Man told he can stay in ghost estate home

Custardpi wrote: »

Again, in the absence of a ready to implement plan for derelict housing (whether that be demolition, sale by private treaty at market clearing rates or whatever) the guy's actions are harming no one & indeed his work in maintaining the house will probably benefit the owner in the long run who will have a more sellable asset in the future (though almost certainly not at bubble prices, no matter how well the economy improves). Sure we could kick him out but the practical benefit to society (the owner, mortgage payers, private renters, other sw recipients, etc etc) would be zilch.

who is the owner?

what means has he used to make this house habitable for himself?

has he gone and out worked? has he gone out and looked after those 7 kids of his???

has he done anything for anyone else, other than himself???

NO, he's a parisite, who has scrounged off the likes of a lot of decent people, who have worked hard, paid their taxes and looked after their own, unlike him.

phasers wrote: »

His 29 year old likes to play in the garden?

Well they are from Mountmellick:D

Sooopie wrote: »

ok, lets let him live there

what happens if the prices rise, the owners get a chance to sell their property for a whack of cash, where does this leave your squatter?

If you actually read my posts (reading level? ) you'd clearly see that if the owner found themselves in such a position then in my view Mr Tuohy should of course vacate the premises immediately. I would support his right to stay there only until such a time as a more comprehensive solution was found for the property's future, whatever that should be found to be.

Custardpi wrote: »

If you actually read my posts (reading level? ) you'd clearly see that if the owner found themselves in such a position then in my view Mr Tuohy should of course vacate the premises immediately. I would support his right to stay there only until such a time as a more comprehensive solution was found for the property's future, whatever that should be found to be.

You'd cast him aside, just like that?

Custardpi wrote: »

Given that such a scenario would only arise in a dramatically improved economy in which plenty of jobs would be available (I'm having trouble typing for laughter writing

Custardpi wrote: »

that bit), even for the likes of Mr Tuohy, yeah I'd say that'd be fair enough. Both parties will have benefitted from the deal -Mr Tuohy, who'll have got a roof over his head for the duration of the slump & whose handyman skills will have been honed by his maintenance work thus making him employable in a rising economy and the owner who now has a sellable asset instead of a pile of bricks & rat faeces. Does the thought of that offend your social conscience?

He didn't do much for himself, during our booming economy, did he? he had 7 kids, and will still continue to sit on his arse, happy out, with the likes of you, happy to bleat, pay, and say sorry for his short comings in order to take that tiny, pathetic moral high ground:)

Sooopie wrote: »

He didn't do much for himself, during our booming economy, did he? he had 7 kids, and will still continue to sit on his arse, happy out, with the likes of you, happy to bleat, pay, and say sorry for his short comings in order to take that tiny, pathetic moral high ground:)

You seem to have some deep psychological need to convince me that you're superior to this guy, do you need a hug?

Look, I fully agree that this guy might not have been the most model of citizens in the past. At no point have I held him up as an example for others to emulate in general, whatever about the specifics of this situation. I certainly wouldn't be happy to see him "sit on his arse" & would prefer if he & others like him were obliged to show signs of their efforts at self improvement even in the absence of job vacancies (although I'm not sure how much opportunities for that are available in Offaly currently).

That being said however, I fail to see the practical benefit from kicking out of the house in the current climate. If a more productive use can be found for the property then as I have repeatedly said that'll be a different story. One's personal feelings, good or bad about Mr Tuohy do not in & of themselves change that.

donalg1 wrote: »

Self improvement by going from private rented to squatting in someone else's house?

He can well afford private rented as he was in it before and can afford to spend a couple of grand on this house so he should be in private rented again. People say he is trying to turn things around for himself well how is he by taking a few steps back from where he was. By doing something wrong on more than one level he gas already been to court once but oh yeah good for him trying to turn his life around. Lol. Whatever

If he can afford private rented as you state then no doubt he'll be happy to pay private rental rates (which I can't imagine are that high in Tullamore) to the owner of this property, while at the same time maintaining & improving the asset to a level which the judge was impressed by. Your moral indignation (which I can understand, though I do not share it) does not change the fact that the house was decaying & producing zero income. If a more productive use than that to which Mr Tuohy is currently putting the property can be found then I'd have no problem with him being asked to vacate. Prior to that absolutely no good whatsoever is served by turfing him out, regardless of what you or anyone else (including myself of course) might think of his character.

donalg1 wrote: »

Course he can afford it a one bed in tullamore can be rented for 100 or so leaving him with 88 for the week. So there is his accommodation sorted now for the house well its up to the owner to decide what he wants to do with it after all its his house. And if he wants to rent it out well then he can find his own tenant. And let tuohy abide by the law and behave in a proper manner and try get his life back on track the proper way

And in the absence of the owner finding a tenant off his own bat (which given the dilapidated state of the house at the time of Tuohy entering it he obviously wasn't very pushed to do) the house will simply rot, being of no benefit to anyone. Letting a property go to waste & lay idle is an awful thing, land should be put to use, whether that's having someone live in the house for €100 a week or having the land be returned to agricultural use, which may be the most practical solution in the end for many ghost estates around the country.

Letting the many thousands of derelict properties around the country descend into dust simply to satisfy your perverted notions of property rights is simply disgusting. If the owner (a NAMA'ed developer lest we forget) or the local authority can find a better solution for the property than that to which Mr Tuohy is putting it then absolutely kick him out. Prior to that, he's doing the owner a favour through maintaining the place & putting a roof over his head, as well as removing himself from the housing list.

donalg1 wrote: »

He isn't doing anyone any favors obviously the guards are wasting their time calling out to him when they could be something better.

He is a squatter full stop.

He shouldn't be there doesn't matter if he is doing any repairs or not its the owners choice who lives there or if it goes derelict. If there was a vacant house beside me I'd prefer it to stay that way rather than have some lad squatting in it.

Give me one good reason why he shouldn't be in private rented now.

There's several vacant properties near me, which are falling apart due to the owners not giving a toss about them. They are an eyesore & attract rats to the area. I'd far rather have somebody living in them & improving them than have them continue in that state, although the best option might well be demolition at this stage. What practical benefit is it to the owner or you if a house is allowed to rot?

donalg1 wrote: »

If I own a house its my decision what I do with it that's the point. Some bone idle lazy waster has no right to live in my house regardless of what he does in it. Just because he put in a wooden floor doesn't mean he improved the place he may even have made it worse by putting in a cheap crappy floor. And whether it not a house is there vacant or otherwise chances are rats are gonna be there anyway there's a field behind my house which I'm sure is full of rats building a house there won't change he fact rats are nearby

Eh, you do realise that this is a NAMA house, rather than somebody's home that he has broken a window to occupy while they were on holidays. The legions of failed "investment properties" around the country are benefitting no one by simply lying idle, any work done to them at this stage can be considered an improvement given the state of many of them. Your opposition is rooted in absolutely nothing but ideological fervour. Again I ask, what practical harm is being caused by his presence in a house which there is no evidence anyone wanted & what practical benefit would be served by kicking him out? Your personal opinion (and indeed mine) of Mr Tuohy's character & overall worth as a human being have no relevance with regard to those two questions.

El Siglo wrote: »

Audentis Fortuna iuuat - Fortune favours the bold.

..and Ireland favours the spongers...

what should we expect, look who's been running the country for the past 20 years.