78 thoughts on “While You Were Sleeping

  1. Murph Mikey

    they are squatters??? Well then, they are the goons. feckin scum with nothing better to do than invade someones building and wreck it. What a bunch of A-holes… Burn them out…

  2. VinLieger

    Hippie freeman nonsense, they need to be evicted so the land can be re purposed to build proper housing and help solve the housing crisis

      1. VinLieger

        Sorry am i not towing the anti-establishment broadsheet line correctly? I mean they will obviously be turned into sex dungeons for the evil bankers and politicians to sodomise us all in

        /mindless conspiracy rant

        1. realPolithicks

          “for the evil bankers and politicians to sodomise us all”

          That’s been happening for years, apparently you haven’t noticed.

    1. Clampers Outside!

      Hahahahahahahaha! ….what complete and utter nonsense. If that were the case why was it idle for so long… oh yeah, because who ever did own it in the past couldn’t give a monkey’s numb handed w*nk about housing.

      1. VinLieger

        Or because they paid an insane amount for it during the boom and its only just become viable to sell it on again in the past few years?

      2. Anomanomanom

        It’s up to owner to decide what to do with it. It most certainly is not up to these peopleto decide they now have a right to it.

      3. Rob_G

        Owner could have been broke, it could have been in Nama, it could have been subject to a dispute…

        Maybe it is ok to occupy some buildings that no-one is doing anything with, but eventually they will want them back, and it is time to sling your hook.

  3. Kolmo

    the 5km between my home and where I work there are well over 300 vacant properties of varying sizes (that I can just see from the street), industrial and commercial and residential – all empty, sitting there, going to sh1te, most of them have been left for years, probably appreciating in value for the owners/speculators but reducing the city to a bleak looking kip, Benburb street now looks as grim as Belfast in the 1970’s. How can the government get involved in bailing out private banking institutions and then claim not to be able to do anything about the anti-social nature of some property speculators. Fair play to the squatters.

    1. Tish Mahorey

      Exactly. The owners of these vacant eye sores never see them. They don’t live in the areas they let go to ruin for their own personal greed. It’s essentially vandalism of the city.

      But there is a new law passed in Dublin city which levies vacant sites of a hectare or more. It’s 3% of the value and charged annually. So that should encourage these scumbags to develop or sell their properties.

      The law should extend to smaller sites and also sites adjacent to each other, owned by the same person.

      1. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

        In the UK they are also trying to work out how councils can do the same for vacant houses – some parts of London have huge numbers of empty houses. Really weird to walk through them.

      1. Kolmo

        Are you trolling?

        My house is not an abandoned mass of unused buildings and land, unused for at least a decade, warping the market to drive land values up. (granted, it’s a poorly built block of apartments less than 10 years old, but it’s used by hundreds of residents and is reasonably aesthetic)

        stupid argument.

          1. timbot

            Principle? You’re comparing apples and some kind of imaginary fruit you made up. Is your house built of straw?

    1. Murph Mikey

      +1 Happy Dub,

      Thats the mentality of these squatters….the mind boggles. How can anyone support them….

  4. Murph Mikey

    if someone buys it, its their business what they do with it….they can leave it there empty or use it. Its private property. These squatter scum broke into a private property and wont leave just because the owner didnt build them a house. How can anyone be on the squatters side on this issue???

    1. Kolmo

      Surely the business owners have some social responsibility to the area where the business is situated, if a building is not used it could become an environmental hazard to those living beside it, or a godawful eyesore as are many privately owned sites in Dublin, if the the site was in a more affluent area there would be lots of strongly worded letters to Irish times about it and maybe some tut-tuting, they’ll protesting if it storted affecting house prices though..

    2. classter

      ‘if someone buys it, its their business what they do with it’

      it is not so simple.

      Empty buildings cause all sorts of problems for the community in their environs – dead space, haunt for criminals, look ugly, etc.

      1. Murph Mikey

        Classter – thats not the owners problems you listed there….thats social problems. Not the owners fault if the local scum are criminals or if they look unattractive….

        1. Iwerzon

          Its the owners fault if their property is not secure. No one has the right to buy property/land and sit on it when there is destitution and need around them. Use it or loose it!!!!

  5. rotide

    Calling the guys ‘goons’ is as bad as calling the squatters ‘scum’

    The squatters may well be ‘much loved’ in the community but at the end of the day they are there illegally on private property. They can’t really have much complaints if they’re moved on.

  6. Verbatim

    There is such a thing as squatters’ rights, believe it or not, and I think that’s what they are “complaining” about.

