# Dartmouth Square



## monkeyboy (9 Oct 2006)

Anyine here this guy on the radio after ABP ruled that he could not turn the site into a car park?

he was saying its my land and I should be able to do what I want with it and crying like a baby...no concept it seems of why we have planning laws.

Id love to erect a sub station or telecoms tower adjacent his bedroom window and use his arguement for my defence.

When he goes to the planners go....Hhhhhhhaaaaaaa!! thats what they is for!

Pratt!


----------



## Dipole (9 Oct 2006)

Impossible.  He lives in an old Georgian mansion near Athlone.


----------



## daltonr (9 Oct 2006)

> Anyine here this guy on the radio after ABP ruled that he could not turn the site into a car park?


Obviously a novice property developer.  He forgot to file his BE-1 Forms.

http://www.officeworld.com/search_results/content/C101544/

-Rd


----------



## contemporary (9 Oct 2006)

"its my field"


----------



## Superman (10 Oct 2006)

Anyone listening to the Last Word interview with him on Today FM - where he talks of his "inalienable constitutional right" to park his car on his land?  They've been using it as one of the adverts for Matt Cooper.

First - it isn't a constitutional right.
Secondly - it is not inalienable.  (i.e you can make a contract with this as a subject matter)

It always ticks me off when people are outraged at the perceived infringement of some right they feel they should have, but in fact don't.


----------



## Dipole (10 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> Obviously a novice property developer. He forgot to file his
> BE-1 Forms.
> 
> http://www.officeworld.com/search_results/content/C101544/
> ...


 
He isn't a novice.  He has been buying up ground rents since before I was born.


----------



## Carpenter (10 Oct 2006)

This interesting case did however highlight the extraordinary failures on the part of Dublin City Council and the residents, when the property was sold under their noses.


----------



## Henny Penny (10 Oct 2006)

Funny, I thought although he was a bit barking, Noel O'Gara did make a lot of sense. 
It is his land. He paid for it and has the deeds of it so he is the owner of it ... a concept that Dublin corporation didn't seem to comprehend. 
If he did not want people on his land he had every right to lock the gates and keep them out. Are the farmers in the countryside not doing the same ... by denying people access to their land for walking ... until they get a subsidy from the government/EU ... surely Mr. O'Gara should have the same rights ... regardless of his motives ... I think he did a great job at showing up the ineptitude of the council.
IMHO I think that a car park is not a bad suggestion for use of Darthmount Square ... as a native of Ranelagh I can say hand on heart in the thirty years I lived there I don't remember ever seeing anyone in the park. DC when they take ownership of the land sell it to a property developer ... take the money and put it somewhere that people will actually see the benefit of.


----------



## Meccano (10 Oct 2006)

Henny Penny said:


> Funny, I thought although he was a bit barking, Noel O'Gara did make a lot of sense.
> It is his land. He paid for it and has the deeds of it so he is the owner of it ... a concept that Dublin corporation didn't seem to comprehend.
> If he did not want people on his land he had every right to lock the gates and keep them out. Are the farmers in the countryside not doing the same ... by denying people access to their land for walking ... until they get a subsidy from the government/EU ... surely Mr. O'Gara should have the same rights ... regardless of his motives ... I think he did a great job at showing up the ineptitude of the council.
> IMHO I think that a car park is not a bad suggestion for use of Darthmount Square ... as a native of Ranelagh I can say hand on heart in the thirty years I lived there I don't remember ever seeing anyone in the park. DC when they take ownership of the land sell it to a property developer ... take the money and put it somewhere that people will actually see the benefit of.


 
Is that you Noel?


----------



## Ron Burgundy (10 Oct 2006)

Henny Penny said:


> Funny, I thought although he was a bit barking, Noel O'Gara did make a lot of sense.
> It is his land. He paid for it and has the deeds of it so he is the owner of it ... a concept that Dublin corporation didn't seem to comprehend.
> If he did not want people on his land he had every right to lock the gates and keep them out. Are the farmers in the countryside not doing the same ... by denying people access to their land for walking ... until they get a subsidy from the government/EU ... surely Mr. O'Gara should have the same rights ... regardless of his motives ... I think he did a great job at showing up the ineptitude of the council.
> IMHO I think that a car park is not a bad suggestion for use of Darthmount Square ... as a native of Ranelagh I can say hand on heart in the thirty years I lived there I don't remember ever seeing anyone in the park. DC when they take ownership of the land sell it to a property developer ... take the money and put it somewhere that people will actually see the benefit of.


 
it may not be very moral or "PC" but i agree with the post 100%. 

Its like saying i can't park a car in my driveway ??? or rent out a parking space ???


----------



## Meccano (10 Oct 2006)

Ron Burgundy said:


> it may not be very moral or "PC" but i agree with the post 100%.
> 
> Its like saying i can't park a car in my driveway ??? or rent out a parking space ???


You can't have had much contact with Planners in Ireland if you think its that simple. I know MANY instances of friends buying plots of land only to be told the off-road access they want to provide will not be approved, or the EXISTING road access has lost its viability through disuse and is no longer useable.

There are loads more examples besides road access too. Sure ye can't even put up a satellite dish on the front of your home without planning permission!


----------



## huskerdu (10 Oct 2006)

The planning laws in this country are deeply flawed at times, but Noel O'Gara and anyone who supports him, are saying that they object to the idea of planning law and a planning or spacial strategy for a country. 
The logical conclusion of this is that I can build a smelly, loud factory next door to your house and have lorries going through your housing estate all day, everyday without any regard to the rights of you and your neighbours
to live in a residential area. 

