Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SQUATTERS AT A building in Grangegorman in Dublin have welcomed what they describe as “victory” after an attempted eviction.
Security company LAS Security attended the site yesterday with a letter telling the squatters that they had to leave. However the squatters refused to vacate the property.
About 30 people are squatting on the site.
Yesterday and into last night, there was a garda presence at the vacant building, including a garda helicopter.
Gardaí said they have no plans to go to the property today.
A widely-shared video showed gardaí and individuals tussling at a fence.
The squatters said in a statement that “a large section of the complex which included studio spaces, warehouses and community gardens” was fenced off yesterday.
The 30 residents with supporters and neighbours resisted the whole day from 6.30am.
They said that security were due to stay to secure the compound, but residents locked and occupied the two main gates.
After some hours, the residents said they were able to negotiate that if all LAS workers, including the security, left then the crowd would let the trucks past.
They added:
The space is the communities [sic] once more though they are prepared to resist again… This is a great victory for the whole community.
NAMA does not own the building, a spokesperson for NAMA said. The receivers of the building have been contacted by TheJournal.ie for comment.
Squatting in Ireland
In Ireland, ‘squatter’s rights’ is known as ‘adverse possession’.
A person must be on the land for 12 years before they can claim ‘squatter’s rights’.
As we explained in a former article:
Adverse possession is a means by which an individual takes possession of a property, for a designated period of time, with the expressed intention of excluding all others including the true owner.If a squatter enjoys adverse and exclusive possession of the land for twelve years, then he or she may oust that owner and gain title.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I’m missing something here…what rights do they have to be on the property? Did they purchase it and fall behind with payments or did they just decide to occupy an empty building that they have no right to be in? If it’s the latter then I’m sorry but they should be evicted.
They are just occupying it. Most are the same crowd that occupied dame street. They aren’t doing it fir protest this time just attempting to live as scroungers and off the grid at the expense of everyone else
No it sounds like just another eyesore site left derelict by a developer waiting for prices to rise so they can rip people off again.at least it’s being made use of in a creative way, the majority of people here are so conservative the sheer idea of a free community having a different way of living blows their minds and immediately they go on the offensive in an aggressive manner.
Off the grid? If they are living ‘off the grid’, then how can they send out social media messages? Living off the grid means no electricity or any modern technology.
@ Cupid Stunt – I don’t get your argument. I’m all for allowing people to live as they choose provided it doesn’t interfere with other people or their belongings. If they choose to live in a ‘free community’ that’s fine by me. That does not, however, give them the right to just walk onto a property and say ‘it’s our’s now’! The bottom line is these people have no legal or moral right to be on this property regardless of whether its derelict or not. Nor does it matter that’s it’s a developer who’s waiting on the prices to rise. Put another way, if it was your house and they turned up at your door and said ‘it’s our’s now’ how would you react? Not very positively I think!
Jim the place was empty, I’ve experience in this in that I’ve squatted before in England and Holland, in Holland their is an organization where vacent properties are advertised, you get a solicitor to help you with legal rights and the police come and see that yes you are in fact squatting the place, they then leave you in peace. Weird isn’t it? The issue here is that people are so conservative in their thinking that anything that remotely seems like independent living is squashed and you have all these people giving out stink. It amazes me cos were meant to be great craic and rebels and all that, but were not like that at all. The reality is of a place that’s dogmatic with massive hangups around liberal thinking and diversity. A lot of these so called new ideas have been around for years in other places.
Do they have electricity, sanitation, refuse? If the answer is yes then who’s paying for it? If the answer is no then you can imagine the mess that will be left behind and they certainly won’t be footing the bill for cleaning it up. Also, from what I can make out it’s more of an industrial site than residential. An accident waiting to happen and who’ll be libel when it does? You can paint it whatever way you want and tell us as many stories as you want about squatting in other countries but the fact of the matter is that what they’re doing is illegal, dangerous and will eventually cost someone a lot of money.
As far as I know squatting was made illegal in Holland in 2010 (correct me if I’m wrong).
