Dartmouth Square

[ubiquitous]

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]

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

Hurray for that rule!

 

[gearoidmm]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Humpback]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ha!

 

[Meccano]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.