You do not have a right to do what you like with your property, if it is against the law or deemed by the courts and laws to be against the common good. 

If anyone wants to take a constitutional challenge to this, go right ahead. 

Civilized countries (France, Netherlands, Germany), who don't have rampant house price inflation or traffic chaos, have strong planning laws which are rigorously enforced.


----------



## daltonr (10 Oct 2006)

> He isn't a novice. He has been buying up ground rents since before I 
> was born.

A BE-1 isn't a real form either.  


He 100% absolutely should be allowed to lock the gates as Henny Penny describes.  When the council were approached by the original owner they ignored him.  So he sold the land to this developer.

I hope he makes a bundle of money when he's forced to sell it to the council under CPO.

Instead of breaking locks and entering private property to "reclaim it" they should have been breaking down the door of the council to demand an explaination why the whole situation was dealt with in such a stupid way.

-Rd


----------



## Glenbhoy (10 Oct 2006)

daltonr;293459
I hope he makes a bundle of money when he's forced to sell it to the council under CPO.
 
Instead of breaking locks and entering private property to "reclaim it" they should have been breaking down the door of the council to demand an explaination why the whole situation was dealt with in such a stupid way.
 
-Rd[/quote said:
			
		

> Agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## huskerdu (10 Oct 2006)

I do agree that the council are to blame for allowing this situation to occur and it it their own fault if they are forced to pay a mint in a CPO to acquire the land. Noel O'Gara owns the land and can put locks on the gates, but he can't, and shouldnt be allowed, to change its use without an planning application for change of use.


----------



## zag (10 Oct 2006)

Does anyone know how he was able to buy the ground rent so cheap ?  Why wouldn't the original owner have sold it to him for a few million instead of a few thousand ?

z


----------



## daltonr (10 Oct 2006)

When I saw 8000, i assumed it was a typo.
Did he really get it that cheap????

-Rd


----------



## Ron Burgundy (10 Oct 2006)

Meccano said:


> You can't have had much contact with Planners in Ireland if you think its that simple. I know MANY instances of friends buying plots of land only to be told the off-road access they want to provide will not be approved, or the EXISTING road access has lost its viability through disuse and is no longer useable.
> 
> There are loads more examples besides road access too. Sure ye can't even put up a satellite dish on the front of your home without planning permission!


 
indeed i know very little but i do know if i have a piece of property just because locals don't like it that the council should be allowed to buy it from me. 

I do agree he should lock the gates without fear of ther council or the public getting on their high horse.

it was a great piece of business and i raise my invisible hat to him


----------



## Superman (10 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> When I saw 8000, i assumed it was a typo.
> Did he really get it that cheap????


I heard IR£10,000... but very little in any case.


----------



## daltonr (10 Oct 2006)

> he can't, and shouldnt be allowed, to change its use without an planning > application for change of use.

Oh agreed.  You can't go building a car park without permission.
I suspect however that the reason a Car Park is not being allowed is nothing to do with spatial strategies, or whatever.  It's to do with the cock up that allowed a developer to buy it in the first place.

We've all seen far more stupid developments get the go ahead.

If it was me (and I'm just cranky like this),  I'd open the park for the Homeless to hang out.  Perhaps allow teenagers to use it for skateboarding, or whatever.

Obviously a magnanimous gesture towards those who are shunned and moved on from everywhere else in society,  they'd all be welcome in my park.   I might even put on buses to bring them from the city center.

Let's see how long before the locals start asking for a car park then.

-Rd


----------



## ubiquitous (10 Oct 2006)

I honestly believe there are far too many parks in Dublin, particularly in South Dublin which I know somewhat better that the Northside. 

An aerial colour photo of the Ballsbridge/ Donnybrook area in one of the recent newspaper property supplements indicated 11 large green spaces within the small area covered in the photo. Parks and open spaces are a nice luxury when there is more living space than people but that point is well and truly in the past. In my view an oversupply of green spaces can represent something of an obscenity when people are being forced into eachway commutes of 2 hours plus into central Dublin.


----------



## GeneralZod (10 Oct 2006)

Meccano said:


> Sure ye can't even put up a satellite dish on the front of your home without planning permission!



Hurray for that rule!


----------



## gearoidmm (10 Oct 2006)

Am I the only one who thinks he is an "........" (just realised that my thoughts could be construed as libellous and deleted them).

I hope he gets nothing out of this.  It was the most oppurtunistic, immoral thing that I've seen in a long time.  If this was a public playground in a deprived area would people's reactions be the same?  I don't live there but I have spent some lovely summer days in Dartmouth square and in other parks like it all over Dublin.  the idea that he is going to get away with this makes my blood boil.  A real classy example of how this whole crappy country is now about nothing but money.


----------



## daltonr (10 Oct 2006)

As far as I see he's not getting away with anything.  He's a property developer, who saw an opportunity to purchase some property and develop it.

How the council in their arogance (wrongly) claimed ownership of the park, ignored the approaches of the rightful owner, and allowed the rightful owner to sell it to a developer are all interesting questions.

If this park is CPO'd the council will get away with the mess they made of the situation.  A car park might be the best thing all round, since it would force the council to own up to their screw up and be held accountable.  Wouldn't that be a nice change?