@middle class cork, very easy to have a laptop or smartphone powered from a cheap portable solar powered unit – they make ones that are a3 in size and can be rolled up to fit in your bag. You can be off grid and use social media easily
Living off grid means not connected to mains electricity, gas, utilities etc but you can most definitely use technology and use your own independent power sources, solar, wind, water, methane, etc. I think you mistook being ‘off grid’ with something else
I’m sure it’s still fine over their. In fact I was in Germany two months ago visiting a friend that’s squatting and he’s been doing it for the last twenty years and as far as I can make out Germany is still solvent and I didn’t see people living in the streets like here. Weird isn’t it.maybe we are wrong and not everyone else. Tell me has our approach to life resulted in full housing and employment for our citizens.
You are being an idiot.
The right through it being their home.
Very few people in Ireland own their home, most either rent it or owe the bank for it. And in the later case something like 70,000 people are in danger of the bank trying something similar and insisting that a piece of paper they hold should have more standing than the fact people are using a particular space as their home.
As far as I hear the space is being used for creative purposes by artists and musicians. Personally if the space is not being used and is derelict then I see no problem with it being used for a positive purpose. Equating Morality with property rights is utterly ridiculous, all property is initially founded on violence, and whilst I’m not calling for a communist revolution I’d just say when talking about issues like ethics you might want to broaden your frames of reference. We need more alternative thinking in Ireland, lest we end up back in 2007, we need people to think outside of narrow frames of reference. I’d like to see some kind of artistic community developed out of this site, think of the benefits that could bring to Dublin, we already have plenty of flats and office blocks, why not let these people develop something alternative. Ireland’s becoming a very sterile and business orientated society, I hope something positive can come from this. Do I even mention NAMA, property bubble and the type of person who likely owns the building etc.
No need to correct you. Squatting is illegal in Holland.
I’d say your delighted by that Rudy.
A lot of what you call off grid readily support technology.Mobile phones ect can be powered by solar and wind
It’s my opinion that there is nothing wrong with choosing to live off the grid – “scrounging” as you say. Why should the way of life the you think is ‘honourable’ be the only way? I pay my taxes and I have no problem with these people. I have a problem with greedy politicians, bankers, property developers as well as people with your attitude.
It’s my opinion that there is nothing wrong with choosing to live off the grid – “scrounging” as you say. Why should the way of life the you think is ‘honourable’ be the only way? I pay my taxes and I have no problem with these people. I have a problem with greedy politicians, bankers, property developers as well as people with your attitude.
Ah sure the tax payer will foot the bill …
30 people on rent allowance is the most likely alternative, in the short term. These people are creating their own homes without paying rent to landlords. Fair play to them.
They didn’t create their own homes. They stole them.
Words fail to describe the neck of these people, probably only there for a few months setting up their own hipster commune.
“The future is uncertain” they say…. I beg to differ, it’s quite clear to me. They’ll be out on their ear in no time, just like they were moved on from Glen of the Downs, Skryne Valley, Rossport.
There’s very few buildings that don’t have an owner. That some people reckon that they can prevent the owner from enjoying their own property suggests that these people need a good dose of reality.
Muppets.
owner = NAMA
Eh? – It CLEARLY states in the article that NAMA does not own the building. take a day off the web and go to Specsavers.
That’s us then.
Oh yeah, I see that again, but no, the article says a NAMA spokesperson said they don’t own the building. I’ve reason to think otherwise.
My eyesight’s grand Pearse, thanks for your charmingly expressed concern. Sounds like you might benefit from a rest day yourself. Once you get into THE CAPS GAME, it might be time to rest and have a cup of tea.
oh, here we go. Re Nama, the Indo article says:
…
The letter handed into the occupants of the complex explains that Mr Charleton was appointed as receiver to certain assets of builder Mr Conroy – including number 7 and 8 Lower Grangegorman – by the National Asset Loan Management Limited, a subsidiary of NAMA.
“I hereby repeat that I am entitled to the possession of the Secured Property and the continued occupation of that property by persons unknown to me is unlawful”, Mr Charleton states.
