# New reason for rejecting offer of social housing: no land for the horses



## Brendan Burgess (8 Oct 2018)

*Families call for stables and land at Tipperary housing estate *

A group of families have said they will not be moving into a €1.7m development of new houses that the local council has built for them, unless stables and land are provided for their horses at each house.


----------



## Clamball (8 Oct 2018)

I guess offer the houses to the next on the list, maybe those who cannot afford to keep horses?   It’s a non-story really, just move on.


----------



## Delboy (8 Oct 2018)

It's not a non-story. These houses were built specifically for this group of Travellers who seem to live across the road. So I doubt too many other folk will want to take up the offer if it comes their way, which it won't.

1 question here that jumps out at me is how can 5 houses on the 1 site in Thurles cost the best part of €0.5m each


----------



## noproblem (8 Oct 2018)

I do hope the goverment and the local council stand very firm on this. Are any of these people working, are they actively looking for work, have they been employed previously and if not why not? That's just for starters and no i'm not a racist and I would certainly not live beside those people nor would I stay if they were moved in beside where I live. Now, make what you want of that, it's time this was brought right out into the open. No such thing should exist like one rule for one group and another rule for everyone else.


----------



## TheBigShort (8 Oct 2018)

I only read the report on RTE. It says that there was an agreement to provide land and stables for the horses. The council dispute any such agreement. 
I think its unfair to label this as an excuse when clearly there is a misunderstanding of what was agreed.


----------



## XMarks (8 Oct 2018)

noproblem said:


> I do hope the goverment and the local council stand very firm on this. Are any of these people working, are they actively looking for work, have they been employed previously and if not why not? That's just for starters and no i'm not a racist and I would certainly not live beside those people nor would I stay if they were moved in beside where I live. Now, make what you want of that, it's time this was brought right out into the open. No such thing should exist like one rule for one group and another rule for everyone else.



They are unlikely to have ever worked nor will they. The sense of entitlement is astounding. A journalist on Newstalk visited the houses today and described them as state-of-the-art.

If the travellers want to keep animals/pets  it is up to them to provide for them just like everyone else in the real world. 

The houses should be immediately given to homeless families but we all know what will happen. It must be easy to spend other people’s money.


----------



## TheBigShort (8 Oct 2018)

XMarks said:


> They are unlikely to have ever worked nor will they.



With respect, you dont know that. You also have to consider that as members of the Travelling community they have historically been one of the most disadvantaged and discriminated groups of people in the country.
Prospects for employment have always been low. We already have one poster openly admitting that they would not live beside these people - with attitudes like that, what prospect of a job?

Here is a bit more information about the McCarthy Traveller community in Tipp

http://tippfm.com/news/tipperary-traveller-groups-highlight-mental-health-issues/


----------



## galway_blow_in (8 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> With respect, you dont know that. You also have to consider that as members of the Travelling community they have historically been one of the most disadvantaged and discriminated groups of people in the country.
> Prospects for employment have always been low. We already have one poster openly admitting that they would not live beside these people - with attitudes like that, what prospect of a job?
> 
> Here is a bit more information about the McCarthy Traveller community in Tipp
> ...




plenty of received liberal wisdom there .

you would surely agree that the houses should not go to waste , nor should an infinite period of time be left to settle this dispute , travelers tend to be patient when it comes to demands , id hate to see a situation where a stalemate results in these houses sitting idle for years .


----------



## TheBigShort (8 Oct 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> you would surely agree that the houses should not go to waste , nor should an infinite period of time be left to settle this dispute , travelers tend to be patient when it comes to demands , id hate to see a situation where a stalemate results in these houses sitting idle for years .



Of course, that would be tragic. Im somewhat sceptical that a council would agree to a stable and grounds for each house. At best a communal stable on a adequate piece of land should suffice, and would probably be more practical. 
But I dont know for sure. 
Certainly, in the quotes from the McCarthy family they appear to be very impressed with the standard of housing.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (8 Oct 2018)

The answer is quite simple:

- Allocate the houses to other people

- Investigate the parents for child neglect and take their children into care if needs be

- Investigate the Travellers in question for animal cruelty and seize their horses

- A broader point; crush and eliminate the Traveller way of life which has no place in the modern world

Carry-on like this is laughable given the current homeless crisis.


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Oct 2018)

Im holding out for a castle.

That money could have housed a whole lot more people... what a waste and a disgrace.


----------



## Palerider (8 Oct 2018)

A contribution worthy of the real Gordon Gekko.  I wonder, could it be....is that really you Gordon ...?   

On a broader point, I'm not a million miles from that point of view, I think the working man is the marginalised class now, a distinct ethic grouping.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (8 Oct 2018)

The amount of people struggling in this country and then you hear something like this. Laughable.


