Dartmouth Square "purchase"

Mad Finn

cast_iron wrote:

You say this with the authority of a council planner?

Not even close.

cast_iron wrote:

Who knows what the council zoners may decide. I certainly don't, and i've seen enough daft decisiond out of them.

True. That's why I'm genuinely scared about what this guy may get away with. But there is significant opposition from local politicians to what he's doing so I remain hopeful that common sense will prevail.

cast_iron wrote:

If you could possibly have 175 million or 12 grand, which would you try for?
If you got six numbers in the Lotto, you wouldn't say "ah i'll just take the prize money for getting 5 numbers...sure i'll still be up"

Good analogy. You invest in a lottery ticket; you might get the six winning numbers ( the odds are 5.25million to 1 in the Irish Lotto --much less in other countries--but it could happen). So what if you DON'T get the six numbers? Do you then say:"My property rights must be vindicated! I bought a ticket for exactly the same price as the person that got the six numbers! I must be similarly compensated!"?

Of course not. Similarly this geezer made a high-risk business decision to invest in a piece of land that nobody else sought to buy because they accepted that there was no development potential. And he's saying it's worth the same amount that Sean Dunne paid for the Jury's site?

Come on.

If he makes a return of 10 /20 per cent he's doing phenomenally well. Work out how much you're going to make out of your SSIA over five years and do a comparison.

DadaKopf

I love the bit where O'Gara claims that our property laws are 'repugnant to the constitution' because they also recognise public access and/or ownership in the interests of the commonality.

Problem is, if a CPO is legal, it's generally constitutional. The role of the court is to balance the interests of individuals and the nation. While is recognises the 'inviolability of dwellings', I don't believe this necessarily applies to non-residential property where there is no dwelling.

I don't doubt that the square will go into public ownership, but it may be at a price which the Dublin City taxpayers should not be expected to pay.

On another note, I think the park should have a children's playground. I live very near the square, and wouldn't have a problem with it, but I believe, in this day and age where more children stay indoors and don't run around, the little whipper snappers from the whole goddamn area needs a playground. Dublin, as a whole, needs more, like Paris.

cast_iron

Mad Finn wrote:

There is no need to pay this guy 175 mill or anything like it. He is trying to price this land as if it had potential for development; it doesn't.

Mad Finn wrote:

That's why I'm genuinely scared about what this guy may get away with.

I'm a little confused. You say it's worth nothing, but that it might be worth alot.

Mad Finn wrote:

If he makes a return of 10 /20 per cent he's doing phenomenally well. Work out how much you're going to make out of your SSIA over five years and do a comparison.

The SSIA is irrelevant. As you said yourself, he made a high risk investment (which is argueable - 10 grand to him wouldn't be to risky), the ssia was risk free.
And High risk = High return.

Mad Finn

cast_iron wrote:

I'm a little confused. You say it's worth nothing, but that it might be worth alot.

I'm saying the development potential is zero. Or at least it should be zero. Not that the land itself is worth zero. It's worth what a piece of open recreational space should be worth. I was sharing what I thought was your fear that the council planners might make (another) dumb decision and accept Mr O'Gara's assertion that he should be allowed build what he like on it and that therefore the land would become very valuable. But I'm hopeful that they won't.

cast_iron wrote:

The SSIA is irrelevant. As you said yourself, he made a high risk investment (which is argueable - 10 grand to him wouldn't be to risky), the ssia was risk free.
And High risk = High return.

Er, yeah. I was just pointing out that his return, if he gets what he want, will be higher than if he bought an SSIA for the same amount. But the downside to high risk is that it might result in nothing. (eg a losing lottery ticket). Mr O'Gara at the very least will get what he paid for the site and he will probably get a bit more. He should be very happy with that.

dadakopf wrote:

On another note, I think the park should have a children's playground. I live very near the square, and wouldn't have a problem with it, but I believe, in this day and age where more children stay indoors and don't run around, the little whipper snappers from the whole goddamn area needs a playground. Dublin, as a whole, needs more, like Paris.

You're right again Dadakopf.

Is it an urban myth that Ireland spends more every year on Mars bars than on playgrounds? I believe that one of the problems is the expense of running a playground. Not the building of them but the liability insurance that accompanies them.

There is loads of room in that park for a playground. Just as there is in Merrion Square. I hardly think many people would object either.

In fact, it could be used--with a modicum of sensitivity towards the residents, for kids sports. You wouldn't put an adults football pitch on it, but youngsters could surely play football there during the winter. Or mini rugby. Not the rough grown up type with scrums and high kicks but the youngsters version with no kicking, just running passing and tackling.