“Please be informed that to the extent that you or any other person shall remain in occupation of the Secured Property, without identifying to me or to my agents the legal basis for such occupation, I shall instruct my solicitors to take the necessary steps to enforce my rights,” he warns.
A spokesman for NAMA last night said the site is under the control of joint receivers David Hughes and Luke Charleton, of Ernst & Young, and that queries should be directed to them.
Halfway through a coffee Eif, but sure if it doesn`t work, i`ll try the tea, what do you recommend? Camomile or green?
What reason have you to think otherwise?
I don’t see how who owns it is relevant. The only thing that’s relevant is that the group illegally occupying it 100% do not own it.
Owner of NAMA is the State. State = You and me. Ergo, we’re the owners of the building.
Purpose of NAMA is to maximise on value of property on the State’s (yours and my) behalf.
I say get them out.
Actually, you’ll be happy to hear there is no doubt they are improving the property and the neighborhood. The building was abandoned for years before they moved in.
I’m glad we’re on the same page Brian.
O yes the Indo. That hotbed of free thinking. Wonder what Denis o briens thoughts are on this. How can he make money from these folk. Get enda and co to crack down.
As an owner of NAMA; I say let them stay + provide them with a Short-life Community Housing license. SCH is a method of ensuring empty housing can be maintained + utilised until such times as budgets for redevelopment/refurbisment of the properties are secured. This measure has helped ensure thousands of people in London, including many Irish, had a roof over the head rather than sleeping out on the street. Given the current level of homelessness in Dublin + the simple straight-forward solutions which have worked successfully elsewhere, any NAMA property sitting empty at this time is completely unacceptable:
http://self-help-housing.org/tag/short-life-housing/
That property would be worth far more, and accommodate far more if an apartment block was built on it, or employ a lot more if an office-block was built on it. Either way, allowing the continued occupancy of it in the current form is not maximising my return on investment, as citizen (and thus shareholder in NAMA).
Get on yer bike, feck off ya bleedin’ hippies!
only one muppet here Brian, we need to eradicate the kind of thinking your espousing, reactionary, not much thought put into what you say, mouthing off particular views and standpoint. e.g does of reality bollix etc. just platitudes coming from a brain devoid of much intelligence. We need to think more about how we live and the kind of society we want to live in and promote alternative ways of doing things. Your lack of foresight and inability to see larger picture is not uncommon and frankly it annoys me alot, its like a large block placed on our ability to move forward. Were seeing the same kind of thinking in Europe with Greece and Germany, that’s just the way things are, grow up, deal with it etc. Thoughtless, uncritical, docile
oh and some bullshit about my taxes, pay your way, probably on the dole, just reactionary platitudes Brian, first thing that comes into your head
Genius mate!!!
If only others would see it this way
We have enough empty office blocks thank you!
Haha your dead right!!
If brian had his way theyd build apartments, so these people could live in, and thus force them to get money off the state to pay for it and we ll lose more people to this perpetual system.
I think its great that they have occupied it
If you all look into what happened in hume in manchester, at the massive tower blocks you can clearly see that good can come out of it
(Hint the squaters parties and the creative lifestyle that was created there ended up starting madchester revolution in music)
by your reasoning the squatters also own it (they are mainly irish). combined with the reality that they are making actively positive use of it (unconcerned with making money), they hve a moral case. i think you represent this odious outdated relic of the celtic tiger, that just thinks money money money. look where that got us.
Get real. That property belongs to somebody, and that somebody, as far as I can tell, is NAMA. They have one role only, not to concern themselves with whether ye’ve an arts&crafts centre there, or whether it’s a Mecca for alternative thinking, but only to recoup the money that the State paid for all those bad loans, or as much thereof, made previously by the banks.
The more money NAMA can recover, the less debt the country will be in, and the more money the State can invest on alleviating homelessness or poverty, or any of the other countless burdens that the State must carry.
These things cost money, hence the State must be conscious of money. Most people will expect to be paid to work, the State needs to have money to pay their wages. The State gets such money by selling or developing lands recovered from the banks such as this.