Just because people don't like property developers doesn't mean they are automatically in the wrong on every issue.

Just because a park is a nice place doesn't mean it automatically has the right to remain a park without the council getting off their collective asses to protect and develop it for the use of the community.

This kind of incompetent, arrogant foot dragging nonesense is really frustrating if you are trying to do business in Ireland.  I had a situation last year with a government department.   I'm lucky my business wasn't depending on a resolution because I'd be out of business by now.   Months and months of pointless obstacles and runaround.

-Rd


----------



## Meccano (11 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> As far as I see he's not getting away with anything. He's a property developer, who saw an opportunity to purchase some property and develop it.
> 
> How the council in their arogance (wrongly) claimed ownership of the park, ignored the approaches of the rightful owner, and allowed the rightful owner to sell it to a developer are all interesting questions.
> 
> ...


 
Those of you hoping Mr.O'Gara gets a ton of money from the County Council seem to forget that the Council HAS NO MONEY!
It's YOUR money they are going to hand over to him. His new Merc will be funded from the cash that YOU paid in taxes, and which will not go toward the public services it was meant for.

I have no love of CoCo's, in fact I've had my run ins with my own Local CoCo - they've vandalised the grass verges in my area for no apparent reason.
However, I'm not foolish enough to believe a carpet-bagger who rips ME off is some kind of crusader against oppressive Councils. Rubbish.

And by the way - I think the rule against Sat Dishes on the front of a house is an EXCELLENT idea too!


----------



## sherib (11 Oct 2006)

> Originally posted by *gearoidmm*
> Am I the only one who thinks he is an "........"


No, you're not - sounded like "a chancer" to me! AFAIK he bought the lease for €8,000 and now expects taxpayers (who else?) to cough up something like €100M in compensation for his great loss! If it was going to be _that easy_ to turn the park into a car park with creche facilities (as he claimed in several radio interviews), why did the original owner not do that himself?

Of course the Parks Department/DCC did slip up by not buying the lease; that should not mean that Joe/Josephine Public should be held to ransom. I only hope some loop-hole will be found that provides only minimal compensation for this modern day "Dick Turpin". The way he talked about providing much needed public facilities, you’d think he was Mother Therese’s brother.


----------



## daltonr (11 Oct 2006)

> It's YOUR money they are going to hand over to him. His new Merc will be funded from the cash that YOU paid in taxes, and which will not go toward the public services it was meant for.


 
Actually No.  It's not my taxes.  It's the taxes of the locals who broke into private property to reclaim it.   And as soon as those locals see where their tax money has to go, they might start asking a few more serious questions of their council.   And that's a good thing.

I'm not saying I like the guy, or that he's a crusader for anything, other than making profits for himself, which last time I checked he's still entitled to do, but it's been a few months since I was in the country so maybe that's changed.  Did Labour win an election while I've been away?

What I am saying is that it's wrong for the council to screw up and let a developer get his hands on a piece of land, and then ride in on white steeds as if they are coming to the rescue of the local community by blowing money on a CPO that could have been used more wisely if they hadn't been so arrogant and stupid in the first place.

Sometimes it takes something like this to make a little progress.  You're certainly not going to get any by just paying your taxes and hoping for the best.

-Rd


----------



## Purple (11 Oct 2006)

Why not build an underground car park and put the public park back on top (like the do in cities all over Europe?).


----------



## Humpback (11 Oct 2006)

Purple said:


> Why not build an underground car park and put the public park back on top (like the do in cities all over Europe?).


 
I'd always assumed that this was the plan in the first place. Was I wrong? Do we actually know what kind of carpark was planned?

Or were people just assuming (out of mischief really) that it was going to be an overground carpark, just to get the blood boiling?


----------



## Purple (11 Oct 2006)

ronan_d_john said:


> I'd always assumed that this was the plan in the first place. Was I wrong? Do we actually know what kind of carpark was planned?


 So had I but with all the hot air from the NIMBY's I concluded that it must be overground.



ronan_d_john said:


> Or were people just assuming (out of mischief really) that it was going to be an overground carpark, just to get the blood boiling?


 I don't know but I'd like to!


----------



## Dipole (11 Oct 2006)

It would be the cheapest built carpark possible so no underground car park.
Once carpark is in place he can show revenue stream from the property and stregthens his negotiating position with the council.  
Compulsory Purchase Order must allow for the "worth" of the property.  

In this country no monetary figure would be given to the amenity value of the park but once you can show it is generating income then the cost of acquiring the property becomes more expensive as he can quantify his financial loss.


----------



## Humpback (11 Oct 2006)

Dipole said:


> It would be the cheapest built carpark possible so no underground car park.


 
Can't argue with that, but what were the gentlemans actual plans? 

Was he planning an built overground or underground carpark, or was he just going to use the park as it was (and as he'd attempted to do initially)?


----------



## tallpaul (11 Oct 2006)

He was as another poster has said, opening the park as a car park to jack up the price in the event of a CPO by claiming that it is generating an income. He was estimating something like 500 cars a day at €5 a pop which is approx. €900,000 a year over 20 years. This is obviously FAR more lucrative than a recreational park.

Odious man and I hope it gets f*ck all out the council. Incidentally, it is ALL taxpayers that ultimately end up paying for this because of the imcompetence and intransigence of Dublin Co. Co.


----------



## Carpenter (11 Oct 2006)

Ha!


