Letters in the News & Star

mad man

I'm sure most of you are aware at this stage of the Letters in Support of Brendan McCann and in Response to Des Purcell that appeared in this weeks News & Star.

My summary of them are as follows.

A LOAD OF ARROGANT ****ING TRIPE.

Nevertheless there is an important development.A guy called Michael Brennan sent a letter in claiming of all things that the apartment blocks recently built in the city centre are high rise flats:D If that is the case then the ESB and the Tax office are sky scrapers:D and we have a regular down town Manhattan in Railway Square:D

On a serious note I believe Seamus Ryan has completely undermined his arguements by directly (probably intentionally) misquoting Des Purcell. He has also made allegations of vested interests by Des Purcell.All this from the guy whose sister is a member of WASICD.

Finally Michael Brennan if I am not mistaken is Brendan McCanns Partner in crime.I think he initially lodged objections in his name with McCann.This I think has given way to predominantly McCann.However I would not be surprised if the two of them were friends/Associates and planned BMC's actions together.

GUYS!I THINK NOW IS THE TIME TO START WRITING YOUR LETTERS.

merlante

Sounds like there needs to be an inundation now to combat these freaks. I'll be doing my bit even though I'm up to my eyes in work.

mad man

Mine is already on the way.

Freddie59

mad man wrote:

I'm sure most of you are aware at this stage of the Letters in Support of Brendan McCann and in Response to Des Purcell that appeared in this weeks News & Star.

My summary of them are as follows.

A LOAD OF ARROGANT ****ING TRIPE.

Nevertheless there is an important development.A guy called Michael Brennan sent a letter in claiming of all things that the apartment blocks recently built in the city centre are high rise flats:D If that is the case then the ESB and the Tax office are sky scrapers:D and we have a regular down town Manhattan in Railway Square:D

On a serious note I believe Seamus Ryan has completely undermined his arguements by directly (probably intentionally) misquoting Des Purcell. He has also made allegations of vested interests by Des Purcell.All this from the guy whose sister is a member of WASICD.

Finally Michael Brennan if I am not mistaken is Brendan McCanns Partner in crime.I think he initially lodged objections in his name with McCann.This I think has given way to predominantly McCann.However I would not be surprised if the two of them were friends/Associates and planned BMC's actions together.

GUYS!I THINK NOW IS THE TIME TO START WRITING YOUR LETTERS.

I fully agree with you MM and was mad when I saw these myself. However, upon reflecting, and if you were an outsider looking in, it came across like this:

Local citizen placing genuine objections taken to task by vested interest. We all know that's not the case, but that's what it looked like. I was extremely disappointed to see Seamus Ryan apparently siding with McCann in the 'interests of the planning process'.

Amazingly, at no point did he point out the ABUSE of the process by McCann.

McCann, in my book, and that of many others, is more than a thorn in the side of our developing City. Realistically, what can be done about this guy?

mad man

Freddie59 wrote:

I fully agree with you MM and was mad when I saw these myself. However, upon reflecting, and if you were an outsider looking in, it came across like this:

Local citizen placing genuine objections taken to task by vested interest. We all know that's not the case, but that's what it looked like. I was extremely disappointed to see Seamus Ryan apparently siding with McCann in the 'interests of the planning process'.

Amazingly, at no point did he point out the ABUSE of the process by McCann.

McCann, in my book, and that of many others, is more than a thorn in the side of our developing City. Realistically, what can be done about this guy?

I think not much can be done apart from people putting counter pressure in the form of letters to the papers and local politicians.If BMC sees a critical mass of opposition to him he might change his ways.I doubt it will.In that case if the public see that BMC is going to go against the public's wishes regardless then they won't vote for him which in turn may change his ways.

In any case WASICD are basically telling local politicians to watch their seats if they don't do as they say.Even though they are in the minority.So I believe it is necessary to show public support in opposition to BMC to alleviate any fears of losing votes because of their decisions around planning.