----------



## nodo (8 Oct 2018)

Leave the horses where they are , and travellers move into their new houses.

Three  assumptions
 1. Land where the horses are is owned by the travellers.
 2. Traveller families will not feel deprived of their cultural heritage by being forced to live in houses, and abandoning travelling.
 3. Foot ( and horse ) bridge to be built over the road  -- much cheaper than a long dra
wn out legal battle.


----------



## noproblem (8 Oct 2018)

Or maybe house the horses and the ethnic spirit of doing so will suffice the individuals concerned. What really gets me is the sense of entitlement they have. Why, what exactly do they contribute to Ireland?


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Oct 2018)

I think the issue is that there is a dispute over what was, or was not agreed. Nothing to do with a 'sense of entitlement'. 
Basically, they are Travellers, and most likely have faced disproportionate levels of discrimination and disadvantage. 
Suicide rates are higher, life expectancy lower, educational standards lower, employment prospects lower etc...all to a point that others wouldn't live beside them or move if they came near them. 
Coupled with that most people, like myself, would rather see the end of halting sites as they are typically inadequate and typically foster a culture of seperation. 
To that end, adequate and suitable social housing needs to be provided - which, on the face of it, appears to be what is being provided here. However, one stumbling block, a dispute over the provision of land for horses as agreed, or not.


----------



## noproblem (9 Oct 2018)

There's a housing shortage not an animal housing shortage. I believe the local authority and hope this gets out of hand so the people of this country can at last see the sheer greediness and bare faced cheek these cosseted lot have. Old people need solid fuel, let these travellers work the bogs and cut and harvest timber from May to September, in between there's plenty of maintenance needed on country roads, towns need cleaning up, so do parks and public amenities, so much needs doing and these people can do it for what they're being given by the state for nothing right now.


----------



## mathepac (9 Oct 2018)

Just to point out that the total cost of the 6 houses, a mixture 5 and 4-bedroom dormer bungalows, stands at €1.951m inc VAT. These houses are evidently in line with traveller custom and tradition and it is simply the lack of an extra half-acre of land plus two stables per house, that makes them unacceptable from a tradition and an ethnic perspective. No doubt we'll here more from Pavee Point on this issue.

As to citizens from other ethnic backgrounds getting access to the homes, that would be a PR triumph for the traveller movement and would no doubt be portrayed as a denial of their civil rights and proof of Irish racism. Why is it that those who contribute least to society seem to have the greatest clout when holding the State to ransom?


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Oct 2018)

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news...aveller-homes-in-local-standoff-37398684.html

If the land behind the site is council owned, then I don't think it would take a rocket scientist to figure how this could be resolved.
On the other hand, if the land is not council owned and there was no agreement in writing to provide stables for horses, then the houses should be allocated to others willing to set up home in them.

Only drawback then is, if you were homeless and living in emergency accommodation, would you move into houses that were earmarked for the Travelling community?


----------



## galway_blow_in (9 Oct 2018)

Gordon Gekko said:


> The answer is quite simple:
> 
> - Allocate the houses to other people
> 
> ...



When are you running for office ? and here is my vote already


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Oct 2018)

Just shoot the horses.


----------



## Delboy (9 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Only drawback then is, if you were homeless and living in emergency accommodation, would you move into houses that were earmarked for the Travelling community?


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'?


----------



## PGF2016 (9 Oct 2018)

Are the stables the horses are currently kept in nearby?


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Oct 2018)

Delboy said:


> 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'?



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?


----------



## Delboy (9 Oct 2018)

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


----------



## PGF2016 (9 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> At best a communal stable on a adequate piece of land should suffice, and would probably be more practical.



Do you honestly think the council should be providing stables? Could that money and land not be put to better use?


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Oct 2018)

Delboy said:


> 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



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?


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Oct 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> Do you honestly think the council should be providing stables? Could that money and land not be put to better use?



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.


----------



## losttheplot (9 Oct 2018)

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.


----------



## PGF2016 (9 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Leo (9 Oct 2018)

losttheplot said:


> 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.



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?


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Oct 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> The question asked was do you think the council should be providing stables?



In general, no. But in the circumstances I think a pragmatic solution would be to build stables.



PGF2016 said:


> A playground would be a better use of the land. A library. More houses.



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.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> So what is so wrong with where the animals are currently being kept?



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.


----------



## PGF2016 (9 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> In general, no. But in the circumstances I think a pragmatic solution would be to build stables.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Appreciate that you actually answered the question. 

Totally disagree though. Stables would be another item to be maintained. More expense for the tax payer.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Oct 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> 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.


----------



## PGF2016 (9 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> 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.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Oct 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> 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?


----------



## PGF2016 (9 Oct 2018)

Apply the law and remove the horses.


----------



## Leo (9 Oct 2018)

PGF2016 said:


> 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.


----------