----------



## Meccano (11 Oct 2006)

> *Daltonr* said:
> Actually No. It's not my taxes. It's the taxes of the locals who broke into private property to reclaim it......but it's been a few months since I was in the country...


Jaysus Daltonr, do you PAY taxes in this country? If you're 'away' that much maybe you don't - hence indeed it may not be YOUR tax money! How clever of you.

But the rest of us (who actually live here AND PAY TAXES HERE) we WILL end up paying for that carpet-baggers quick buck. The County Councils may be getting a few bob from road tax and bin charges etc but they are the ULTIMATE responsibility of central government. Do you seriously suggest Dublin CoCo won't be supported by central government funds - OUR TAXES?

Putting an underground car park in - HOT AIR. 
It would cost millions and yield little return on the investment.


----------



## Purple (11 Oct 2006)

Meccano said:


> But the rest of us (who actually live here AND PAY TAXES HERE) we WILL end up paying for that carpet-baggers quick buck.


 How is he a carpet bagger? He owns the land so by definition he is not.



Meccano said:


> Putting an underground car park in - HOT AIR.
> It would cost millions and yield little return on the investment.


So why is it done in Paris and Munich and other European cities where land is cheaper?


----------



## daltonr (11 Oct 2006)

I do still pay tax over there yes.  
And I'd prefer one or two Dartmouth Squares go publically and dramatically wrong, so that poeople start to sit up and take notice, rather than the ongoing drain of money through stupidity that we've seen.

Just off the top of my head I can think of

The Prison Land Purchase, 
Cork Courthouse,
Land Swaps in Dublin 4
Numerous financial black holes at the OPW

And that's without resorting to google.

Of course there is a flaw in my argument, and it's a serious one.
Even when these scandals come to light, when the C&AG points out the enormous waste of money, nobody is held to account.  So Dartmouth square, no matter how badly it pans out is unlikely to create and greater sense of accountability in the Council.  "Duck and cover" has been taught to them from on high.

What it might do is stop those seeking reelection from portraying themselves as the saviours of the park.  Even if you can't change the way they run things you can at least pop the spin bubble.

-Rd


----------



## PMU (11 Oct 2006)

ubiquitous said:


> An aerial colour photo of the Ballsbridge/ Donnybrook area in one of the recent newspaper property supplements indicated 11 large green spaces within the small area covered in the photo. Parks and open spaces are a nice luxury when there is more living space than people but that point is well and truly in the past. In my view an oversupply of green spaces can represent something of an obscenity when people are being forced into eachway commutes of 2 hours plus into central Dublin.


 
Look, most of those commuting 2 hours plus have decided to live in estates with semi-detached houses and gardens front and back. These do not exist in Dubln 4 and 6. Even if the green spaces were built over it would be for apartments and terraced town houses, etc. that would not be the prefered living accommodation for those who want semis (even if they could afford them in D4, D6). Personally I love Dartmouth Square (it's actually a rectangle not a square), a chav free oasis in D6.


----------



## daltonr (11 Oct 2006)

> Look, most of those commuting 2 hours plus have decided to live in estates with semi-detached houses and gardens front and back.


 
I don't think people are commuting for two hours because they choose to live in a particular type of house.  They are commuting for two hours because it's the only type of house they can afford to buy.

Semi D land in Dublin is hell for me, I hate it.   But if I had to buy a house in Dublin I can't see what option I'd have.   I woudn't mind living in an appartment in a city centre, but the cost just isn't worth it to live in Dublin's city centre.  It's like paying 1000 a night to stay in a cheap motel.

I don't care how much green space there is in Dublin,  but it does strike me as odd that we have so much green space AND we refuse to build high rise accomodation in the city centre, and then we wonder why there's a traffic problem.

-Rd


----------



## Meccano (11 Oct 2006)

Purple said:


> How is he a carpet bagger? He owns the land so by definition he is not.


He's a carpet-bagger. A quick buck merchant. A blood sucker. A gombeen man. A cute hoor. 
A stroke puller, trained in the O'Leary school of stroke pullers.
Take your pick.
They all apply.



> So why is it done in Paris and Munich and other European cities where land is cheaper?


Errr...because land is cheaper?
And because O'Gara has no money or interest for such an enterprise.
See reasons above.


----------



## daltonr (11 Oct 2006)

> He's a carpet-bagger. A quick buck merchant. A blood sucker. A cute hoor. A stroke puller, trained in the O'Leary school of stroke pullers.
> Take your pick.
> They all apply.


 
I'm still at a loss to figure out what specifically this guy did that was illegal, or even wrong.   He saw a bit of land that the council were too stupid to buy.  He realised that if he bought it, the council would eventually realise their stupidity and try to buy it back, probably under a CPO, and probably netting him a profit.  He also figured that it being government the profit could be quite big.

How is that different from anyone who buys a piece of land, or any asset that they feel will become more valuable to someone else in the future?  He staked his cash on someone being willing to pay more than he did.

I think there might be questions about how he got this land so cheap.  I can't figure out how that happened.  But in principle I can't figure out why people feel buying an asset in the hopes that it will appreciate is a bad thing.

You may not like this guy, or what he does, or how much money he can make doing it, but are you willing to give up your right to invest, just so you can curtail his?

If you buy a big stake in an airline from the government, would you be forced to sell it back to the government at the issue price, rather than the market price, just because the government realise they made a mistake?
Would that kind of economic environment make you happy?
How long do you think money would stay in the country?