I hope to **** that Seamus Ryan and the two SF councillors lose their seats at the next locals. SF because they are jumping on every populist bandwagon going.Seamus Ryan because as far as I can see he is only opposing developments in the City because his sister is in WASICD.He represents Ward 3.He sister lives in Ward 1.This is abuse.The cheeky ****er then accuses others of vested interests.

crazydude

mad man wrote:

I'm sure most of you are aware at this stage of the Letters in Support of Brendan McCann and in Response to Des Purcell that appeared in this weeks News & Star.

My summary of them are as follows.

A LOAD OF ARROGANT ****ING TRIPE.

Nevertheless there is an important development.A guy called Michael Brennan sent a letter in claiming of all things that the apartment blocks recently built in the city centre are high rise flats:D If that is the case then the ESB and the Tax office are sky scrapers:D and we have a regular down town Manhattan in Railway Square:D

On a serious note I believe Seamus Ryan has completely undermined his arguements by directly (probably intentionally) misquoting Des Purcell. He has also made allegations of vested interests by Des Purcell.All this from the guy whose sister is a member of WASICD.

Finally Michael Brennan if I am not mistaken is Brendan McCanns Partner in crime.I think he initially lodged objections in his name with McCann.This I think has given way to predominantly McCann.However I would not be surprised if the two of them were friends/Associates and planned BMC's actions together.

GUYS!I THINK NOW IS THE TIME TO START WRITING YOUR LETTERS.

Just browsing this forum and came accross this.

I support the thrust of the letters.

Letter 1
http://www.waterford-news.com/news/story.asp?j=23240

I wonder if someone who is involved in the buying and selling of property in Waterford is the best person to campaign for limiting the right of the public to object to planning applications? The term ‘vested interest’ comes to mind here.

That is a vested interest. D Purcell would gain financially by any relaxation of the planning laws. You should understand that it is ethical to declare that. Did he?

Mr Purcell might also be interested to know that according to the Annual Report of An Bord Pleanala, Waterford City Council has the lowest number of planning decisions appealed to An Bord Pleanala.

And that put paid to the allegation that development is put off by the "high" rate of objections here in the City.

And they should be allowed to do this without fear of attack from Mr Des Purcell or anyone else for that matter.

It is high time we got our Public Representatives standing up for us in this City and not rubber-stamping poor developments. Good days work there Mr. Ryan


Letter 2.
http://www.waterford-news.com/news/story.asp?j=23239

It is our belief that appropriate and quality planning of commercial areas can and must take into account important issues such as light, noise pollution, traffic concerns and local heritage and we will continue to make this case, through the planning process, which is our right.

How can anybody disagree with this. The right to object to planning is a fundemtal right in this country and attacks on it (for self intrest purposes) should be strongly resisted.


Letter 3.
http://www.waterford-news.com/news/story.asp?j=23238

Everyone knows that the development of high-rise blocks between O’Connell Street and the Glen bodes ill for the city.

I have yet to find someone who thinks these blocks add to the city. Go on surprise me!

If you ask me Des Purcell has succeeded in getting McCann elected on the next election. He will get my vote this time.

Oh! And Mad-Man I'm writing my letter too.

Our man in Havana

You need to get a reality check. Seek medical help soon.

crazydude

Bond-007 wrote:

You need to get a reality check. Seek medical help soon.

Why

merlante

Crazydude, good name.

You say Des Purcell has a vested interest. I looked at the names of all of the people who signed letter two, i.e. many of the members of WASICD. Nearly all of them are living in the vicinity of the Railway Sq. or the new city centre development. It's pretty much a dead cert. that they are NIMBYS with a vested interest. McCann has an 'object to everything in Waterford city' agenda. He also has a vested interest in seeing developments blocked. Everyone involved has a vested interest and an agenda, otherwise they wouldn't be so passionate. Even I have a vested interest. It makes my blood boil to see McCann hold the city to ransom, so we all have a bias, what's your point?

