Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

drdeadlift · 15-10-2011 04:27PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Ah, so because other people are perceived to have done worse we let this guy off after he stole a ****ing house?

Are you one of those developers that lost out?? am i close??

You need a reality,its only a house.

Custardpi · 15-10-2011 04:34PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Ah, so because other people are perceived to have done worse we let this guy off after he stole a ****ing house?

Given that the house was an investment property which nobody else wanted & which was rotting away prior to him entering & would continue to rot away if he was kicked out, what's the alternative? Empty investment properties of this nature are worth feck-all in the current climate. Personally I know of several such houses near me, which continue to decay & attract rats with each passing month. I'd far rather have someone like this guy living in them than have them left as increasingly ugly eye-sores, regardless of whether he pays less than I have for my humble abode.

suicide_circus · 15-10-2011 04:50PM

bradlente wrote: »

I must have missed that part of the article...

Compared to what many a well paid person has done to this country over the last few years I find it hard to believe how much vitriol is being spewed about this incident.Its not ideal imo by any means,But for me its nowhere near the disgrace that some people in here deem it to be.

Ah yes, two wrongs make a right.
I'm not talking about bankers, developers or the other fatcat scum who helped create this mess. I am talking about this being another example of the ordinary hardworking tax payer (ie gob****e) being tapped to pay for another **** free ride.
Answer me this; I work and pay rent. If I decide tomorrow to check-out of society - quit my job, start doing gear, stop paying rent, claim benifits and contribute nothing,. is it right or fair that I go to my nearest unoccupied property and set up house using tax payer benifits to spruce the place up, at which point the state gifts me the gaf, because i'm entitled to be housed and kept off the sweat and graft of others dont y'know! Thats acceptable to you too know doubt?

donalg1 · 15-10-2011 04:50PM

Custardpi wrote: »

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Ah, so because other people are perceived to have done worse we let this guy off after he stole a ****ing house?

Given that the house was an investment property which nobody else wanted & which was rotting away prior to him entering & would continue to rot away if he was kicked out, what's the alternative? Empty investment properties of this nature are worth feck-all in the current climate. Personally I know of several such houses near me, which continue to decay & attract rats with each passing month. I'd far rather have someone like this guy living in them than have them left as increasingly ugly eye-sores, regardless of whether he pays less than I have for my humble abode.

So if I see a car on the street unlocked can I get in and drive off saying sure ill take better care of it than the owner?

mickydoomsux · 15-10-2011 04:50PM

Custardpi wrote: »

Given that the house was an investment property which nobody else wanted & which was rotting away prior to him entering & would continue to rot away if he was kicked out, what's the alternative? Empty investment properties of this nature are worth feck-all in the current climate. Personally I know of several such houses near me, which continue to decay & attract rats with each passing month. I'd far rather have someone like this guy living in them than have them left as increasingly ugly eye-sores, regardless of whether he pays less than I have for my humble abode.

Demolish them.

That's what you do with derelict property. You don't hand them out to people who can't be arsed to stay within the system that pays their "wages".

dm09 · 15-10-2011 04:52PM

There's a "Ghost" Car Dealership up the road here with lots of unsold Range Rovers parked out front.
Maybe I should go and occupy one of them, claim adverse possession.:rolleyes:

westendgirlie · 15-10-2011 04:54PM

donalg1 wrote: »

So if I see a car on the street unlocked can I get in and drive off saying sure ill take better care of it than the owner?

Only if you live in it too

Dionysus · 15-10-2011 04:58PM

It could be worse, like that woman in Galway who burned down her own council house, and whom Galway City Council now has an obligation to house.

donalg1 · 15-10-2011 05:03PM

Dionysus wrote: »

It could be worse, like that woman in Galway who burned down her own council house, and whom Galway City Council now has an obligation to house.

Well she should be let remain homeless and never get any more help from any local authority

Custardpi · 15-10-2011 05:03PM

donalg1 wrote: »

So if I see a car on the street unlocked can I get in and drive off saying sure ill take better care of it than the owner?

In the unlikely event that the owner (as in this case) wasn't interested in the car & that you, after having tracked down the owner offered to pay for the use of the car as well as fixing it up, while of course offering to give it back to the owner (who remember wasn't interested in it) as soon as he needed it, and in a better condition than it was when you found it, then yeah, I'd say go for it.