The government is the most powerful and wealthiest player in the economy.  They get to make the rules for how everyone else invests and operates. And you want us to have sympathy when an individual investor profits from the states stupidity?

-Rd


----------



## lmd (11 Oct 2006)

Well said DaltonR. The undercurrent of the protestors on this thread is that of envy or jealousy towards O'Gara because he got the land for the price he got it and now stands to make a massive profit.

Is anyone here trying to say that if they had the chance to buy that land at that price that they would turn it down?????

Hmmmmmmmmmm, didn't think so.

Rd is right, it's the council to blame and people should be venting their fury at their ongoing incompetance rather than O'Gara.


----------



## Meccano (12 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> I'm still at a loss to figure out what specifically this guy did that was illegal, or even wrong.


 
Well there you have it in a nutshell Daltonr. 

Being a rabid Capitalist (with a capital C) you look at everything simply in terms of* money*. Thats all that matters, right?

Whats LEGAL and whats RIGHT are the very same thing to you - words such as MORALITY and ETHICS are so alien to you it would require someone to explain the concepts before you can actually get it.

I don't want to turn this into a personal bunfight - because you are far from being the only guilty party here - in fact, reading these forums often makes my blood run cold at the sheer greed and monumental arrogance and stupidity of many of the postings. I really fear for this society, which seems to be dismantling day by day.

Our environment is being ruined by people like you (plural). 
Vast swathes of the Amazon forest being wiped out for short term profit by a few greedy men - but hey, it's LEGAL.
The Borneo forests being stripped and burned for profit - but hey, it's LEGAL.
Natural resources worldwide being raped and over exploited, species being driven to extinction, human beings reduced to empty collateral by greedy profiteers and warmongers.

And its ALL LEGAL. 
So thats OK, says Daltonr.

Only it's not - because it ain't RIGHT.
It ain't MORAL.
And it ain't ETHICAL.

Mr.O'Gara is an exploiter - on a small scale perhaps - but that is what he is nonetheless. One of the multitudinous benighted greedy little men who will collectively pillage the whole planet for personal gain, until there's nothing left for our children. 
Thank God for the good Judge who put a halt on him.

Mr.O'Gara is welcome to his profit - but we will pay for it, and we pay because he is holding us ALL to ransom. Blackmailing us over the fate of another little sliver of our natural environment (and yes, stupidity of the CoCo allowed it).

I don't use Dartmouth Sq. I couldn't find it on a map. But it is important to me that it is THERE.
I may never visit the Amazon - or Borneo's rainforests - but it MATTERS that they are there.

Now do you get it?


----------



## Meccano (12 Oct 2006)

> Is anyone here trying to say that if they had the chance to buy that land at that price that they would turn it down?????


Well we know YOU would't think twice about doing an O'Gara.

Personally, for 8K I'd buy it, and leave it to my kids - with instructions to keep it open to the public (that includes you lmd) with a perpetual ban on development of any kind. 

Thats all the payback I need. I swear that on my mothers grave - I'd be happy as a pig in s**t if I could do it.

If I was looking for any reward I'd like to have it named after me, and maybe a statue put up _(- just kidding)._

But this kind of thinking is probably just too far off the wall for you to even grasp in your wildest dreams. I don't expect you to believe such an alien concept as philanthropy before profit.


----------



## liteweight (12 Oct 2006)

ubiquitous said:


> I honestly believe there are far too many parks in Dublin, particularly in South Dublin which I know somewhat better that the Northside.
> 
> An aerial colour photo of the Ballsbridge/ Donnybrook area in one of the recent newspaper property supplements indicated 11 large green spaces within the small area covered in the photo. Parks and open spaces are a nice luxury when there is more living space than people but that point is well and truly in the past. In my view an oversupply of green spaces can represent something of an obscenity when people are being forced into eachway commutes of 2 hours plus into central Dublin.



You don't mean you'd pave Herbert Park do you? That's the only public green space I can think of in the Ballsbridge/Donnybrook area, apart from the banks of the Dodder. Parks and green spaces are very important in a city, not only because they are a public amenity, i.e. we can take our kids there and surround ourselves with something other than buildings for a while, but the green areas are the lungs of any city. Others we might all end up breathing the quality of air to be found in Beijing.


----------



## daltonr (12 Oct 2006)

Meccano,

I think you've got this completely the wrong way around. 

First of all you know very little about me, so relax with the "rabid Capitalist (with a capital C)" nonsense.

Just because I believe someone should be entitled to invest and see a reward for their investment, doesn't mean that I believe there aren't moral and ethical issues involved. I'm just at a loss to see what they might be in this situation. 

Ireland is one of the smallest countries in Europe and yet we have the single biggest city park in Europe right here in Dublin, one of the biggest in the world in fact. In addition to that we have dozens and dozens of smaller parks. If there's one thing Dublin is not missing it's green space.

So, let's not draw parallels between Dartmouth Square and Amazon Rainforests. When you do that you just draw attention to the differences, not the similarities.



> Our environment is being ruined by people like you (plural).


 
What are people like me? Are you refering to the fact that I own a business? Or is it just that I don't go along with the Soppy Politically correct response when someone wants to chop down a tree? I'll admit I'm skeptical about certain environmental issues, such as recycling. And until someone actually convinces me of the value (monetary or envionmental) I'll remain skeptical. But I resent the suggestion that I (or people like me) are destroying the planet, when in truth, you haven't a clue what I or people like me are actually like, or what we do.