Just because Waterford city may or may not have the lowest number of decisions appealed by Bord Pleanala does *not* mean that we need McCann sending more of our developments to Bord Planeala. If McCann had succeeded in blocking Railway Square and succeeded in blocking the new city centre development, then those two (just two!) objections would send Waterford back to the middle ages. We need retail space 5 years ago!

Even if McCann doesn't succeed in getting them blocked, he gets *everything* delayed.

It's about time that some of our public representatives made a stand against McCann. In the last 4 elections we voted in others *instead* of McCann. Why don't these representatives shape up and try to sort this situation out?

Everyone should be allowed to object to a development, but as Des Purcell said, you shouldn't be allowed to object on a 'serial' basis to all developments. If he wants that kind of power, let him get elected to the city council -- 3rd time lucky!

Fair deuce to Des Purcell for not lying down like some of the other developers. He's taking one for the team. His reputation will be in tatters after lowering himself to McCann's level, but his sacrifice will hopefully help ensure that other developments get a better shot in the future.

If we ever do get a proper shopping centre in Waterford, it should be called the Purcell complex!

And as for the apartments in O'Connell st., I think they are 1 million times better than what was there before: old, rotting decaying buildings. Thank God McCann didn't get them stopped. In future they'll be replaced with better buildings, but aren't we blessed that what was there is gone!

For anyone who is against development in Waterford city centre, could you please tell me where the following businesses could go?
- HMV
- Waterstones
- Marks & Spencer
- Debenhams
- Brown Thomas
- Large Pennies
- H&M
- Dixons
- Sony Centre

Bookee

Just looking at the location of some of the co-signees on letter 2.
Surely, Mr McCann't didn't do much on their behalf... Have you walked past those houses in Railway Square lately....., where's the daylight, and the view of the tower that they probably enjoyed previously..... !

Go Brendan

Roanmore

Mr Purcell might also be interested to know that according to the Annual Report of An Bord Pleanala, Waterford City Council has the lowest number of planning decisions appealed to An Bord Pleanala.

"And that put paid to the allegation that development is put off by the "high" rate of objections here in the City."


The above statement is way too broad that it is open to misrepresentation which it semms to have on this occasion.

First of all the report is from 2004 (the last one available).
Secondly it should have stated that the statement above refers to cities only, if you take the County Councils in to it the statement is not true.

In 2004 there were 36 appeals to An Bord Pleanala, now this is where I hold my hand up and say I don't have the full facts but if you go by the Newspapers in recent weeks Brendan McCann has had about 30 this year alone himself. Can anybody confirm?

Also from the An Bord Pleanala report, Waterford City Council have had above the national average their decisions confirmed (35.7% vs 30%), above average their decisions modified (50% vs 38%) and below the national average their decisions reversed (14.3% vs 32%). I'll leave people make up their own mind on these statistics.

The full report is here

http://www.pleanala.ie/2004AnnualReport.pdf

crazydude

merlante wrote:

Crazydude, good name.

You say Des Purcell has a vested interest. I looked at the names of all of the people who signed letter two, i.e. many of the members of WASICD. Nearly all of them are living in the vicinity of the Railway Sq. or the new city centre development. It's pretty much a dead cert. that they are NIMBYS with a vested interest. McCann has an 'object to everything in Waterford city' agenda. He also has a vested interest in seeing developments blocked. Everyone involved has a vested interest and an agenda, otherwise they wouldn't be so passionate. Even I have a vested interest. It makes my blood boil to see McCann hold the city to ransom, so we all have a bias, what's your point?

Just because Waterford city may or may not have the lowest number of decisions appealed by Bord Pleanala does *not* mean that we need McCann sending more of our developments to Bord Planeala. If McCann had succeeded in blocking Railway Square and succeeded in blocking the new city centre development, then those two (just two!) objections would send Waterford back to the middle ages. We need retail space 5 years ago!

Even if McCann doesn't succeed in getting them blocked, he gets *everything* delayed.

