Dartmouth Square "purchase"

oscarBravo

robertjordan wrote:

would anyone like his postal address?, if you feel like writing to him

Don't even think about it, unless you want a permanent ban from this board and possibly this site.

I'm serious.

Mad Finn

If you want to meet him in person, or perhaps one of his (ahem) employees, why not come along on Saturday.

I suspect he'll try and find some way of spoiling everybody's fun.

CU there constitutionus and fly agaric?

billy the squid

I'm just curious as to what the residents did in 1987 before it was a publicly accessible park.

Fact of the matter is, Dublin City Council rented the land, and as most people would do when they move into rented housing, they renovated it. The current situation would be the same as a tennant trying to stay in a house without paying rent simply because he put up a few rolls of wallpaper and a few lightbulbs.

Corporation stopped paying rent...they got evicted....simple as.

The Limerick People's Park was mentioned earlier, the Dublin situation is somewhat different to the People's Park as the Earl of Limerick put the Corporation in Trust of the land on the assurance that it would remain a park.

Limerick City Council sold land that wasn't even theirs.

As for Tim O'Malley, he kept his gob shut until the apartments were built so he can't afford to critisize them.

I have another question.

Would this O'Garra fella not have to apply for a "change of use" permit before he could start charging people €10 an hour to park on the land?

Mad Finn

billy the squid wrote:

I'm just curious as to what the residents did in 1987 before it was a publicly accessible park.

Don't know myself but this poster reckons the kids just squeezed in between the railings. Bit like kids in the area around Merrion Square used to do before that was opened up in the 1970s.

billy the squid wrote:

Fact of the matter is, Dublin City Council rented the land, and as most people would do when they move into rented housing, they renovated it. The current situation would be the same as a tennant trying to stay in a house without paying rent simply because he put up a few rolls of wallpaper and a few lightbulbs.

Corporation stopped paying rent...they got evicted....simple as.

It would appear the Council screwed up and the local TDs have called for an enquiry as to how the lease was allowed to be sold. But is that any reason to deprive the Dublin public of a beautiful piece of open space? THAT'S what he bought. Not a car park or a gymnasium or a shopping centre or whatever else he wants to plonk in there.

Yeah the ungracious and begrudging can all have a great laugh at the relatively well off people of Dartmouth Square being messed around by a shameless speculator who claims that the men of 1916 died to allow him to destroy the environment of Dublin's nicer suburbs but at the end of the day if that sort of attitude is tolerated there is little hope of any public amenity being provided in the city.

If you want green space you will have to buy it yourself, paying development rates for it and then making it available to the population.

Who'd vote for that?

billy the squid wrote:

The Limerick People's Park was mentioned earlier, the Dublin situation is somewhat different to the People's Park as the Earl of Limerick put the Corporation in Trust of the land on the assurance that it would remain a park.

Limerick City Council sold land that wasn't even theirs.

Well surely the transaction is invalid then and the apartments should be destroyed. With suitable compensation to the occupiers.

I have another question.

Would this O'Garra fella not have to apply for a "change of use" permit before he could start charging people €10 an hour to park on the land?

Well I reckon that's what the court case next week is about.

sovtek

Mad Finn wrote:

Sounds just like a stereotypical 19th century landlord to me.

Sounds like a modern Irish landlord too me.

fly_agaric

Mad Finn wrote:

CU there constitutionus and fly agaric?

I would go if I could. Really!*

*removes tongue from cheek...

BTW, I wasn't agreeing with constitutionus - I was laughing that he dropped that hand-grenade on this thread!

Mad Finn wrote:

but at the end of the day if that sort of attitude is tolerated there is little hope of any public amenity being provided in the city.

I thought that sort of attitude was the driving force behind "de deh-velepement" in Ireland generally - where the Dublin house-price refugees can't get their kids into primary school let alone have a nice council-maintained public park for them to play in.

