permission for a house.A house needs acess to esb, water supply etc do you think it costs the council zero to provide services to houses.
WE need planning regulations otherwise we,d have chaos plus massive environmental damage to the water supply.And theres plenty of legal sites for sale in meath or old houses that need modernisation.
if he had built an 800 sq ft house ,he might had a chance of going for retention or some sort of compromise with the council.

who wants an 800 sq ft house on land? are ya mad thats apartment size stuff

Mike 1972 · 30-06-2010 11:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

who wants an 800 sq ft house on land?

What are these "feet" you speak of ?

Butch Cassidy · 01-07-2010 01:43AM

K-9 wrote: »

There needs to be a whole sea change in attitude in this country, particularly the "well, it is ok for them attitude". That perpetuates the problem.

Well it's ok for the Buttler brothers to give payments to certain politicians. They settled some €20odd million with revenue and weren't pursued. They perjured themselves in a tribunal and weren't prosecuted. There's many like them. White collar crime is not prosecuted in this country.

starbelgrade wrote: »

Butch Cassidy;

You are confusing too many issues here - the housing lists, the ghost estates, alleged back handers & the legal issues are all valid debating points, but they have nothing to do with this case.

.

I was making a point about our mentality in our society. About how it's fair and accepted to demolish a building that could be used for the betterment of people in need. Is there not just something grotesque in this notion of "justice" here?

Doop wrote: »

How does this punishment not fit the crime????
He built something illegal now has to take it down.... makes perfect sense

If you demolish something you shouldn't of, you get ordered to re-instate
eg http://www.independent.ie/national-news/convent-demolition-may-cost-firm-8364127m-1254229.html

Our planing laws are far from perfect, but they are there for the greater good.

Take the house away from them absolutely. Then when the state owns it the state can do soemthing usefull with it.

tbh wrote: »

we already have an idiot tax. It's called the lotto.

Touché

K-9 · 01-07-2010 02:20AM

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Well it's ok for the Buttler brothers to give payments to certain politicians. They settled some €20odd million with revenue and weren't pursued. They perjured themselves in a tribunal and weren't prosecuted. There's many like them. White collar crime is not prosecuted in this country.

True, but one thing at a time. There is a perception out there among many that you build away, even without planning and just apply for retention after. Problem sorted. That needs to end, otherwise why have planning at all?

I suppose it could be used for something else, except there is no planning for it. It shouldn't exist. The man owns the house, so the Council or whoever would need to buy it of him.

So you'd have the Council buying a house that has no planning. It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem alright!

starbelgrade · 01-07-2010 02:32AM

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

I was making a point about our mentality in our society. About how it's fair and accepted to demolish a building that could be used for the betterment of people in need. Is there not just something grotesque in this notion of "justice" here?

Take the house away from them absolutely. Then when the state owns it the state can do soemthing usefull with it.

Let me get this straight.... you take a house that is unsuitable for the services in the area, out of character, oversized & illegally built... you tell the owner that he can't live in it & has to move out, you pay him compensation for his troubles, and then, you give it to the "needy"?

Is that right, Ted?

God, that justice thing is madness.

Court orders demolition of family home.

Comments