If the squatters want to buy this particular property at current market rates I’m sure NAMA may consider it.
But just because somebody believes that they exist in some parallel universe where money holds no value does not mean that the State must play along.
Does it mention how long they have been there or did I miss that part? Surely they haven’t been there the 12 years for it to come into effect?
I worked there for 8 years and it was sold in 2007
Interesting!
Which part of the complex did you work it? And what was it? For painting buses or something?
It was previously known as “Doors & Floors”
The complex is actually composed of maybe 4-10 different units that are in NAMA, Doors & Floors is just one of them. As far as anyone can tell a speculator was buying up whatever became available during the boom and leaving the buildings vacant. Some seem to have been empty 15 years or more (the three red brick houses on Grangegorman) and had been allowed fall apart, which is typical.
My grandparents were from right next to the complex on Kirwan st and I live quite nearby now as well as knowing a couple of people living in the complex. Its a real jumbo of old residential housing, the D&F buildings and some old warehouses and garage spaces. The residents had done a fantastic job of cleaning up and building a garden in the yards but I’ve heard the bailiffs destroyed the gardens yesterday which is pretty sad.
Residents? They’re not residents. They are illegally squatting in someone else’s property
The hostility expressed against these people who took over a derelict vacant property and made a home and community centre of it is interesting/depressing. I doubt it all comes from landlords, angry that there are 30 people who have escaped their clutches, 30 people that they aren’t able to squeeze for ever-increasing rents. I imagine a lot of the hostility comes from renters like me.
It seems to be displaced anger, kicking down rather than kicking up. Over the last year I’ve had to move once because of a rent increase of 35% and I’m probably going to have to move again in the summer. I imagine a lot of the hostile commentators have had the same experience, or know people who have had worse ones. This creates a massive amount of resentment, and I can see how some of it is going to be directed against those who have managed, however temporarily, to escape the grim treadmill that renters are on. How dare they break the rules, when we have to obey them! Why shouldn’t they pay the high rents we are forced to pay?
I’d just advise the hostile commentators to step back and ask if these squatters are really their enemy, rather than the landlords increasing their rents and keeping property after property derelict. If you’re angry, kick up, don’t kick down.
Excellent comment. The hostility shown to these people is surprising. They have created workspaces, homes and gardens in one of the many ghost buildings that are left abandoned around our land. Surely that is something to be admired.
No David, I’m just sick of people thinking there is one rule for one and another for someone else. We live in a society that needs laws and rules. We just simply cannot have people deciding to take over someone else’s property regardless if the person is a rich landlord whose property they’re stealing. This land is being redeveloped and benefits everyone. Essentially these hippies are stealing acres of development land for their own gain. Common thief’s
Simplistic viewpoint cholly appleseed
More spongers with the usual idiots supporting them.
Couldn’t you find a way to mention Sinn Fein you pathetic troll?
Charlie, this article has nothing to do with SF. You seem to have SF on the brain. Shinner types try to turn every article into an article about SF. Join the modern world.
Imagine a visitor arrives from another planet and you’re showing them around Ireland. They see hundreds of people sleeping rough; they hear about the 90,000 households on the social housing waiting list. They also see that thousands of buildings are empty, some of them for years. How do you explain this to them?
This complex at Grangegorman had been disused for years. The people there are making good use of it, to live in, and also to create community gardens, art projects and more. They have support from people locally.
Elsewhere in Europe there is a long tradition of political squatting and an understanding of why it makes sense. Try to open your minds a little, folks.
They are preventing it from being redeveloped , the building is probably not safe to live in , no electricity , water . people are saying to let them live there , sure that are not doing any harm . look at it another way , if there was a fire and people were seriously hurt or killed , who’s to blame then ?
Joanie, they are not idiots, despite assumptions – people check that stuff before they moved in because there’s reason to wonder if it’s safe. There’s a lot of knowledge, experience and history in squatter activism across Europe.