DadaKopf

mike65 wrote:

Indymedias readership don't know how to react - should they say "g'wan stick it to the middle-class scum" or down with grimy speculation.

I'm divided on this issue. I live nearby. I've used the park since before it was opened to the public. While all the wealthy people were buying semi-D's and mansions in foxrock, Dartmouth Sq and the surrounding areas weren't so affluent. It was flat land, and families that owned houses earned modest salaries. Apart from those who still live there, since the late-1990s, the whole are has been bought out by people who can afford multi-million mortgages or have families so rich that they can buy the houses outright.

As someone not living on the square, I feel completely marginalised by the residents, and rarely are they the longer-term residents, it's the recent neighbours who are piping up and excluding others.

So in a way, I'm pissed off at the new neighbours, but also very amused by the whole "mentalist makes plush life of rich D-6'ers hell". I don't see these people engaging in direct action in Shannon, or anywhere else in Dublin.

To me, Dartmouth Sq. is a public amenity for everyone, it's not a 'Dartmouth Square residents' issue - it's not because the square has been used for decades by others from other streets, it's used by people far away, used by people working closeby looking for a quiet place to have lunch.

O'Gara really needs to send letters to people beyond the square informing him of his activities.

By the way, this Saturday 9th September - BIG PARTY in Dartmouth Square - everyone welcome because I say so. Wherever you're from, come along. Stick it to O'Gara AND the residents!

nicelives

DadaKopf wrote:

By the way, this Saturday 9th September - BIG PARTY in Dartmouth Square - everyone welcome because I say so. Wherever you're from, come along. Stick it to O'Gara AND the residents!

Did I hear things right or is there a counter party being held in John Gormley's back graden about the same time on Saturday. I may have misheard this being announced but it does make sense as he doesn't believe in green spaces being owned privately in such a built up area and yet has tried to block peoples' access to his green space with a perimiter wall. I can't believe it.

DadaKopf

That would be interesting alright, but with established rights of access to Dartmouth Sq, and no such established rights in Johnny G's back yard, it's not remotely ironic. Not going to happen. Head along to the party on the 9th. Then the locals will think "who the hell are these people", to whit the reply being "I'm Joe Public, b'yatch".

While every effort should be made to retain public spaces, there is a consitutional right to private property. If he can establish his rights and title and show that the public have not established any presciptive rights, that for me is the end of the matter, albeit a disappointing end.

Mad Finn

DadaKopf wrote:

To me, Dartmouth Sq. is a public amenity for everyone, it's not a 'Dartmouth Square residents' issue - it's not because the square has been used for decades by others from other streets, it's used by people far away, used by people working closeby looking for a quiet place to have lunch.

O'Gara really needs to send letters to people beyond the square informing him of his activities.

Stand for election Dadakopf and I'll vote for you. That's just the sledgehammer on the nail on the head.

dadakopf wrote:

By the way, this Saturday 9th September - BIG PARTY in Dartmouth Square - everyone welcome because I say so. Wherever you're from, come along. Stick it to O'Gara AND the residents!

I see no need to pick a fight with the residents. I will be there at some stage. I'm most curious to see what sort of counter measures the astute Mr O'Gara is planning.

And by the way if any speculative parasite is looking to sneak his or her way into ownership of any other parks in Dublin I think we should be told.

Sponge Bob

Mad Finn wrote:

And by the way if any speculative parasite is looking to sneak his or her way into ownership of any other parks in Dublin I think we should be told.