This isn't a family home, or even a cherished holiday home that the guy entered. It's an investment property that was rotting away & becoming increasingly useless. As I've said before, if the owner (who according to the article had to be tracked down so clearly wasn't taking an active interest in the house) has someone who wants to buy it or rent it privately then of course Mr Tuohy should vacate. In the meantime, his presence & rent, however small is beneficial to the owner.

mikemac · 15-10-2011 05:05PM

Judge Groarke said he would not finalise sentencing until such time as the woman had a place to stay and was being supervised and helped by the relevant support services.

I haven't heard of this Judge Groarke

If it was Judge Fahy she'd be sent straight to prison with a vicious tongue lashing, Judge Fahy doesn't hold back
Loves to rant and humiliate people brought to court in Galway

Mike 1972 · 15-10-2011 05:11PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Actually he wants the tax payer to pay his rent and arrears (after he was caught)
What a hero.

Are we talking about the developer or the current occupant ?

donalg1 wrote: »

Well she should be let remain homeless and never get any more help from any local authority

Unless of course she is in a position to pay full compensation (including interest) on the 2007 market value of the house she burned down

Failing that they could discharge their "obligation" by offering her (at full rent) a certain house at 38 Tulach Ard that needs a bit of work.

But all this is really going O/T unless someone wants to start/bump another thread.

stovelid · 15-10-2011 05:14PM

Always got to wonder about people's reactions to these stories. He should pay a nominal rent but the house would be lying empty and falling apart anyway. I can afford a roof over my head so I don't lie awake raging about what others might be getting for free.

donalg1 · 15-10-2011 05:16PM

Custardpi wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

So if I see a car on the street unlocked can I get in and drive off saying sure ill take better care of it than the owner?

In the unlikely event that the owner (as in this case) wasn't interested in the car & that you, after having tracked down the owner offered to pay for the use of the car as well as fixing it up, while of course offering to give it back to the owner (who remember wasn't interested in it) as soon as he needed it, and in a better condition than it was when you found it, then yeah, I'd say go for it.

This isn't a family home, or even a cherished holiday home that the guy entered. It's an investment property that was rotting away & becoming increasingly useless. As I've said before, if the owner (who according to the article had to be tracked down so clearly wasn't taking an active interest in the house) has someone who wants to buy it or rent it privately then of course Mr Tuohy should vacate. In the meantime, his presence & rent, however small is beneficial to the owner.

Oh right I didn't realise he was paying rent. Hang on though the owner can't be tracked down so who is he paying the rent to. Bottom line is its not his house he's not entitled to be there so he should gtfo

Custardpi · 15-10-2011 05:16PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Demolish them.

That's what you do with derelict property. You don't hand them out to people who can't be arsed to stay within the system that pays their "wages".

I have no doubt that demolition probably will be the fate of many ghost estate houses but I really can't understand the mentality of this statement. You're basically wanting to demolish houses like this to spite people like Mr Tuohy, rather than for any practical purpose. Surely it's far better to have the house made use of than not. Demolition of houses is actually quite expensive, who's going to pay for that? The council? The (probably) bankrupt owner? Other residents of the estate? You?

Freddie59 · 15-10-2011 05:18PM

westendgirlie wrote: »

Oh I'm split. On one hand I applaud him and what he has done to a run down house. But on the other hand, more are gonna break in and squat and they won't care what state they live in.

So some people are screwed by the banks that screwed the country........and others are allowed pick up a home free gratis:eek:.AND THE REST OF US PICK UP THE TAB. A fcuking banana republic if ever there was one.:rolleyes:

15-10-2011 05:18PM

He should be turfed out on the street, that so many people are eager to applaud his actions is just odd. People like him contribute absolutely nothing to society but are the first in line for every handout and are playing the system for every cent they can get. The first thing that will happen if he is asked to pay rent on the property to the developer is that the burden of doing so will be passed on to the tax payer.

The sooner we stop bending over backwards to appease those who have never worked and never intend to the faster we can sort this country out. There are thousands of families in this country who have never and will never work a day in their lives yet the state will ensure that their every whim is met. In one row of houses back home there are 10-12 houses and 6 of them are occupied by the different generations of one family not one of whom has ever worked a day in their life. A seventh house was given to the youngest of the family, got pregnant at 17 and now at 18 has her very own house and more in benefits than many hard working tax payers.