I know that many of the venerable clubs in the area are short of space because of the massive demand among young lads to play. Bung the residents a couple of raffled international tickets a season and you'd be amazed how co-operative they might get.

nicelives

Great to see the discussion taking off again :-)

I'd actually be happier to see Noel O'Gara be able to hold onto the land and do what he proposes. The creche and sports centre seem to be in line with what the space was used for in the long past before it's more recent use as a park. There is also the precedent of the creche being built by Dublin City Council themselves in Mountjoy Square even though that square was set out originally for even wealthier people that the Dartmouth square residents. The gym wouldn't be obtrusive and would also be a continuation of it's use as a sports ground. There has been talk about an underground car park, this would maintain most of the park, alongside the creche and gym. I think Dail Eireann are looking to do the same with land that was traditionally used as grass near them as well and were the residents of Dartmouth square looking to use it as a car park back in the 80's.

I say I'd prefer to leave it with O'Gara as it's better the devil you know and the possible development seems in line with the field's history.

Dublin City Council can't be trusted with their CPO. They have no symapathy for the history of Dublin or provision of open space for it's people.

Maybe I'm a bit sore but I still am in unbelief the way they bullied protestors off Wood Quay in the early 80's so that they could build their ugly head offices. Bizarre, what has been described as the most important Viking archaelogical find outside of Scandanavia ever and they wouldn't listen to those who really do love this city, instead taking them to court and trying to bankcrupt them for delaying their 'progress' and destruction.

But there's also the relatively more recent taking over of the Millenium Garden that was purchased because of the 'emergency' of maintaining green spaces in the liberties. A few months after their act for the people they were selling it to Jury's Hotel at a great profit to themselves. Course there's suddenly planning, sure they were granting it. Thankfully it turned out that there was a clause in the deeds that forbade such a thing and the Council had to quickly back track red faced and having lost the trust of people who thought Wood Quay had been from a mad era.

Where's the Floozy in the Jacuzzi, from my recolection, was that not donated to the people of Dublin by a private benefactor who paid 2 million punts in his generosity. Instead we shoved in the Spike which costs 200,000 a year to polish alone.

The same people who were in the Council in the 80's are still there today, sure it's impossible to sack anyone in the 'public' sector. I really don't trust the council at the moment with their confiscation of Dartmouth Square or most other things.

Mad Finn

nicelives wrote:

Great to see the discussion taking off again :-)

I'd actually be happier to see Noel O'Gara be able to hold onto the land and do what he proposes. The creche and sports centre seem to be in line with what the space was used for in the long past before it's more recent use as a park.

Which proposal was this now? The car park? The creche and gym? The traveller halting site?

He couldn't be arsed doing any of that. He just wants to push up the price of the CPO by claiming that the land could be revenue generating.

nicelives wrote:

There is also the precedent of the creche being built by Dublin City Council themselves in Mountjoy Square even though that square was set out originally for even wealthier people that the Dartmouth square residents.

You're going backwards and forwards between the centuries. Never mind what it was used for in the 19th century. Or how wealthy people were then and now. It's what it's used for now that's important.

nicelives wrote:

There has been talk about an underground car park, this would maintain most of the park, alongside the creche and gym. I think Dail Eireann are looking to do the same with land that was traditionally used as grass near them as well and were the residents of Dartmouth square looking to use it as a car park back in the 80's.

Er, this is the noughties. Never mind what 'some' residents might have wanted to use it for 20 years ago. One thing this part of Dublin does NOT need is more bloody traffic. You build an underground car park, next thing you'll hve to knock down more houses to build a big enough road to get all the cars in. Nonsense.

You want to build something underground, let's have a metro.

nicelives wrote:

I say I'd prefer to leave it with O'Gara as it's better the devil you know and the possible development seems in line with the field's history.

And just how well do you know this particular devil? I wouldn't trust him further than I could spit.

nicelives wrote:

Dublin City Council can't be trusted with their CPO. They have no symapathy for the history of Dublin or provision of open space for it's people.

Maybe I'm a bit sore but I still am in unbelief the way they bullied protestors off Wood Quay in the early 80's so that they could build their ugly head offices. Bizarre, what has been described as the most important Viking archaelogical find outside of Scandanavia ever and they wouldn't listen to those who really do love this city, instead taking them to court and trying to bankcrupt them for delaying their 'progress' and destruction.