I own the ground rent on 2 parks (1.78 actually) in Dublin and the corpo has no difficulty paying me my few squids every year. I collect it on principle and consider €300 to be good value for the citizens who are allowed to enjoy the modest amenity. The corpo has never made any attempt to buy me out, they prefer to cough up instead.

ground rentals cost bugger all 20 years ago .

partholon

Mad Finn wrote:

I see no need to pick a fight with the residents. I will be there at some stage. I'm most curious to see what sort of counter measures the astute Mr O'Gara is planning.

while i think the idea of a party is a wonderful passive agressive action you may be leaving yourself open to arrest. if im reading this right the council no longer have the lease on this so its private property, and while it is zoned public amenity so's your average swimning pool and if you try to tresspass there without paying admittance your going away with the gardai.

again im not certain, but you could be done for trespassing (plus considering there was restricitve access before that could count as a precedent)

seems to me the obvious thing he'd do is have a posse of gardai waiting to bundle anyone away in a black mariah

DadaKopf

Sponge Bob wrote:

I own the ground rent on 2 parks (1.78 actually) in Dublin and the corpo has no difficulty paying me my few squids every year. I collect it on principle and consider €300 to be good value for the citizens who are allowed to enjoy the modest amenity. The corpo has never made any attempt to buy me out, they prefer to cough up instead.

ground rentals cost bugger all 20 years ago .

Why not donate them to the city? What is it that motivates you to continue your ownership over a public amenity? The power of being able to keep people out? Not picking a fight, just curious.

DCoCo made a mistake not buying Dartmouth Sq in the first place. You're not going to build on it (are you?), but O'Gara is acting like a mentalist playing childish brinksmanship. Whether he really sees himself as an entrepreneur is anyone's guess, but what's weird is he's not just willing to lease it back to the Council.

Personally, I think public parks belong in the public domain, including Fitzwilliam Sq.

O'Gara. Total. Screwball.

DadaKopf

partholon wrote:

while i think the idea of a party is a wonderful passive agressive action you may be leaving yourself open to arrest. if im reading this right the council no longer have the lease on this so its private property, and while it is zoned public amenity so's your average swimning pool and if you try to tresspass there without paying admittance your going away with the gardai.

again im not certain, but you could be done for trespassing (plus considering there was restricitve access before that could count as a precedent)

seems to me the obvious thing he'd do is have a posse of gardai waiting to bundle anyone away in a black mariah

It's called peaceful direct action. Plus, legally, the park was still private property when leased by the Council. But they imposed bye-laws over it which allowed for public usufruct, or something.

Strategically it could backfire, but it would be important to call the media so if O'Gara tries anything, it'll all be documented. I don't think people support him, even if it's kind of also amusing to watch the 'affluent Dartmouth park area ... residents' get all het up. As for arrests, very unlikely.

partholon

dont forget as well being dragged away by the gardai can really look bad to the state. particularly on an issue like this.

unfortunetly the only recouse would be a CPO .and a significantly large one to make the issue go away . which by the sounds of things is what O Gara wants.

you could play right into his hands. still you have to do something, better to try than not!

Mad Finn

Deleted User wrote:

While every effort should be made to retain public spaces, there is a consitutional right to private property. If he can establish his rights and title and show that the public have not established any presciptive rights, that for me is the end of the matter, albeit a disappointing end.

Well he's not allowed to do anything with it without getting it rezoned and then getting planning permission. He's bought a square with a park in it. Fair enough if he wants to charge the council a reasonable rent, but the first thing he did was to padlock the place and try to keep everybody else out.

I think I'll bring along my copy of Oscar Wilde's 'The Selfish Giant' to read at the party on Saturday. ("My own garden is my own garden and I won't let anybody play in it but me")

O'Gara is the unacceptable face of capitalism: he has contributed nothing, produced nothing, enhanced nothing, added no value. His only strategy is to hold the public to ransom over a crackpot set of ideas that will not be allowed work legally.

nicelives

Popped along today for a while to see the crowds and the atmosphere. Very quiet, only about 40 people at max, half of whom were children and 5 who seemed to be photographers. Seemed very much like someones' private garden party. There was a musician there spouting personal jokes at Noel O'Gara who was not present. Bit childish.
Most of the adults there seemed to know each other, very much a very local issue. There was a electricity flex coming from one of the houses across the road into the park to plug in the PA which wasn't needed as there weren't really enough people to warrant it. Hoping someone wouldn't kill themselves by tripping over the flex which would normally be fixed down properly at other events. Not sure if the residents organised their own public liability insurance in the same way they were accusing Mr O'Gara of not doing earlier in the week.
I thought it would have been better supported as the weather was amazing. Checked back about 5 o'clock and there were less people there, just loud music and a lot of smoke from one of their barbeques or they may have been buring rubbish, not sure.