You extrapolated from the fact that I don't care about a small rectangle of green in Dublin, that I don't care about the environment at all. And well, I'm afraid that's not a good thing to do.

One thing I do care about is people who will waste their energy arguing about a piece of grass in Dublin, as if it is the battle front in a fight to save the planet, but they won't look at the real causes of Global Environmental Damage. (Clue... It's not all being caused by big corporations in the name of money). 

Quite a lot of the "good things to do" that the politically correct brigade advocate, won't do a damn thing in the short medium or long term to protect this planet. But sure you'll all feel good, and get to look down your noses at everyone else, and isn't that really what it's all about?

Let's consider for a minute your environmental plan.  You and people like you will fight tooth and nail to protect every postage stamp sized bit of grass in the city centre.  OK, that's your right.  But as a result Dublin has lots and lots of parks, and virtually no High Density accomodation.

So people have to move to the outskirts.  To huge estates sprawled accross the country side, sprawled accross the Dublin Mountains, swallowing rurals towns.  Taking up tens of thousands of acres when a much smaller but taller footprint would have done the same thing.  These estates have little or no public transport, so these people drive to work.   And you and your like chastise them for that.  After YOU drove them out of the cities.  
Darthmouth Square could accomodate an awful lot of people, with public transport on their doorstep.  Instead these people will commute for hours each day in their cars,  so Dublin can have yet another park, for a handful of locals to enjoy.
Hurrah!  for the environmentalists.  Another victory.

You can complain all you want about my attitude to the environment, but don't think for one second that your misguided views are doing any better.
At least my attidute to the environment has been given a modicum of thought.



> Whats LEGAL and whats RIGHT are the very same thing to you - words such as MORALITY and ETHICS are so alien to you it would require someone to explain the concepts before you can actually get it.


 
Now you're just being mean.
In fact if you READ my post I specifically I said

> I'm still at a loss to figure out what specifically this guy did that was 
> illegal, *or even wrong*. 

So you see, I do know that some things are legal, but still wrong.

For example, it is perfectly legal for you to call me a rabid Capitalist with no morals or ethics, and no regards whatsoever for the environment.

But it would be wrong...both Factually, and in terms of just being a decent person.

I'm not going to send you check stubs to prove whether or not I engage in any philanthropy. It's none of your damned business if I do or not. 
But I'm not going to stand for you telling the world that I engage in none, just because you don't like my views on a piece of grass, or you don't like people who own businesses. BTW, my business doesn't do any more or less environmental damage than you do on a given day.

BTW, I'm sure your kids will love the Annual Public Liability Insurance Bill you leave them.
They'll turn the park into a very tall apartment building within a year of burying you, if they have any sense, 
especially if they inherit your love of the environment, and someone elses common sense.

-Rd


----------



## lmd (12 Oct 2006)

Meccano said:


> Well we know YOU would't think twice about doing an O'Gara.
> 
> But this kind of thinking is probably just too far off the wall for you to even grasp in your wildest dreams. I don't expect you to believe such an alien concept as philanthropy before profit.


 

No, I wouldn't think twice about capitalising on the idiotic county counci's mistake, and you're right Meccano, I DON'T believe you wouldn't either!


----------



## Firefly (12 Oct 2006)

Can people stop using capital letters everytime they wish to emphasise something..it's VERY annoying
Firefly.


----------



## ludermor (12 Oct 2006)

Meccano,
You have to be most patronising poster ive come accross in ages. You attach all the blame to guy who has taken advantage of a cock up by the council but dont seem to place any blame on them. I think O Gara is a chancer but is that a bad thing?


----------



## Superman (12 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> You and people like you will fight tooth and nail to protect every postage stamp sized bit of grass in the city centre.  OK, that's your right.  But as a result Dublin has lots and lots of parks, and virtually no High Density accomodation.
> -Rd


This does not follow.  
One can have very high density and lots of parks - in fact high density would allow (and if properly designed) require lots of parks.


----------



## Glenbhoy (12 Oct 2006)

daltonr said:


> I think there might be questions about how he got this land so cheap. I can't figure out how that happened.


I read that the owner was so pissed off by the intransigence of the council he decided to sell it for a nominal fee (to whoever he thought would make the most mischief). That of course may not be true.
Bear in mind this same council is (jointly) behind 'the worst case scenario of urban sprawl in europe' according to the European Environmental Agency (bloody tree huggers anyway).


----------



## Meccano (12 Oct 2006)

I'm definitely getting the sense of the mentality. I picture the lot of ya slavering over the keyboard at the very thought of every piece of green space in urban Dublin being your own personal multi storey development - I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some of you already doing research into how you can replicate O'Gara's little stunt.

Don't give me that guff about the poor poor commuters who have to move to Mullingar all because we preserve a few parks. Complete b***ox. If anything was built there - D6 - would the primary school teachers and nurses be the ones buying into them? My ass they would. It'd be the already wealthy upper middle classes snapping them up - and the little commuters can go to hell - or Mullingar.

And speaking of commuting - we know what current traffic levels in Dublin are like in peak times - but lets factor in a few dozen massive high rises in the centre of the city and imagine what happens. Total gridlock.

You talk about Dublins parks as if they're a bad thing - 'so much green space - bad'. Well its those parks and green spaces, and the low-rise nature of the city which makes Dublin unique as a human-sized capital. 
To use your own oft-repeated logic, if you don't like living in green Dublin, why don't you move to Bombay.