    1. Anomanomanom

      Easy solution don’t use goons. Hire about 10 people who actually know how to do the job. I gurentee these scumbags would beg to leave the “squat”. I had similar(much smaller though) problems and got it sorted fairly easily.

    2. dav

      doesn’t matter to profit before people crowd. they just want property developers and bankers back in charge again.

    3. Harry Molloy

      Squatters rights is a common term for Adverse Possession.

      A qucik google of how it applies in Irish law will tell you that you need to be in possession of a property for 12 years, and that the original owner will have made no effort to reclaim the property, in order for legal ownership to be transferred.

  7. Tish Mahorey

    Which does more damage to a city?

    A: Squatters living and working in vacant sites, bringing activity and security to derelict streets which otherwise become no-go areas with illegal dumping and dangerous structures.

    B: Greedy speculators who don’t live locally, leaving large areas vacant for years, denying local residents a good quality vibrant neighbourhood with more residents and active businesses?

    1. Rob_G

      Grand job – I will come and occupy a bit of your backgarden that you don’t get much use out of with some of my crusty mates, and we’ll see if you begin to believe in property rights then.

      1. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

        The neighbours of the squat seem to prefer the squat over having a big empty space attracting all kinds of trouble

        “Crusty mates” – good one there. Just as funny as saying goons. Have you claimed they are all on welfare yet?

        1. Rob_G

          They seem to have a lot of spare time, all the same.

          If they did have jobs, that would raise a bigger question: why should they get to live there for free, when someone across the street is paying upwards of €1k a month to rent an apartment? I wonder if they are paying for their electricity, water, etc., or they feel the same way about paying for utilities as they do about property rights.

          1. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

            People don’t work 24 hours though do they? And if some don’t work maybe they do more jobs there? I mean, think about it rather than writing things off. And no, I don’t think they are all angels of virtue either.

            They are squatting because [read anything they have said about it]. You might think they are doing it just to avoid paying rent, they would argue they have a bigger goal to try and achieve. Just because they have a different view to you doesn’t make them so bunch of crusty hippies, especially when you end up talking about the same things like rents being too high or people not being able to buy houses or start families.

            For all the talk of political change on here particularly this week, there is a massive lack of appreciating that other people might be able to bring something new and interesting to the table. Instead its all the “dirty hippies” nonsense. Maybe people should be out protesting, maybe people should be occupying spaces. Why not if you want to instigate change rather than voting for the same old people? Or will the politicians come along and read BS and change their minds instantly?

          2. Rob_G

            If were speaking about squatters that were occupying a building that was otherwise unused, you would perhaps have a point. However, now the rightful owners want it back.

            I have no objection to people having an alternative view, or trying to change the conversation, etc, so long as they are not stealing someone’s else’s stuff in order to do so.

            If rents are too high, you can lobby the Govt, go on marches, etc, but it doesn’t give you the right to appropriate what belongs to somebody else. Everyone else who rents is in the same boat – why should certain people get to live in D7 for free by virtue of their willingness to break the law? It poses a moral hazard.

            Maybe whoever owns this property is going to build a block of apartments, which would ease the housing crisis just a little bit – but now that’s been put back another few months by a few individuals who feel that they are entitled to live where they like for free.

          3. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

            Protest, and successful protest at that, is not always legal. And it does seem you have a problem with these guys and their method of protest given how you are talking about them.

            “Maybe whoever owns this property is going to build a block of apartments”
            Maybe they are. That would be great. Did the court proceedings say anything about this? Having any planning requests been put in? From what I’ve read they wouldn’t get permission for apartments anyway because of where it is. So if they are just kicking them out to sit on it again while they wait for prices to increase again then I can see why they wouldn’t leave.

  8. dav

    All power to them, NAMA needs to be nationalised and taken away from the property developer civil servants who are running the place. Filling out spreadsheets of property prices and selling them to the highest brown envelope, drip feeding completed estates onto the market to keep the artificial property bubble going.

    1. Kieran NYC

      So in this loony scenario you’re ‘nationalizing’ it out of government hands into… government hands?

      You’re one of those people who doesn’t understand what ‘semi-state’ means when it comes to Irish Water either, aren’t you?

  9. Termagant

    But, I mean, at a fundamental level, at the very root and crux of the matter, it’s not their property. Laws apply whether you like their effects or not.

      1. Termagant

        12 years. And if at any point during those 12 years the rightful owner makes any attempt to assert or even imply ownership over the property (yes, deliberately trying to oust the squatters counts) then the period is reset.