Freddie59 · 15-10-2011 05:21PM

El Siglo wrote: »

Audentis Fortuna iuuat - Fortune favours the boldthose with a neck.

.

A better description methinks.

skelliser · 15-10-2011 05:22PM

The real story here is NAMA has finally been exposed for the scam that it is.

In a proper society built on the capitalist system which supposedly Ireland is NAMA wouldnt exist and these houses would be sold for market value and in some cases sold for 1euro.
This is how it works, you win you keep the profits; you lose its your problem.

Now we have this situation where an enterprising citizen has challenged the status Que.

What would posters here say if the man had lost his job and was now unemployed?
I think people need to stop looking at his situation and start looking at the bigger picture.

Why does NAMA exist?
from this story it sure doesnt look like its for our benefit!

I think we in Ireland instead of discussing debt forgiveness for struggling home owners and bailouts for the elite cannot hide anymore.
This mans actions are now going to force us to choose a path.

Throw him out and let the house rot whilst bailing out the developer?

Let him stay, keep the house in good nick, increase its value, pay rent and build a home whilst exposing the hypocrisy of NAMA?

im not sure where i stand!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J88uhdFk8Jo

Freddie59 · 15-10-2011 05:23PM

drdeadlift wrote: »

A very pro active waster.I will not begrudge him for what he did.Most wasters on the housing list just walk to the post office and back on a Wednesday.

By the time nama do anything with these houses they will be fit for nothing.A better question would be what is nama doing?

A better question is why he was allowed to walk from court without being prosecuted.

jdooley28 · 15-10-2011 05:25PM

inforfun wrote: »

As much as he can get rent allowance, i guess.

Less people would have a problem with this guy if he was someone working his balls of for minimum wage and couldnt afford to rent a proper place from that salary.

agreed.

it seems his only source of income comes from the state so whats the point him even paying rent. I am not saying he should be left on the street put surely he can't pick and choose what house he wants. people have have worked long and hard for that right, many probably wish they hadn't now, but surely he can't have the attitude of oh I like this house I''ll move in and make it my own.

Freddie59 · 15-10-2011 05:25PM

skelliser wrote: »

Now we have this situation where an enterprising citizen has challenged the status Quo.

WTF??!!:rolleyes:

skelliser wrote: »

Let him stay, keep the house in good nick, increase its value, pay rent and build a home whilst exposing the hypocrisy of NAMA?

Throw him out and make him pay to have a house around him - the same as all of the rst of us with mortgages do.

Freddie59 · 15-10-2011 05:28PM

drdeadlift wrote: »

Are you one of those developers that lost out?? am i close??

You need a reality,its only a house.

Bollocks. There are 770,000 souls paying mortgages in this country. He should be thrown out. Hey, sure why not go down and take a new car in the local dealers while we're at it? This is the part where law and order could very quickly unravel if the courts and the government aren't very careful.

Custardpi · 15-10-2011 05:29PM

donalg1 wrote: »

Oh right I didn't realise he was paying rent. Hang on though the owner can't be tracked down so who is he paying the rent to. Bottom line is its not his house he's not entitled to be there so he should gtfo

And what will be the realistic outcome of him gtfoing, given both the state of the housing market & the lack of a concrete plan in place to deal with derelict housing? Answer: The house will continue to rot away, attracting rats & further diminishing the quality of life for others on the estate.

If at some time in the future, having done a cost-benefit analysis the relevant authorities decide that the best overall solution for society is the demolition of this house & the other derelicts & are actually capable of implementing such a solution then of course requiring him to vacate becomes a reasonable idea. Prior to that happening however, his presence is doing no harm whatsoever to the interests of the owner, to whom he has offered to pay rent. Kicking him out in the present circumstances serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to pander to your hatred of poor people.

15-10-2011 05:30PM

skelliser wrote: »

The real story here is NAMA has finally been exposed for the scam that it is.

In a proper society built on the capitalist system which supposedly Ireland is NAMA wouldnt exist and these houses would be sold for market value and in some cases sold for 1euro.
This is how it works, you win you keep the profits; you lose its your problem.