----------



## daltonr (12 Oct 2006)

> This does not follow.
> One can have very high density and lots of parks - in fact high density would allow (and if properly designed) require lots of parks.


 

Yes, but instead of protecting every square inch of grass, we'd keep only enough grass to service the needs of the accomodation we build on it.

Does anyone think that If Mr O'Gara wanted to build a highrise appartment block on part of Dartmouth Square, keeping the rest of it for the use of the appartment owners, that the outcry would have been any less, or that the council would have allowed it to happen?

As it happens it may well be that Dartmouth Square is the ideal size park for the existing surrounding inhabitants, or it may be better to develop part of it. I don't know. 

What I do know is that in their stupididty, the council decided not to bother thinking about that. And they let it fall into the hands of a developer. That's the real problem here.

Meccano, I don't 'play post ping pong' any more. You've had your rant and I've had mine. Others can make up their own minds. For what it's worth, Bombay isn't the only choice for those wanting to leave Dublin. And the "If you don't like it get out" mantra isn't mine, but I hear it pleanty from people who don't like to discuss the flaws in their city.

-Rd


----------



## CCOVICH (12 Oct 2006)

_Meccano_-stop  so much-in this thread and in others.

And note our around profanities etc.


----------



## Humpback (12 Oct 2006)

Meccano said:


> And speaking of commuting - we know what current traffic levels in Dublin are like in peak times - but lets factor in a few dozen massive high rises in the centre of the city and imagine what happens. Total gridlock.


 
 But if people lived in the city centre, where public transport is better, and they're closer to their work, wouldn't they be able to get to work without their cars?


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Oct 2006)

Meccano said:


> I'm definitely getting the sense of the mentality. I picture the lot of ya slavering over the keyboard at the very thought of every piece of green space in urban Dublin being your own personal multi storey development - I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some of you already doing research into how you can replicate O'Gara's little stunt..



Please respect the posting guidelines, ie "Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion." 



Meccano said:


> Well its those parks and green spaces, and the low-rise nature of the city which makes Dublin unique as a human-sized capital.


... so much so that the city that now stretches to Kells, Mullingar, Carlow and Gorey


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2006)

daltonR, I think that Meccano has too many preconceptions about “people like you” to actually listen to the substance of what you are saying. Drawing parallels between a square in Dublin and deforestation in Borneo and the Amazon requires too many leaps to be credible. Applying simplistic causes to such complex issues further undermines the comparison. 


Meccano said:


> Errr...because land is cheaper?


 So other countries/ cities maximise the return from their land because it’s cheaper… I don’t see the logic of that one.


Meccano said:


> And speaking of commuting - we know what current traffic levels in Dublin are like in peak times - but lets factor in a few dozen massive high rises in the centre of the city and imagine what happens. Total gridlock.


 High-density housing makes public transport infrastructure like a metro viable. Low-density housing makes it unviable.


----------



## Meccano (12 Oct 2006)

> daltonR, I think that Meccano has too many preconceptions about “people like you” to actually listen to the substance of what you are saying. Drawing parallels between a square in Dublin and deforestation in Borneo and the Amazon requires too many leaps to be credible. Applying simplistic causes to such complex issues further undermines the comparison.


I agree that there are two types of people in the world - those who will rape everything in sight for personal enrichment whenever they are presented with the opportunity, and those who have a profound ethical and moral objection to such behaviour. 

I hear the substance of what you are saying all right - and it's *get rich quick by any means necessary.*

The parralels between Borneo/The Amazon and green spaces in Dublin are *exactly the same* - its simply a matter of scale. Little greedy men getting rich off the backs of the environment - which is destroyed for future generations.
And the usual crummy excuses trotted out to plaster over their villainry and to dupe the foolish into believing they're being done 'a service' through it...like the housing red-herring. 


CCOVICH said:


> _Meccano_-stop  so much-in this thread and in others.
> 
> And note our around profanities etc.


 
Right, point taken. *I'll just use bold instead.*


----------



## daltonr (12 Oct 2006)

Posted on another thread recently.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10007490.shtml

Silly Europeans.  Hasn't anyone told them that we planned it this way, so we could have a "unique" "human-sized capital". 

By human-sized I presume we are talking about the ever growing waistline, the clogged arteries, and the stunted vertical growth.

-Rd


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2006)

I envy you your simple world-view Meccano. For those of us who live in the real world things just aren't that black and white. How can you draw a parallel between a developer taking advantage of an incompetent county council and deforestation by subsistence farmers in poor equatorial countries? I say this because I’m sure you know that the root causes of this have more to do with lack of geo-political cohesion (which can be traced back to colonial political constructs and 15th century exploration), the increase in population in tropical Africa and Asia in the 15th to 17th century as a result of the introduction of South American root and cereal crops, the legacy of cold war client-ism, local corruption, reduction in infant mortality rates, increases in life expectancy, the collapse of commodity prices after the 1970’s oil crises and political corruption that allows corporate profiteering. Oh no, sorry; it’s just the last one…


----------



## daltonr (12 Oct 2006)

> I agree that there are two types of people in the world


 
There will never be a better time for this joke, so here goes....
There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand Binary, and those who don't. Given your black and white view of the world, you're definitiely the binary type.

Now back to our regularly scheduled viewing.