        1. dav

          “the rightful owner ” which, thanks to the boom time practices of insulating from responsibility/tax liability while maximising profit, means that the owner is some shelf company, or a bankrupted entity themselves.

          1. dav

            I believe that they missuse “the Law” for self gain and that should be punished. Be it by the authorities (which never happens) or by a group of citizens with the balls to stand up and fight. There are 100’s of priory halls out there, and nobody, except the residents will suffer for that. The “owner” of the above site is likely to be responsible for a priory hall of their own and I have no sympathy for him/her/them.

          2. Termagant

            “People who do things that I don’t like are probably bad people who have done other bad things maybe and as such don’t deserve their legal rights”

            Your lot are so tiresome

          3. rotide

            I’m sorry, but do you have any evidence whatsoever that anyone is breaking ‘the law’ apart from the squatters?

            Or are you just salivating at the thought of sticking it to the man

        2. Harry Molloy

          +1 Them is the facts

          TBH I don’t mind these squatters squatting, as it highlights the disgraceful number of vacant properties in the city, and I hope that this influences some govt policy on encouraging owners to develop sites.

          But the squatters don’t own the property, once they have been called on it they need to GTFO

          1. Jake38

            “I believe that they missuse “the Law” for self gain and that should be punished”. A revealing statement, indeed. Perhaps you could define “missuse” of the law, and what punishments you have in mind.

  10. munchkin

    Sorry – squatting – i.e. the occupancy of a property that you’ve no right to – is wrong. It absolutely does not matter if it has not been used, it is not yours to use – the same policy that applies to any property! If someone wants to leave it to ruin, and sell it for a profit, that’s his call – if he wants to donate it to the simon community – also his call – but this is wrong.

    These squatters (one of whom I know personally) are refusing to engage in the economy by working, paying taxes and paying for everything else like the rest of us.

    Before criticizing everyone who is ‘capitalist’ I dare them to walk a mile in my shoes – and see if its all that bad – given what I’ve worked for and what I’ve got – sure I’d love to not pay tax, and live somewhere for free – If I want it bad enough I’ll go hell for leather applying for a expat job in the middle east with no taxes and a free apartment – I won’t just walk over to my neighbors house when they’re on holidays and move in!

    1. classter

      ‘If someone wants to leave it to ruin, and sell it for a profit, that’s his call – ‘

      This is absolutely not true. There are externalities which the owner is not paying for.

      The rest of society does not have to pick up the tab for this free-rider landlord & for this reason, I support the squatters.

      The levy on vacant buildings should progressively increase over time

      1. munchkin

        claster

        What externalities – They are obliged to pay property tax (and there’s a process set up to follow up if they don’t pay)

        These squatters are not paying anything – so essentially society is picking up the tab for free for them.

        Agree that there could be an additional levy on vacant buildings, but that it does not give someone the right to squat there.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          “What externalities”

          How about adjacent properties losing value?

          “These squatters are not paying anything – so essentially society is picking up the tab for free for them.”

          No they aren’t. Society is paying for the derelict building. Squatters bring life to the building. Squatters, assuming they’re not just junkies or something, add value to the area.

    2. MoyestWithExcitement

      “Sorry – squatting – i.e. the occupancy of a property that you’ve no right to – is wrong. It absolutely does not matter if it has not been used,”

      It’s legally wrong. Morality is a different question and whether the property is being used or not very much does matter when it comes to that.

  11. Alex Lyons

    They were gone from the site for 4-6 months, they were in another site on Arbour Hill but lasted a month, so they dont have squatters rights

    And they only got back on to that site because the storms about 2 weeks ago blew one of the gates open

    They really just dont want to live in an unfashionable area do they?

  12. Kieran NYC

    Radical idea.

    Leaving your city site vacant forever is wrong (the fine system needs to come in before 2019)

    AND refusing to stop squatting on someone else’s property when asked to leave is also wrong.

  13. some old queen

    A derelict building attached to my property affects my rights. Damp, rodents even structural issues may arise so the argument that it is nobody elses business is nonsense. And even then, if the owner decides to rebuild they still have to apply for planning permission so that among other things, the building fits into the surrounding environment. It certainly is other people’s business.

    What is interesting is that nobody ever seems to know who owns these buildings, even when legal action is being taken against squatters. Surely someone can find out? Doorstep the friggers and ask them straight out why they feel they have a right to blight communities with thier derelict tax deductions.

Comments are closed.