Estate agents should not be allowed to claim a property is in Castleknock, when it's not

It seems clear the only reason there is any kind of dispute to the fraud trying to prove that Hartstown/blanchardstown/etc are located in Castleknock is to prove some guy/gal who thinks they're better than the rest (me in your opinion) needs to be proven wrong by any means. I'm looking for transparency and fairness, nothing else. Townland maps define the town land area. If you can prove that all these other arguments supercedes what boundaries are in place by the townland maps and that townland maps are wrong then please do. Electoral divisions are in fact just that. For electoral and political purposes, nothing else. Its fraud to sell something that is misrepresented. Blanchardstown is not Castleknock. That's a very simple but true fact. Ask any buyer in the know, and if not in the know I'm sure they would want to know the difference, just as much as comparing blanchardstown to tallaght. Arguing otherwise is like saying blanchardstown is tallaght. Its just not so. What's the point of townland maps if they don't matter and we just merge all the areas into one. That's not what buyers want and it's certainly not what honest sellers want.
 
<sigh> It wasn't a link to postcodes (which are not used in Ireland). And I never suggested you were disputing postcodes. I was merely pointing out that contrary you your statement ....
Johnjane said:
Electoral division are not divisions of land
Click to expand...
... that they are mapped, therefore they are divisions of land. That they can be and are changed by a boundary commission in response to population fluctuations is not exactly relevant. Any line on a map can be changed. Townlands are not immutable either - they actually have changed over the years. That they are not subject to change due to population fluctuation of course makes them better markers than Electoral divisions for you to stake your particular claim on a plot but it does not make them better markers for definitions of "Castleknock".

You don't want to back down on your pet notion because you are clearly fulminating over some perceived slight or other. Evidence to the contrary cannot sway the committed believer. There is no room for common sense or logic. That your argument is spurious and based on a particular historical geographical division you chose that conveniently (just happens) to align to what you want to be "Castleknock" is clearly not convincing you.

Just cos you want it to be true don't make it so. "Castleknock" Co. Dublin has several different and clearly mapped definitions, they all overlap and they are all equally valid as area identifiers. At the end of the day they all just define areas on a map. The estate agents aren't lying, what they are saying does not devalue your property (frankly in my opinion it would be a good thing if it did - overpriced housing does not improve an area) and buyers are not spending money elsewhere instead of buying your property at a premium simply because they thought they were getting the same "Castleknock" as you. They are spending their money elsewhere because they get a better deal for them.
 
Johnjane said:
It seems clear the only reason there is any kind of dispute to the fraud trying to prove that Hartstown/blanchardstown/etc are located in Castleknock is to prove some guy/gal who thinks they're better than the rest (me in your opinion) needs to be proven wrong by any means. I'm looking for transparency and fairness, nothing else. Townland maps define the town land area. If you can prove that all these other arguments supercedes what boundaries are in place by the townland maps and that townland maps are wrong then please do. Electoral divisions are in fact just that. For electoral and political purposes, nothing else. Its fraud to sell something that is misrepresented. Blanchardstown is not Castleknock. That's a very simple but true fact. Ask any buyer in the know, and if not in the know I'm sure they would want to know the difference, just as much as comparing blanchardstown to tallaght. Arguing otherwise is like saying blanchardstown is tallaght. Its just not so. What's the point of townland maps if they don't matter and we just merge all the areas into one. That's not what buyers want and it's certainly not what honest sellers want.
Click to expand...

It isn't fraud. It isn't misrepresentation. "Castleknock" does not refer exclusively to the historic OS map division for the townland of Castleknock.
 
'Historic townland division'...what are you actually referring to because it's easy to look up the townland map of Castleknock. And it's very specific.
 
Johnjane said:
other areas near it are misrepresenting their location thereby falsely increasing the value of properties
Click to expand...

Surely this would be true only if either the properties or the area in which they are located were not broadly comparable to Castleknock.
 