A Similar Case. If you thought 8K was a good deal, how about 100 Quid.
[broken link removed]

-Rd


----------



## ludermor (12 Oct 2006)

Class!!!


----------



## gearoidmm (12 Oct 2006)

lmd said:


> No, I wouldn't think twice about capitalising on the idiotic county counci's mistake, and you're right Meccano, I DON'T believe you wouldn't either!



I kind of take issue with this. Not everyone views the world in terms of profit and 'capitalising'.  There is no way that I would do what O'Gara has done.  I just think that it is immoral.  Not everything in life is about money and getting one over on your fellow man for profit.  If my life ever comes to the point where I admire someone like him for his aucumen, that'll be a sad day.

I think that the guy who sold him the land probably thought that he was ripping O'Gara off.  The land is essentially worthless as there is no way that anyone would ever get planning permission to build anything there.  How do you put a price on that?


----------



## daithi (12 Oct 2006)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are CPOs only supposed to be used to obtain land for infrastructural projects such as roads etc. rather than playing get-my-own-back as Dublin City council are engaged in at the moment?

I think its a shame that the Green Party are wasting time on this issue when there are much more important ones..sure, Noel o Gara gives the air of being a chancer,but he's no less entitled to his profits than any of Berties developer buddies who have ruined this country for the sake of a fast buck(AFAIK, he's no friend of FF)

D


----------



## Meccano (13 Oct 2006)

Purple said:


> I envy you your simple world-view Meccano. For those of us who live in the real world things just aren't that black and white. How can you draw a parallel between a developer taking advantage of an incompetent county council and deforestation by subsistence farmers in poor equatorial countries? I say this because I’m sure you know that the root causes of this have more to do with lack of geo-political cohesion (which can be traced back to colonial political constructs and 15th century exploration), the increase in population in tropical Africa and Asia in the 15th to 17th century as a result of the introduction of South American root and cereal crops, the legacy of cold war client-ism, local corruption, reduction in infant mortality rates, increases in life expectancy, the collapse of commodity prices after the 1970’s oil crises and political corruption that allows corporate profiteering. Oh no, sorry; it’s just the last one…


Showing off your A Level Geography doesn't impress me. Neither does cut and paste punditry.

Tell you what though - it so happens I have been to Borneo. 
Don't like to boast about it. 

So, contrary to your Googled opinion, I have first hand experience - and the people ripping out the Borneo rain forest are not poor dumb subsistence farmers - but mega rich timber tycoons, every one of whom is either related to a politically powerful family, or who has bought and paid for politically powerful 'friends'. 

I actually met a few of them in a Casino in Kuala Lumpur where they were over for their bi-monthly gambling trip. The croupiers let it drop that one of them had lost heavily the previous evening - he blew 5 Million Ringgit in a half-hour. Thats about a million yoyo's to you or me, give or take a hundred grand.
But he was back again to try his luck anew. 

Yeats put it well.........


> Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
> Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
> The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
> The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
> ...


----------



## daltonr (13 Oct 2006)

Am I the only one who's noticed the irony of Meccano getting his name from a construction toy?
Ho hum purple, your cut and paste trick has been rumbled.



> The best lack all conviction, while the worst





> Are full of passionate intensity.


 
Which are you?



> Surely some revelation is at hand;





> Surely the Second Coming is at hand.


 
Apparently he was wrong, nothing was at hand, and don't call me Shirley.

Go on, be honest, did you type that in all by yourself, or did you cut and paste it?
The large font suggests someone's been messing with their clipboard.

I'm not sure visiting Borneo is necessarily something someone would boast about. 
Mention it in passing perhaps, it's interesting, but it's hardly an achievement in this day and age.
Unless of course to protect the environment you walked there, then you should definitely boast.

-Rd


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2006)

> Showing off your A Level Geography doesn't impress me. Neither does cut and paste punditry.
> 
> Tell you what though - it so happens I have been to Borneo.
> Don't like to boast about it.


 I didn't do A levels (or geography for my leaving cert) and I've never been to Borneo (other tropical forests yes but I don't like to boast). I have also been in the sea but that doesn’t make me an expert on marine wild life. I have dived at the east African barrier reef but that doesn’t make me an expert on coral. I have however read a few books that attempt to but some of the world’s problems in context (and Africa’s in particular). Show me where I cut and pasted from or apologise.

If you are really that concerned about the planet and injustice why don’t you bang on about the 400’000 people that have been killed in Darfur? I’ll tell you what, why don’t you Google that?


----------



## Meccano (13 Oct 2006)

> If you are really that concerned about the planet and injustice why don’t you bang on about the 400’000 people that have been killed in Darfur?


 
Because when anyone mentions muslim atrocities on this website the post gets deleted and they get banned. 



> I have also been in the sea but that doesn’t make me an expert on marine wild life.


Hmmm, but depending on what you did there and observed, you might have some more credibility about it than someone who just read a book or got their opinions from Google.



> I'm not sure visiting Borneo is necessarily something someone would boast about.


Its actually a fascinating place. You don't know what you're missing. Then again, you're probably better to stick to bling bling Marbella - with the rest of the Capitalist poseurs.

Regarding Yeats - typed from memory actually.
It's one of my favourite poems.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Oct 2006)

What has any of this got to do with Dartmouth Square?

When people start using perjorative terms (eg "poseurs") to describe other posters, its usually as good a sign as any that the thread has outlived its usefulness.


----------



## CCOVICH (13 Oct 2006)

Agreed on both counts.


----------