Well I think I see where you're coming from but taking your revenge on a future generation of Dubliners for the sins of the Wood Quay developers doesn't seem too sensible to me.

nicelives wrote:

But there's also the relatively more recent taking over of the Millenium Garden that was purchased because of the 'emergency' of maintaining green spaces in the liberties. A few months after their act for the people they were selling it to Jury's Hotel at a great profit to themselves. Course there's suddenly planning, sure they were granting it. Thankfully it turned out that there was a clause in the deeds that forbade such a thing and the Council had to quickly back track red faced and having lost the trust of people who thought Wood Quay had been from a mad era.

Well I didn't know about that. (Was it before Boards.ie?) But I would have supported those who wanted to maintain a park and some open leisure space. Maybe not to the extent of picketing outside the gates or raiding hte council offices. But then I wouldn't expect people to travel from miles away to support Dartmouth Square either. Just don't gang up with the gombeen man against those trying to maintain a green space that you just might want to visit some day.

Some fecker wants to build a condo on the park in your area and you want a letter writing campaign to protest against him? Drop me a PM. I'm there. I might even join the odd protest march.

Where's the Floozy in the Jacuzzi, from my recolection, was that not donated to the people of Dublin by a private benefactor who paid 2 million punts in his generosity. Instead we shoved in the Spike which costs 200,000 a year to polish alone.

The same people who were in the Council in the 80's are still there today, sure it's impossible to sack anyone in the 'public' sector. I really don't trust the council at the moment with their confiscation of Dartmouth Square or most other things.

OK so you don't like the council. Fair enough. But surely, in theory at least we have some say over who gets into the council and it is in some way accountable towards us. I know that apathy usually wins out in these cases and that the sneaky manipulators usually win, but every so often something like this comes along and reminds us that we have public responsibilities as well as rights.

OK getting a bit preachy now. I'll pause for breath.

cast_iron

Mad Finn wrote:

I'm saying the development potential is zero. Or at least it should be zero. Not that the land itself is worth zero. It's worth what a piece of open recreational space should be worth. I was sharing what I thought was your fear that the council planners might make (another) dumb decision and accept Mr O'Gara's assertion that he should be allowed build what he like on it and that therefore the land would become very valuable. But I'm hopeful that they won't.

I don't necessarily want O'Gara to build what he likes either. But he owns the land, and for it to become a compulsary order purchase because the council f***ed up seems a little unfair.
And he can't build what he likes - just what the council allow him to build.

Mad Finn wrote:

Er, yeah. I was just pointing out that his return, if he gets what he want, will be higher than if he bought an SSIA for the same amount.

Which is completely irrelevant in this case.

Mad Finn wrote:

But the downside to high risk is that it might result in nothing. (eg a losing lottery ticket).

Again, i think you miss the point. There is no real high risk here. You say the lottery is high risk!! I certainly don't consider it high risk when i play it every week.

nicelives wrote:

I say I'd prefer to leave it with O'Gara as it's better the devil you know and the possible development seems in line with the field's history.

Dublin City Council can't be trusted with their CPO. They have no symapathy for the history of Dublin or provision of open space for it's people.

When the devil you know is as bad as it gets, i'm not so sure. (Hypothetically speaking, of course.)
Unless the council decide on a landfill or something to that effect, it couldn't get much worse than more gyms, shops, etc... We have enough of them already. But as you said, with planners from the 80's and the like, who knows what they'll decide.

nicelives

Mad Finn wrote:

Well I didn't know about that. (Was it before Boards.ie?) But I would have supported those who wanted to maintain a park and some open leisure space. Maybe not to the extent of picketing outside the gates or raiding hte council offices. But then I wouldn't expect people to travel from miles away to support Dartmouth Square either. Just don't gang up with the gombeen man against those trying to maintain a green space that you just might want to visit some day.

Actaully they've changed the name since, I think the Millenium Park was what they set up 'for the people' on Dame Street beside city Hall which they've recently build an office block on. Bizarre.
The Millenium Garden which is now called the Peace Garden beside Jury's Hotel in Christchuch was gifted to the people of Dublin by CRH. Before Dublin Corporation had even taken posession of it they had sold it on to Jury's at a massive profit, well total beacuse as with Dartmouth Square they never paid for it. They were caught rapid on this occasion. But not so on the compulsary purchase of 2 storey properties on Cork St which they got away with. They dispute the title with the owners and refuse to pay them. They in the meantime rezone it for high rise and sold it on to developers. They are abusing their CPO and planning powers. Whatever about Bertie and Haughey and the conflict of interests they may have had, the business of the Council both CPOing and giving planning definitely is one.

