Discussion in 'Housing and mortgage arrears - policy issues' started by Brendan Burgess, 8 Oct 2018.
Just shoot the horses.
So after all your plamasing of Travellers in your earlier posts, covering for them etc...you then come out with a line like that.
What exactly do you think the drawbacks may be from this fine and upstanding 'community'?
Are the stables the horses are currently kept in nearby?
I wasn't plamasing or covering for anybody. Just merely commenting on the details as presented.
I dont have any drawbacks against the Travelling community in general, however, considering these houses were earmarked for their occupancy, I would consider the prospect for protest should anyone else move into the houses to be quite high. That is just an assumption, but I think plausible.
On that basis, if I were living in emergency accommodation with my family I would consider these houses unsuitable for my accommodation as I would not want my family used as a pawn in what maybe a tense stand-off.
How about you. If you and your family were living in emergency accommodation would you consider these houses suitable for your accommodation?
Lets be honest here BS, it's not 'protest' that would happen here if anyone else were to move in. It's be a lot more than that
Do you honestly think the council should be providing stables? Could that money and land not be put to better use?
Are you suggesting something more sinister than protest?
If you are, and if that belief is real, then these properties would be unsuitable for homeless people living in emergency accommodation.
The point being, a situation has arisen that has led to some typically bigoted and outlandish suggestions to shoot horses, take kids into care etc.
Does anyone ever propose possible solutions based on the reality?
I take it that if you and your family were living in emergency accommodation that you would not accept these houses to live in?
I cant imagine the construct of stables to of too much expense. But if you can think of better use of the land, im all ears.
Should the council supply dog houses, aviaries or pigeon lofts too. The state has an obligation to house it's citizens, but it shouldn't extend to it's citizens pets.
The question asked was do you think the council should be providing stables? The cost is not relevant.
A playground would be a better use of the land. A library. More houses.
Absolutely, looks like they wanted separate stables and land for two horses per each of the 6 houses. Minimum recommended standards for keeping horses requires 1 hectare per 2 horses, more if pasture management isn't of a high standard.
Under animal welfare legislation, to maintain a horse license, the holder must satisfy the authorities that the animal will be properly maintained and looked after. Failure to do so should result in the seizure of the animal and potential barring of the license holder from keeping animals. So what is so wrong with where the animals are currently being kept?
In general, no. But in the circumstances I think a pragmatic solution would be to build stables.
There is already a library 4km away in Thurles, playgrounds too.
For sure you could build more houses, but as some have already stated that they wouldn't live beside travellers then there is no guarantee that that would be money well spent.
In anycase there is plenty of land where they are situated, a stables and a plot of land for horses would be money well spent in my opinion.
From my understanding, the current site where they and horses reside is to be cleared entirely. That was the agreement. The dispute appears to be over an expectation that stables and land would be provided for the horses.
Appreciate that you actually answered the question.
Totally disagree though. Stables would be another item to be maintained. More expense for the tax payer.
I would only build them on the basis that whoever uses them is responsible for their upkeep.
I saw the site they are on on Google maps. The area where houses are built are on a patch of land that is green as far as the eye can see. Probably not suitable or practical for any additional housing.
The government has just announced a massive injection for house building - €10,000 or €20,000 on stables will barely register. Build the stables, and be done with this issue.
Build the stables then have every other Tom, Dick and Harry asking for the same. Setting an incredibly bad precedent.
They wont occupy the houses without stables, and if im not mistaken, the houses wont be occupied by anyone else.
So what other (viable) options are there?
Apply the law and remove the horses.
The article suggests they're currently stabled on private land adjacent to this new development at the moment. If they're on that land with consent, there should be no reason why they can't continue to lease the land they require to pursue their tradition/ hobby. If the animals are not there with consent, the law clearly states these horses should be confiscated and the owners barred from keeping animals.
The agricultural land price for adequate space is in the region of €200k, and that's before building 6 stable blocks. Most right-minded people would prefer that funding be allocated to housing homeless families.
Separate names with a comma.