DadaKopf

Ha, I didn't even bother going to this. Too busy not having a life. Work, work, work.

Mad Finn

Well I popped along for a while as well and it was most pleasant. True enough it looked very much like a large family gathering but it was not the case that everybody knew everybody. There were also at least two local politicians there, John Gormley, local TD (Green Party) and Dermot Lacey, local councillor and former mayor (Labour Party). I didn't stay for the whole afternoon but then I doubt anybody did. There were people leaving as we arrived and people arriving as we left.

Sure, a lot of them were children, but then what's wrong with that?

O'Gara is being quoted in the papers today (Sunday) that he wants the same money that Bohemians were payed for Dalymount Park for 'his' square. He can dream.

There are a few things to remember on that argument:

1) Dartmouth Square is designed as a square facing an open space. Putting any sort of structure on that open space would materially and aesthetically change the entire make up of the area.

2) Dalymount Park may be the sort of place where large crowds could gather but only if they paid to get in. It was private property, access to which was limited to paying guests. Dartmouth Square has been a place which is accessible to ALL visitors.

3) Dalymount Park hasn't been rezoned yet and indeed the price paid is conditional on the developer getting the sort of planning permission he needs.

4) Swopping one private owner for another is not the answer to this. Nor should the council (ie the taxpayer) be forced to pay an exorbitant amount for a piece of beauty that is and should be accessible to all.

LostinBlanch

Finn try telling that to McDowell. In a letter to residents on Wednesday he's quoted as saying "while I am reluctant to put a commercial price on such use of land it can hardly be less than €100 million and may well be multiples of that." This is from todays Tribune.

I wonder who's side he's really on? He's doing O Gara's work for him, almost acting as his estate agent, talking up the price. I can't see him getting any votes in the Dartmouth Square area at the next election.

Personally I think he should get chicken feed for it. The park has no commercial value as it is zoned as an amenity (I think). He would have to get planning permission to change it's use, and that is hardly going to be forthcoming. Plus if I was in the revenue commissioners I would think "there's a nice candidate for a full audit". They're not nice I hear.

John_C

Mad Finn wrote:

3) Dalymount Park hasn't been rezoned yet and indeed the price paid is conditional on the developer getting the sort of planning permission he needs.

For the record, this point is not correct.

Mad Finn

OK. But the main point that I am making is that development at that site is contingent on rezoning and planning permission being achieved.

One report in the papers that I read was that Liam Carroll of Zoe Developments, a company once described in court as a 'recidivist criminal' organisation, has assumed all risk with regard to achieving rezoning and planning permission.

In any case the effect on the local environment of a development at Dalymount is vastly different to that at Dartmouth Square. The local houses back on to Dalymount rather than face it.

Of course it all depends on what sort of plans the developers would have for such a place. It's up to the local residents to fight their corner if all he wants to do is put in a concrete jungle over what was once open space.

Maybe they'll make a nice picturesque square out of the middle of it.

Victor

Mad Finn wrote:

One report in the papers that I read was that Liam Carroll of Zoe Developments, a company once described in court as a 'recidivist criminal' organisation, has assumed all risk with regard to achieving rezoning and planning permission.

For clarity 'recidivist criminal' www.lawreform.ie/files/6%20Oct%20Final%20CP.pdf

Mad Finn

I was very careful to say that it was the company and not an individual that was described as a "recidivist criminal", as the link above makes clear.