I sure didn’t check the safety of my house before I moved in, I’m just assuming the landlord has it up to speed.
Correct me if I’m wrong but this a building , someone posted earlier that they worked there before , so it is not a residential property designed for people to live there .
There’s two / three residential houses, a big warehouse area (kinda broken up) and some big open yards which have been converted into gardens
The main building offices would have formerly been residential.
Joanie please save your concerns for the tenants paying rent and living in dumps with no security of tenure and conditions that would make you want to throw up.
Cupid , that comment just doesn’t make sense .
So what if it’s not a residential property, can’t people live in a warehouse if they want to?
Yes of course they can live in a warehouse if they want to , just pay the rent for it .
Joanie, so who’s the landlord? And where has he or she been all these years? They seemed perfectly happy to leave the place in bits and an eyesore that the rest of us have to look at.if I just dumped my rubbish in the street the council would fine me but if I leave an entire building to rot that’s fine. Again it’s one rule for them and another rule for us. Wake up and smell the coffee.
A lot of people here are really dismissive and insulting of the people involved in this – you know, calling someone a hippy / hipster isn’t making a political point, it just shows up prejudices against people ‘not like you’.
Personally, I have the utmost respect for these people who took an abandoned derelict NAMA property down the road from where I live and turned it into homes, community art and performance space and community gardens. They pay rent in 1000s of hours of community volunteer work – better than going into the pockets of NAMA types! Yesterday, they were holding their own against eviction by private a security force who, despite having no official papers (which isn’t clear from the way this article is written), are supported by police.
The building was empty from 2007 onwards. I really don’t understand why so many posters actually think that’s better than what these guys have done, even if it’s not your ‘scene’ or you have issues with how people dress or such petty reasons.
It doesn’t bother me that I pay normal rent up the road to my landlord, it doesn’t take away from what these guys have been doing. So much better than living below the poverty line, struggling to get by – the rents in this area can be unreally high.
Good on them it’s great to see someone standing up.
Standing up against what ?? What’s the difference between these hippies and a group of travellers setting up a halting site on public lands. The area is re zoned for business and residential area. They are stopping growth in the area. No one should support these wasters. They are not homeless. They are not vulnerable people.
I can’t understand why anybody would support these people ? They have no rights , some of them even work , so let them pay their way ! They are hippies wanting to live in a free world , they are not poor homeless people .
Joanie take out the word hippies and insert bankers and you’d be closer to the mark.
Nice to see 127 likes on this comment racist against travellers. Nice work everyone.
Nice to see 140 likes on this comment racist against travellers. Nice work everyone.
Cupid most bankers earn as least a half decent salary and they should be able to pay for their accommodation so why are they squatting?
Being part of a community that clings to a 19th century lifestyle is loony. Why do Travellers do this? Anyway there is only one race.
@eric.. There is nothing racist about my comment. I just stated the similarities between squatters and travellers. However, I do whole heartedly dislike travellers mentality of feeling entitled to settle where ever they like because they are an “ethnic minority”. I also whole heartedly detest squatters who feel they are entitled to do this.
Paul these bankers wouldn’t have a job If they had to comply with free market rules but luckily for them the govt simply takes you and your children’s cash and gives it to them if they screw up.
‘I’m not racist, I just hate travellers.’ Thanks for the clarification!
@cholly, seems to be a lot of hate in your ‘whole heart’
For starters travellers aren’t a race of people. They are irish who choose to live a certain way. I don’t hate them, I don’t agree with there attitude to and feelings of entitlements but good man throwing out the racist card to attempt to bully a debate.
Also Eric insinuating I said what you quoted by quoting a false quote speaks volumes of the kind of person you are.
Don’t waste your time with idiots.
Standing up against a toxicity bank, NAMA, that left a huge space to rot in the name of future profit when there are homelessness and housing crises on the door of DCC.
Some people took it back, and turned it into such an inspiring space that people from all over the world stop in dublin just to see it. we have built a community, we have build an alternative way of life that no body is making money off and they came to scare us and beat us out.