It's about time that some of our public representatives made a stand against McCann. In the last 4 elections we voted in others *instead* of McCann. Why don't these representatives shape up and try to sort this situation out?

Everyone should be allowed to object to a development, but as Des Purcell said, you shouldn't be allowed to object on a 'serial' basis to all developments. If he wants that kind of power, let him get elected to the city council -- 3rd time lucky!

Fair deuce to Des Purcell for not lying down like some of the other developers. He's taking one for the team. His reputation will be in tatters after lowering himself to McCann's level, but his sacrifice will hopefully help ensure that other developments get a better shot in the future.

If we ever do get a proper shopping centre in Waterford, it should be called the Purcell complex!

And as for the apartments in O'Connell st., I think they are 1 million times better than what was there before: old, rotting decaying buildings. Thank God McCann didn't get them stopped. In future they'll be replaced with better buildings, but aren't we blessed that what was there is gone!

For anyone who is against development in Waterford city centre, could you please tell me where the following businesses could go?
- HMV
- Waterstones
- Marks & Spencer
- Debenhams
- Brown Thomas
- Large Pennies
- H&M
- Dixons
- Sony Centre

First off I am not against development and to say so is just plain wrong.

I don't speak for any of the letter writers so I am just assuming from what I read that neither are they.

I am against Poor diplomat.

You mention Railway Square. I rest my case. Look at it a monolith totally out of place in that location adjacent to the city wall and all.

McCann has (up to now) paid a price politically for his objections to poor planning applications. Why he could then have a vested interested I do not understand. A Vested Interest implies a gain and he has not had any and in fact it was pointed out above he has/is suffering a finicial loss for his stand.

I looked at the names of all of the people who signed letter two, i.e. many of the members of WASICD. Nearly all of them are living in the vicinity of the Railway Sq. or the new city centre development.

And your point is.......

You object more if people from outside the area (like McCann) object. You can't have it both ways.

From the letter

It is our belief that appropriate and quality planning of commercial areas can and must take into account important issues such as light, noise pollution, traffic concerns and local heritage and we will continue to make this case, through the planning process, which is our right.

What is wrong with that.

I suspect that you have no interest in the long term development of the city as long as

- HMV
- Waterstones
- Marks & Spencer
- Debenhams
- Brown Thomas
- Large Pennies
- H&M
- Dixons
- Sony Centre

get a home.

And in fact just to correct you.

Debenhams have bought Roche's Store
& Sony Centre is on the Tramore Road.

But yes I and I guess most people want more retail space he but not just any space but space in harmony with the City.

And as for the apartments in O'Connell st., I think they are 1 million times better than what was there before: old, rotting decaying buildings. Thank God McCann didn't get them stopped. In future they'll be replaced with better buildings, but aren't we blessed that what was there is gone!

That is the sort of Mickey Mouse thinking that has got us in this mess in the first place. Get it right first time! I also take it from that reply that you agree that that development is a disgrace.

merlante

Crazydude, you've made a few assumptions about me there that suit your own world view, which I will get to in due course.

To say McCann does not have a bias is completely ridiculous. He has a political agenda, which he is advancing via the planning process. His 30 recent objections reflect that he has an unorthodox definition of what is a good development -- essentially no large development is satisfactory to him. He is using the planning process to advance his ideas because he cannot get elected.

Railway Square is shaping up to be a lovely building. McCann was involved at the pre-submission stage with the developers, and he claimed he was happy with it. He then proceeded to object anyway. The end result is that a floor was taken off. Now he apparently is still not happy with it, even though he was involved at almost every stage of the project. The fact is, he just doesn't want a development there at all. I think it looks quite attractive, and when the hoarding comes down, it will be clear that the complex is situated well back from the tower.

Also, you seem to be confused in thinking that there is some logical conflict between McCann and local residents both having vested interests. McCann's vested interest stems from his political ideology, which goes beyond the individual development in question. The others are straight forward NIMBYS. The philosophy of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is what binds this objector alliance.