Mad Finn

LostinBlanch wrote:

Finn try telling that to McDowell. In a letter to residents on Wednesday he's quoted as saying "while I am reluctant to put a commercial price on such use of land it can hardly be less than €100 million and may well be multiples of that." This is from todays Tribune.

Well I haven't seen the full text of the letter (I'm not a resident) but what McDowell seems to be saying is that 'such use' of the park (ie a car park) would be worth that amount. If O'Gara can't get permission to put his car park (or his creche or his gym) on that site, it isn't worth a fraction of that.

BTW, on the point of the Tribune article. It was a little disappointing of the author to let go unchallenged Mr O'Gara's assertion that the park was 'a private amenity for multi millionaires'. Even given that most people in that area are NOT multi millionaires the park, although secluded, was open to all. It was no more a 'private amenity' than St Stephen's Green is.

homeOwner

I have read the posts here with interest and I am surprised by some of the comments here.

It is clear to me that OGara has no intention of building anything on the land and is simply an oppertunist. He is trying to be as annoying and cause as much hassle as he can so that he council will buy him out.

There is not a chance in hell that the council will grand permission for anything other than recreational space for the square especially as he has exposed them as basically failing to do their job and aquire the square in 1997 when it was offered to them or at least renewed the lease. On top of the with the amount of well-heeled residents who live in the area there is no doubt that any permission sought will be met with a thundering amount of appeals.

The guy took advantage of an oppertunity to make money in an expensive are of the city (how he twigged that the owners of the square were open to the sale when no one else did is amazing). While I detest men such as himself I am absolutely sick of county councils and planners not doing their jobs and acting in the interests of everyone else except the residents who pay their salaries. Its about time their incompetence was highlighted.

Mad Finn

homeOwner wrote:

It is clear to me that OGara has no intention of building anything on the land and is simply an oppertunist. He is trying to be as annoying and cause as much hassle as he can so that he council will buy him out.

I quite agree. But he is also persistent. And not a little eccentric. Apparently he has driven every journalist on the Yorkshire Post demented with his obsession about the "Real" Yorkshire Ripper. (Scroll down to the bit where it says "By the time I joined the Yorkshire Post, in 1990, all its senior journalists groaned at the mention of O'Gara") If he doesn't get his way I can see him pullling all manner of stunts going on for years to try and wear people down so that his asking price (or something as near as dammit to it) can be met.

homeOwner wrote:

While I detest men such as himself I am absolutely sick of county councils and planners not doing their jobs and acting in the interests of everyone else except the residents who pay their salaries. Its about time their incompetence was highlighted.

I agree, but paying him some exorbitant fee just to go away is not in the best interests of tax payers either, is it?

I'd say offer him 16k for it. That's double his money and the issue is sorted.

But he seems to want millions because of the 'opportunity cost' that giving it up would entail. It should be made clear to him, as you say, that there is no way the opportunities he hopes to exploit are realistic.

DadaKopf

It's true DCoCo has dropped the ball on this one. And because of it, a mentalist is going to cost DCoCo taxpayers.

McDowell made a stupid, stupid mistake with that letter, and his correction didn't even cut it. Though I don't think it should have much impact on O'Gara's case because it's the market that sets prices, not Ministers for Justice, Equality (*snigger) and Law 'Reform'.

I really resent O'Gara's tactics, but maybe his proclamation that the park belongs to the Irish working man (i.e. himself, unbelievably) and that it must be saved against its beseigement by multi-millionaires might bolster support beyond the immediate vicinity and within the Council echelons in favour of a 'realistic' price (i.e. below-market-price) for the park under the CPO.

Of course, the courts, as gatekeepers of justice, may wish to be as fair to O'Gara as possible, I honestly don't think his arguments would have much traction with judges.

homeOwner

Mad Finn wrote:

I agree, but paying him some exorbitant fee just to go away is not in the best interests of tax payers either, is it?

You're quite right, no it isnt but I can see it being the only way out of this and once again the tax payer get shafted at the expense of a property developer.