Now we have this situation where an enterprising citizen has challenged the status Que.

What would posters here say if the man had lost his job and was now unemployed?
I think people need to stop looking at his situation and start looking at the bigger picture.

Why does NAMA exist?
from this story it sure doesnt look like its for our benefit!

I think we in Ireland instead of discussing debt forgiveness and bailouts for the elite cannot hide anymore.
This mans actions are now going to force us to choose a path.

Throw him out and let the house rot whilst bailing out the developer?

Let him stay, keep the house in good nick, increase its value, pay rent and build a home whilst exposing the hypocrisy of NAMA?

The problem is that neither situations is right. NAMA is a disgrace and it's continued existence is a prime example of everything that is wrong with this country. The man in the article is another prime example of everything that is wrong in this country.

Neither situations should exist, why should you or I bail out multimillionaires who seemed oblivious to risk and now are quite happy to sit in their offices receiving a wage to manage their failed developments. Likewise why should we continue to contribute to people who never have and never intend to find employment. There is a difference between someone who has worked and now due to a world wide recession finds themselves unemployed and in need of financial assistance and someone who sees playing the social welfare system as their employment.

I know it sounds absolutely horrible but long term unemployed (those who never have and never will work) receiving social welfare should not be allowed to have more than 1 or 2 children. Each subsequent child should see no additional financial advantage to them. It's sad to think that there are people in this country who will get knocked up as early as possible simply so that they can rely on the State to take care of them.

skelliser · 15-10-2011 05:30PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

WTF??!!:rolleyes:

ya enterprising!

Fortes fortuna adiuvat!

bradlente · 15-10-2011 05:30PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ah yes, two wrongs make a right.
I'm not talking about bankers, developers or the other fatcat scum who helped create this mess. I am talking about this being another example of the ordinary hardworking tax payer (ie gob****e) being tapped to pay for another **** free ride.
Answer me this; I work and pay rent. If I decide tomorrow to check-out of society - quit my job, start doing gear, stop paying rent, claim benifits and contribute nothing,. is it right or fair that I go to my nearest unoccupied property and set up house using tax payer benifits to spruce the place up, at which point the state gifts me the gaf, because i'm entitled to be housed and kept off the sweat and graft of others dont y'know! Thats acceptable to you too know doubt?

No it wouldn't be acceptable to me,Just as it wouldn't be acceptable in my eyes if that man decided to do all that stuff you've mentioned.I would also find it unacceptable for the state to just give this man a house.But they didn't do that.Just because they didn't throw him out dosen't mean he now owns the house.

You're entitled to be pissed off,As anyone is with anything.I wasn't trying to insinuate that 2 wrongs make a right.I meant it more along the lines of if you think this is really bad and a complete mockery of how the countries run and it makes your blood boil then you must need to buy a new TV every time you turn on the news.

Freddie59 · 15-10-2011 05:31PM

realies wrote: »

:eek::eek: Bit harsh there generalising on all people claiming Disability benefits .

But true in the main. Look at the numerous Lourdes cases around you.;)

Freddie59 · 15-10-2011 05:31PM

skelliser wrote: »

ya enterprising!

Fortes fortuna adiuvat!

My hole.

donalg1 · 15-10-2011 05:35PM

Custardpi wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Oh right I didn't realise he was paying rent. Hang on though the owner can't be tracked down so who is he paying the rent to. Bottom line is its not his house he's not entitled to be there so he should gtfo

And what will be the realistic outcome of him gtfoing, given both the state of the housing market & the lack of a concrete plan in place to deal with derelict housing? Answer: The house will continue to rot away, attracting rats & further diminishing the quality of life for others on the estate.

If at some time in the future, having done a cost-benefit analysis the relevant authorities decide that the best overall solution for society is the demolition of this house & the other derelicts & are actually capable of implementing such a solution then of course requiring him to vacate becomes a reasonable idea. Prior to that happening however, his presence is doing no harm whatsoever to the interests of the owner, to whom he has offered to pay rent. Kicking him out in the present circumstances serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to pander to your hatred of poor people.

I don't hate poor people I hate dishonest people I hate thieving people. And yes he should be thrown out and after that he can go into private rented and actually pay some rent

Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Comments