Last edited:
People are in fact buying in areas because they believe them to be another area, hence why developers have been sued for naming properties addresses incorrectly after the buyer has purchased. And this has happened in the vicinity of affluent areas, which you believe deserve to have their properties pushed even lower. Doesn't matter to you because you think it needs to change. That's socialist talk. Unfortunately for you we don't live in a socialist regime. You're living in the wrong country. If you want to spend your money on a merc then you really don't want to find out later it's counterfeit. And you are well within your rights to pursue the purchase of a valid merc if you want to. We live in a country that encourages people to better their lives and that sometimes means they want to live in an affluent area with little or no antisocial behavior, high ranking schools and close proximity to nice parks. Begrudging people is your right but label the property correctly. That's all any buyer and honest seller wants
 
Johnjane said:
People are in fact buying in areas because they believe them to be another area, hence why developers have been sued for naming properties addresses incorrectly after the buyer has purchased.
Click to expand...

Like New Amsterdam, New York? Now any fool that bought there thinking they were but a short-commute from Rotterdam, or London deserves everything they get, IMHO.

Research before you buy.
 
<sigh>

As I have already demonstrated, there is nothing special about a townland, it is easy to look up the historic civil parish definition too.

My point is the word "Castleknock" is not, nor has ever been, exclusively used for the townland of Castleknock in the former county Dublin. That it applies to several different map divisions provides a plethora of overlapping areas and different definitions of what "castleknock" is. You've picked one to suit your purposes and seem almost apoplectic that anyone could possibly have a different, equally valid interpretation. Your premise is invalid to start with and all conclusions you draw on the basis of your premise are therefore equally invalid.

Regarding the property prices, the type of people you need in an area like Castleknock to maintain the comfortable status quo are being or have already largely been priced out of it. You are selling to a limited market. The population mix will very likely have to shift to a higher density model at some point, it probably already has started. In a functional market, as property prices peak they tend to attract developers who want to put more properties on large sites, why sell 1 big house for 500k when you can sell at least 5 smaller on the same site for €350k apiece? As for your markers of the desirability of Castleknock - they aren't so difficult to find elsewhere. High ranking public schools, low anti-social behaviour and close proximity to nice parks are a blessing shared by many people in considerably cheaper parts of the country. You don't need to pay 500k+ to get that - it is only a Dublin-focus that leads you to that fallacy.

You'd be one of a very select group of one that would consider me socialist, I have no intention of forcing down the price of your property and I have no desire to either. I am merely extrapolating from documented urban history of all major cities, including Dublin. Former desirable areas go out of fashion for several different reasons but being over-priced is an important factor; cheaper, newer areas opening up in competition is also an important factor. It has nothing to do with begrudgery - it is quite easy to prove. If you want to see how it happens visit the new museum of Dublin tenements when it opens. That is to be housed in a former tenement which started out life as a grand town house in an exclusive area and slowly but surely degenerated. Dublin was notorious for the worst slums at one point - almost all of them were conversions. Same processes can be found at play in London, New York, etc. and are at play in Dublin of today.

As for your spurious car analogy. The difference between buying/selling a car and a house is that the same car will cost you in or about the same price all over the country - the same house won't. They aren't comparable. Your "fake merc" equivalence to "Castleknock-but-not-Castleknock-townland" is ludicrous.
 
I guess you're all fired up over this. Counterfeit merc was an analogy for the fake Castleknock houses. Selling something that it's not. I didn't realise I would have to explain that! Geography just happens to matter in the case of legitimate property
 
Hmm, I'm fired up? I am not the one with a vested interest in an area. Nor am I the one accusing people of acting fraudulently. I am not accusing people of begrudgery either on very tenuous grounds. I am not the one avoiding the simple truth that my "logic" is based on the flawed premise that "Castleknock" means the townland of Castleknock only.

Townlands are not a suitable or useful area identifier for people purchasing a house unless they are out the country - in which case they need the townland to even be able to find the property - though the eircode should now provide a more secure means of identifying such properties. Your contention that property should only be advertised on the basis of a specific land division (of which there are in excess of 60,000 in the country) that isn't in common, everyday usage within towns and cities is patently ludicrous. It isn't false advertising simply because "Castleknock" does not exclusively refer to what you think it does. You want it to mean one thing - but common usage does not align to your particular, idiosyncratic view. That it means the general area includes cheaper properties is by no means a negative.