I know Mad Finn has said the freehold and ownership of Dartmouth Square isn't worth anything. Dublin City Council would disagree with you, they have a whole department that look after all Their freeholds. God forbid if you buy a house who's freehold is theirs, they'll charge You massive commercial rates if it's anywhere near commercial activity which Dartmouth Square is.

Mad Finn

nicelives wrote:

The Millenium Garden which is now called the Peace Garden beside Jury's Hotel in Christchuch was gifted to the people of Dublin by CRH. Before Dublin Corporation had even taken posession of it they had sold it on to Jury's at a massive profit, well total beacuse as with Dartmouth Square they never paid for it. They were caught rapid on this occasion.

Whatever about Bertie and Haughey and the conflict of interests they may have had, the business of the Council both CPOing and giving planning definitely is one.

If what you say is true then I'm horrified. Seems we should all be a little more vigilant with regards to the actions of supposedly elected bodies. But just because they got away with it once doesn't mean they should be allowed get away with it again.

nicelives wrote:

I know Mad Finn has said the freehold and ownership of Dartmouth Square isn't worth anything.

I never said that. What I said was the 'development potential' was worth zero. Because he can't develop it.

There's a subtle difference.

I reckon this case is going to boil down to how much Mr O'Gara is to be paid for the square. He should be paid more or less what he bought it for. Not what he's claiming, which is based on what he says the square could be worth if he developed it. But he can't.

nicelives

Mad Finn wrote:

...this case is going to boil down to how much Mr O'Gara is to be paid for the square. He should be paid more or less what he bought it for. Not what he's claiming, which is based on what he says the square could be worth if he developed it. But he can't.

If the CPO is upheld I believe it'll end up in the millions rather than 12,000. Ah sure it's fascinating stuff.

billy the squid

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1698568&issue_id=14716
Let us hope the Council know what the CPO covers. is it just the park, or is it everything that O'Garra purchased.

Have to say that after reading that he is one arogant man.

Mad Finn

Not so according to the Sunday Tribune. Instead, he is one of the 'plain people of Ireland' who 'eats his dinner in the middle of the day' or would like to if he didn't work so hard and those opposed to him are 'bastards' and members of a 'cricket playing strawberry sucking new ascendancy'.


So said an unbelievable rant in the Sunday Tribune (free registration needed) yesterday.

If there were a press complaints commission in this country, that article would now be winging its way thither with a polite suggestion that such a diatribe, devoid of serious argument and full of abusive and unfair stereotypes of ordinary Dublin residents and workers has no place in a supposedly serious newspaper and its author should be slapped down and told to do his job properly.

It is worthy of no more dissection than that.

nicelives

Enjoyed that, it's a gas article but there's no fact in it that I could disagree with. The whole function of CPOs is being stretched here. The way Noel O'Gara is being demonised is bizarre when so many others of more upper classes have made their living in such a way for generations.

DadaKopf

I don't give a toss. I live in the area, and I think it should remain a public park. Whether that's through a CPO or public usufruct, or through establishing public rights of access, I don't care, but at worst, the DubCoCo should rent it from O'Spanner. Obviously, he'd retaliate by charging something crazy.

Which may allow a CPO seeing as the law permits such a thing in the interest of the commonality.

Mad Finn

nicelives wrote:

Enjoyed that, it's a gas article but there's no fact in it that I could disagree with.

Facts are facts. You don't agree or disagree with them.

It's the opinions and drawn inferences that you can disagree with.

Do you accept or refute the assertion that "[O'Gara] says he wants to develop the square as a car park and creche, to facilitate hardpressed commuters. This is a noble gesture, focused on the welfare of his fellow man and woman rather than the pursuit of profit."

Personally I think it is cynical horse****. O'Gara has made it clear, not least in the Sunday Tribune, that the site is available at a price. Albeit a ridiculous one. How does that square (pun) with his suppsed altruistic wish to provide car parking and creche facilities (at a price I am sure) to Dublin commuters? And the answers to Dublin's traffic and child-minding problems are not contingent on the destruction of Dartmouth Square.

What other facts are there in the article?

Mr O'Gara works hard.
Implication: those opposed to him do not. An interpretation reinforced later when those who use the square are described as the 'cricket playing strawberry sucking new ascendancy'

Mr O'Gara doesn't go to the Galway Races with Fianna Fail. If he did he would be laughing all the way to the bank.
Implication: Noel O'Gara is a man of modest means who is being dispossessed by the wealthy. Blatantly untrue. He is a very wealthy man. (Visit his website and have a look at his house) How he got his money I don't know but I know that part of it was through property speculation.