Well we stand up for ourselves and our way of life. If they want to take it away then they have to come thru us first. but they have backed off now, and thats that. if they come back for more that is there own decision.
people are too busy building shit and getting stuff done!
Why dont u go see what is happing there before slating it.
GG is home to a variety of free events and markets. Im sure you cant wrap your head around that works. We give first and see who gives back. We pay it forward. Hard drugs are never tolerated.
A different life exists in this city, and you have no idea because you are too busy concentrating on your blinkered view of life.
You’re thinking of double quotes which are only appropriate for literal quotes. Single quotes which I used are suitable for paraphrasing which is what I did.
Except you didn’t paraphrase. It is very clear what I meant and isn’t at all misleading. You chose to misquote for the benefit of your argument and portray me as a racist rather than make a valid counter point, that just shows a lack of intelligence.
well said moose!
I’m in a bit of a rush this morning so just a quick point. The word scrounger seems to be bandied around here with no justification. Nowhere in the article is there a reference to the means of income of the people occupying this building.
A lot of the posts say more about the poster than the article and incidents.
Have they got you people so tamed that the very idea of someone standing up for what they think is right is offensive to you?
Are you so cut off from community that when you see it in action you have to sneer or snipe?
I suggest you take a good look at your own lives because I see a lot of envy here.
Fair play and good luck to them. At least some people have the guts to stand up against being screwed yet again.
Great to see people with the courage and ingenuity to roll their sleeves up to ensure they don’t add their number to the homeless statistics. The approach to housing by legislators and developers in Ireland has been, at every level, an unmitigated disaster, further marginalizing the weaker elements in our society. We need a thousand grangegormans. This group of housing innovators are making a vital contribution to the social and cultural life of their neighbourhood without resorting to the begging bowl. They represent hope and deserve support.
“Residents” will they have to pay the water charge so ?? What a laugh
“Residents” means they live there. Simple as that.
So they have received their packs I assume !
I visited Ljubljana last year and read about Metelkova in the in-flight magazine. An autonomous cultural centre – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metelkova – reading about the site in Grangegorman, and seeing photographs, it looks like something similar was attempted here. Given the empty houses, the RIDICULOUS rent hikes in the city etc. I think what the squatters have done is wonderful – taking a building that had practically gone to rot, and making a home for as many as 30 people. Bravo squatters – bravo.
“Taking”…. you mean stealing
If these scroungers something something money something. Something my money something about freeloading and then something about my taxes and then something about money again.
Brilliant Garr!
People are talking about the squatters not owning the building – the reality is that the building and loans associated with the building were acquried by NAMA. NAMA is a public agency, set up by an act of legislation, and backed by public money. As such the building is public, yet NAMA *act* like a private company. The squatters are, in a sense, acting on behalf of the public in prioritizing the public/social use of the property. Obviously we can have a conversation around whether we agree with that or not, but they are raising a very important point.
Similarly, in Spain their equivalent of NAMA has had 13 apartment blocks occupied by homeless victims of the mortgage crisis.
NAMA technically does not own the property but it owns loans associated with the property, and appointed Luke Charleton of Ernst and Young as Reciever to the property. NAMA thus have effective control over the building. I hope this gets publicised.
Some of the more capitalist minded people here seem to be missing the point of adverse posession. We have property rights but they are secondary to the need to keep property moving in the economy and to stop people hoarding assets and unbalancing the market. If a property owner has some land and for 12 years they didn’t even notice someone else was living on it, they were not making use of it and it is being kept from the market, then tough, you lose it. If someone else took posession, controlled access and made use of it, then after 12 years they can have it as they are more likely to be making an economically beneficial use use of it than leaving it vacant, in this case the taxpayer isn’t footing the bill for their housing. From what I can see so far in this case the property owners haven’t bothered about keeping an eye on their asset for about 8 years, people have moved in and taken steps to start the process of adverse possession, it’s all perfectly legal and in line with free market philosophies. If it’s okay for pat kenny then why not this community? They same laws apply whether you are a humanoid plank of wood or you are bit scruffy, or are people suggesting we should have different laws for different people?