Your analogy is still spurious - the houses in other townlands within the Castleknock area are not "fake". They are in a different more inclusive definition of Castleknock that you simply refuse to acknowledge. Methinks you are tilting at windmills.
 
Townland maps say otherwise. Are you stating that their boundaries are not legitimate boundaries? You're the one trying to force your point of view bringing ridiculous arguments like the tenaments which has no bearing on this thread in present day Dublin! Also interestingly I've noticed members on this very site referring to the 'real Castleknock' when discussing property.
 
Last edited:
a few months ago there was a property that appeared twice on daft, by the same agent, one advert said it was in Glasnevin, one said it was Finglas.

I guess that agent was appealing to all demographics!
 
They don't say otherwise, they simply map out a specific pattern of area divisions around the country. One of the townland divisions in north county Dublin happens to be called "Castleknock". The same name is used for marking out other, larger areas. The townland map you cling to is no better an identifier of area than any other map division I have pointed out. It is one definition of Castleknock among several acknowledged definitions of similar antiquity and "legality". I am not querying the legitimacy of the boundary of the townland as drawn on your map - I am simply querying your (ludicrous) contention that it is the only true definition of "Castleknock". It isn't.

My point about the tenements was pertinent. You accused me of begrudgery and socialist tendencies and a desire to devalue your property - I was merely backing up my assertion that areas do not retain the same cachet over time by using an example. Something you have consistently failed to do I might point out.
 
Apparently I'm not the only one that believes that is the boundary since many articles from newspaper state the fact it is a separate area to blanchardstown. Its very relevant to the price of properties that they are marketed in the correct area. Your maps stating barons used to be relevant undeniably however you can look up when these were superceded by new laws. You simply don't want affluence it seems. You stated you would like for property in that area to reduce further. Your words not mine which of course led me to believe you begrudge the exclusivity of the area. Also there seems to be a serious issue with antisocial behavior in these areas calling themselves Castleknock. You know the ones that are outside my map.
 
Last edited:
If I understand your original post correctly, you are claiming that on Daft.ie only 30 out of 137 properties listed as Castleknock are within the townland of Castleknock and that:

  1. The remaining 107 properties are located in “inferior” areas, which do not have access to the same amenities as and suffer a higher degree of anti-social behaviour than properties located in the townland of Castlenock. Can you name the areas in which these properties are located?

  2. Buyers are prepared to pay a premium for a property located specifically within the townland of Castleknock, irrespective of the fact that better properties may be available within the wider interpretation of Castleknock.

  3. The availability of properties within the wider definition of Castleknock is unfairly depressing the value of properties within the townland of Castleknock.
What factual evidence, statistical or otherwise, can you present to advance your views on 1, 2, and 3 above?

At the end of the day, effecting legislative change is about what you can prove; not about what you feel.
 
Last edited:
It's very clear to see in fact. Comparing prices among houses within the boundary and outside the boundary. The fact that similar house types are priced the same even though one is actually in a better location than the other which is claiming to be within the boundary. Anyone can search and see quite clearly for themselves.
 
I am not either agreeing or disagreeing with you. I am drawing your attention to the fact that to elicit legislative change, the burden of proof lies with you.

You would need to present substantive proof of all of what you are saying. Simply pointing people to a search engine to draw their own conclusions does not come in anyway, shape or form close to substantive proof.
 
In fairness I don't think requesting clarity and transparency will need much back up other than showing where the land lies, some examples of pricing comparisons every region/area in the country and there will be many to see and showing that it's not just one area of country affected but the entire economy is heavily dependant on house values and it's link with location and as a consequence mortgages. Not sure I'm the person with ability to research figures like that but I'm sure there is someone who can, maybe a political rep can help. I'm just proposing the idea on a forum that discusses the economy and money which is the reason I posted here.
 
Last edited:
You aren't willing to acknowledge any viewpoint but your own, you cannot admit that other definitions of "Castleknock" exist and have equal validity, history and application. Your own argument is put forward on specious grounds and you provide no evidence or even example in support of your contention.

Good luck bringing this one to a political representative - see can you get it listed as an economic issue for the upcoming election. I'm sure they'll all be delighted to be doorstepped for this "economic" issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top