O'Gara is on the side of the plain people of Ireland, but the "bastards" want to stick it to him.
Blatantly incorrect. It is Mr O'Gara who wants to stick it to local people and visitors by depriving them of an amenity which they have enjoyed for years, or alternatively he wants to stick it to the Dublin taxpayer (ie the plain people) by demanding an exorbitant sum in compensation for the land in question.

If he gets paid say 20,000 euro, ie if he doubles his money in a year and then whinges that he should have got 170m, tell me in all seriousness who is trying to "stick it" to whom?

Mad Finn

And another point.

If that Tribune article had appeared on this site, with its abuse and invective, ie calling people bastards and deriding them as 'strawberry sucking cricket playing members of the new ascendancy' its author would have received at least a warning if not a banning from the mods.

Here, you have to play the ball not the player. No such high standards for the Tribune.

Rag.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/9029627?view=Eircomnet

Brothers seek possession of Mallow park
From:ireland.com
Thursday, 5th October, 2006

Two brothers living in England are seeking to take possession of Mallow town park at the end of this month when a lease granted by their ancestors nearly 100 years ago expires.

They have asked Mallow Town Council to vacate the 34-acre park, which includes recreational facilities and pitches used by sports organisations.

...

Mad Finn

Victor wrote:

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/9029627?view=Eircomnet

Oh GREAT!!!!!!

The former equerries of the Princess of Wales want to turf out the people of Mallow from their town park.

No doubt whose side the 'plain people of Ireland' should be on for this one.

Hopefully, this will help crystallise the issue into what it should be, not a load of nose-thumbing waffle about well-heeled strawberry suckers.

Go the people of Mallow!! Don't let them do this to you!!

sceptre

The odd thing about the road at the edge of the park in that case is that due to the one-way system they dropped into Mallow a few years ago, in the absence of that road it's almost impossible to go in a westerly direction through half the town. The lease issue should really have been sorted out when the Jephsons quit the town in 1984 (I'm assuming it was the daddy of the pair, when I was under ten I was fairly familiar with the genealogy of the family, being from the town and all but that knowledge has rather faded over the years). Probably would have been cheaper too. I would suspect that Mad Finn is right in that there won't be any comments about strawberry sucking cheese-eaters in the Turbine on this one, should they choose to mention it at all, which they probably won't given that I don't think of Mallow as the sort of town where the locals would rise up and have a midnight demo in protest in any case. I could be wrong, unfortunately I doubt it.

edit: incidentally, that park certainly isn't suitable as development land. It gets flooded. A lot. I've seen half of it under six feet of water (which is pretty dramatic when there are goalpots in the middle of it). Every new development surrounding it has been put on land elevated by at least six feet.

Mad Finn

sceptre wrote:

I don't think of Mallow as the sort of town where the locals would rise up and have a midnight demo in protest in any case.

Well then, by Jesus, they should be stirred up until they do. A little bit of agitation is needed here. Remember what the great Oscar Wilde, himself a cricket-playing strawberry-sucking member of the Old Ascendancy from Merrion Square, once said about agitators.

Oscar Wilde wrote:

"Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community, and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary."

And he sucked on a few other things besides. But he was still a genius.

Aux barricades people of Mallow!! You get the town you deserve. Demand your park back!!!!

Victor

sceptre wrote:

edit: incidentally, that park certainly isn't suitable as development land. It gets flooded. A lot. I've seen half of it under six feet of water (which is pretty dramatic when there are goalpots in the middle of it). Every new development surrounding it has been put on land elevated by at least six feet.

Dartmouth Square is 3-4m below the normal level of the canal.

Mad Finn

Well O'Gara has just had his arse kicked in the High Court. (Irish Times report, sub needed)

The injunction against using the square as a car park has been made permanent, he has had to pay costs of a grand (cheap) but best of all the judge wouldn't allow him to read a statement in court about a previous hearing on the matter because it was 'a vexatious rant.'

Proper order judge!!!

He sounds like he could be one of the Mods here.

Say No to vexatious ranting.

The report also implies that he has given up the idea of a constitutional challenge to the planning acts which enable compulsory purchases because it would cost him too much.

Hopefully now the CPO can proceed, he can get a fair price for it (something between 10 and 20 grand) and he will go away and bother the good people of Dublin no more.