Squatters are squatters. They have zero claim to it. I’ll send a bunch of them up to your gaff next time you go on holidays. It’ll be a nice surprise when you come home.
You really seem to have missed the point and even if you did send them up, I know my own address so I’ll be sure to have it on the documentation to evict them and I’ll be able to prove that I had taken adequate steps to secure my property, I have been living in it, I pay the bills etc in my name. I haven’t be away for years and if I was I’d put in tenants. I’ll be honest if you sent squatters, it wouldn’t be a problem, a big pain in the ass perhaps. This lot got the address wrong, didn’t do anything about it for years and then went heavy handed. If I had a vacant property I would secure it, if it was residential or habitable you can in essence put anti squatters in, you charge nominal rent and they keep the place secure and revenue is produced thus producing taxable income, and affordable housing that keeps people off housing lists that we pay for. Also, adverse posession usually only takes up a few pages in even the most basic legal book, you know you could open one and try and figure it out, you will find your unequivocal statement doesn’t really hold up. It’s the free market, use it or lose it. Or are you some kind lefty pinko who demands the state protects you from the free market?
Yeah but they didn’t move into someone’s house when they were on holidays did they? Because that’s not what squatters generally do. They took over a derelict property that was being left to rot by developers. It’s those property developers who are committing the real crime, closing down valuable space when it suits them, and preventing people who need it from using it, and putting the squeeze on those in need when they can demand more money. The squatters are resisting this logic and I salute them.
“closing down valuable space when it suits them”
Eh, they own it.
Closing down valuable space, no one closes down viable businesses, tenants or revenue streams without a plan to profit from it, in effect trying to create profitable future market conditions, holding out until they can scalp the buyer again for overpriced apartments, grand then, but you still have to balance the investment in securing it against future profits. Property is a game, if you don’t read the rules first I have no sympathy. So the site is left vacant by the owner, hire a security company to keep it secure, put in a tenant, these things create tax revenue and secure it. If this is not feasible or profitable then you sell it back into the market generating taxes etc and let someone else develop it, use your money elsewhere. If you just shut it down and walk away with no investment in keeping it secure then you are gambling with adverse posession. This is the game. The owner gambles the whole asset for the price of securing it, the squatter then gambles their time and effort in making it liveable and secure. Then they wait and see, can the squatter stay there for 12 years if so they win, can the developer wait for the market to change to their advantage, while not securing their property and hoping no squatters moved in, if so they win. Who is better for the economy, the person who tries adverse posession, they maintain the property, put it to use, generally ensure its not burnt down or turned into a flop house, ensure windows and pipes etc are not removed by thieves and the existence of the threat of them ensures the owner makes use of the property that contributes to the economy. By stopping it going derelict the squatters ensure neighbours property values are not adversely effected, it’s worse to have a burnt out shell/shooting alley than a stable squat. They spend their money in local shops, they contribute to the local economy and pay taxes on goods and services. The developer was contributing nothing, hoped to make a profit, did not secure property, left the neighbours with an eyesore and potential damage to their property prices, he took the risk. I don’t know about you but I generally don’t have so many assets I fail to remember I own them for years and fail to make use of them. Bluntly, shit or get off the pot, is how property law works, it’s tries to keep the market moving and prevent hoarding. The threat of losing it to adverse posession is meant to make the owner do something with it that contributes to the economy and secures their ownership. In this case, residential tenants and a business tenant would have created housing at going rates, and generated incomes and taxes, it did none of this so the courts can decide they no longer own it. In this case unlikely as not 12 years, but even so the owner has at least got to get the paperwork and process right, hire solicitors etc and not break the law themselves risking causing assault, false imprisonment, personal injury claims etc.
Bloody hell.
These are facts;
It’s Not theirs.
It’s Someone else’s.
They’re preventing the owner (regardless of who it is) from using it/redeveloping it.
It is wrong. I suppose that doesn’t matter though does it.
(my hunch) Possibly facts too;
Site isn’t fit/safe for habitation.
The place will be a mess when they get moved on.
The taxpayer/citizen will foot the bill for the cleanup. Then they’ll be given social housing.
Your facts are incorrect. Stop making assumptions. Read all the posts before you act like you know it all.
I took your advice, it changes nothing, So, my post remains.
The security ruined the arts and crafts shop .many locals where becoming weavers .Is there no love for genuine weavers .
That’s all we need, drafting extra freeloaders in from the states!
Tree hugging unwashed jobless scroungers,turn up anywhere they can to create anarchy and mayhem.Stop their welfare payments.
So many generalisations in one little comment
I think it’s remarkable how few people seem to realise that these people are ensuring that the site doesn’t fall into disrepair. Previously the site was home to gangs of teenagers literally tearing it to pieces. If there are immediate plans to renovate the site, then of course they should leave. But, until then they’re doing a great service
The heavy handed security ruined some of the arts and crafts .some locals where starting to learn how to weave .we shall weave on .we shall not be moved .calling all folk we will organise a weaveathon for the centre
Actually yes I would – I’d go out of my way to help and support anyone who has been harmed by the greed-mongering that’s destroying both our country and our sense of community/. for the record I have never been able to afford to own property and am as always at the whim of completely unregulated landlordism. I still believe people matter though, that’s probably where you and I would part company. Hope it keeps fine for you.
If in 10 years time, you’re enjoying an album by an Irish musician, or savouring a painting on your wall by an Irish artist, it could be thanks to a workspace or studio in this derelict building. Think about that before you condemn them, all you conservative right wing nutjobs
Today’s Times http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/poplife/2015/03/24/the-grangegorman-squat/
I saw what great work was being done in the space and the positive creative ideas that have evolved. I’m sure many commenters on this thread wouldn’t appreciate art, gardening, construction from salvage and ‘anything alternative’ because it jars with their narrow world view.
There is a serious housing crisis out there and rents are going skywards. Our greedy landlords are rubbing their mits and chucking out tenants coz of rent hiking. NAMA has divvied out swathes of properties to the vultures for meagre sums at the taxpayers expense – ye won’t whinge at NAMA or government but will gladly swing at people who were successfully reclaiming a wasted space.
Actually I probably would have opened my door and let them in. I’d help or try to help anyone, especially friends, neighbours, or indeed anyone in need irrespective of colour, race or creed….what may have escaped your eagle eye is that along with a culture of selfishness and greed, our sense of community and concern for each other as human beings has diminished to a very upsetting degree. My original statement stands. You should be ashamed of yourselves….oh and, for the record, I am neither a hippy, traveller, freeloader, asylum seeker, shinner, pinko or any other derogatory label you try to use to justify the unjustifiable. I’m just someone who believes people matter. Clearly you don’t.
I don’t really have anything to add to this discussion, other than to say I find it utterly depressing to see so many (supposedly) Irish people being so cold, so greed-ridden and so aggressive against people with whom they don’t identify. Exactly when did helping one another out become such a bad thing? Or indeed support and solidarity? What are you so afraid of ? You really should be ashamed of yourselves.
You wouldn’t be saying that if they occupied your property and refused to leave it .
Joanie will you please get real. !! Ordinary people took over a derelict building to live in. How do you think it’s ok to leave buildings all over Dublin in bits without as much as a by your leave from the council. Are you telling me there’s not a vested interest in this carry on. I’d much rather know that vacent propertys are being utilised than left to rack and ruin, but that’s just my opinion.
If they want free living let them move to a nice little uninhabited island somewhere and build themselves a little wooden cabin but while they live in a developed city they have to pay for it like everyone else. They didn’t work their asses off to buy themselves the property so they have no right to live in it. Freeman is just another name for Freeloader!
The people occupying this site are nothing more than trouble makers living off us tax payers.Let them go and find a job and rent/buy there own gaff.
Still have no idea what this is about?
What’s the site? Who are these people? Why are they there? Why are they being evicted? Who is trying to evict them?
Anyone who says the squatters are stealing should watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0
have your say