How dare you suggest that I have no long term interest in the city other than to see businesses built. I happen to think that business and history can live side by side in our city centre. McCann does not believe this. McCann doesn't want any development in our city centre at all, because lets face it, every part of the city centre has a tower, a ruin or a wall nearby. But I believe you can build in the city centre while protecting our history. I think the Railway Square development is a fine example, because there is much respect and deference given to the nearby tower in the plan.

Out of town planning is unsustainable. It will kill our city centre, and I don't want the city centre to die. I want it to be just as vibrant as it was over 200 years ago when the people of the georgian era led the last great expansion of the city. We are blessed to live in a city with a historic quarter (the viking quarter) that is mainly separate from our commercial centre. This means that we can develop in Railway Square (outside the city walls) and in the Michael Street/Newgate St., etc., (within an area -- maybe the last remaining one within the city walls -- with negligible finds/sites) without impinging on our architectural treasures. We need these developments to maintain the city centre in the face of large out of town developments.

You say:
"Debenhams have bought Roche's Store
& Sony Centre is on the Tramore Road."

I am well aware of these points. However, Roches may or may not change to resemble a Debenhams, and it will be Roches Stores for a while longer in any case. And I also very well aware of where the Sony Centre is, why do you think I asked you where it would go in the *city centre*? It is out in the middle of nowhere, almost inaccessible by foot or public transport, due to the lack of units in the city centre. So don't try to be glib and split hairs. The thrust of my point is that the city centre needs retail units. Good plans should get through. I don't believe that McCann will let any plan through, good bad or indifferent. I would bet my house on the fact that he will object, and will continue to object to all major developments no matter what. He even says he will object to all buildings over 3 storeys: I think it would be criminal, and retrograde, to develop *less* than 3/4 storeys in the city centre.

And don't try to insult anyone on here by suggesting that they don't want development to be in harmony with the city. We may disagree with what 'in harmony' means, but nobody is in favour of wrecking the city. Maybe you should go back and read some of the older threads crazydude, and you will find that peoples support for development and opposition to McCann is not made lightly. McCann is extreme, and that is why ordinary people who love the city centre are getting upset about this.

mad man

crazydude wrote:

Just browsing this forum and came accross this.

I support the thrust of the letters.

Letter 1
http://www.waterford-news.com/news/story.asp?j=23240

That is a vested interest. D Purcell would gain financially by any relaxation of the planning laws. You should understand that it is ethical to declare that. Did he?

Are there members of the City centre business community in the Waterford Alliance for Sustainable yada yada yada? I believe there is, even if a small minority this is significant. Allegations of vested interest could be made here because they are trying to prevent competition to their own business therefore benefiting financially. In fact most of the people in the aforementioned alliance are in opposition because of “vested” interest even if it is as something like not wanting extra noise in your area.

But don’t let that stop you throwing mud. They do say if you throw enough it will stick.

crazydude wrote:

And that put paid to the allegation that development is put off by the "high" rate of objections here in the City.

No it doesn’t.There would be far less if BMC wasn’t doing this. It also means that people a largely happy with the job the council is doing if overall objections are low. The point is if there is a perception of by outside business that there is a lot of organized opposition to Big business starts then the may not come here. There is already at least one example of this happening already with the Marriot hotel. Not everyone has the energy to start their own small business. Most people depend on larges business for employment. Obviously not people like you, BMC and Michael Brennan who live in some Utopian neighborhood that doesn’t need an economy.

crazydude wrote:

It is high time we got our Public Representatives standing up for us in this City and not rubber-stamping poor developments.Good days work there Mr. Ryan

It is high time Mr Ryan represented the people who elected him. I’m talking about the people in Ward 3 and not the people in Ward 1 who are related to him and “co-incidently” are one of the more vocal members of Waterford Alliance for yadayadayada.
I believe you referred to this as “vested” interests. Maybe the next time Seamus Ryan decides to respond to someone he can do it without grossly misquoting them. Des Purcell recognized someone’s “absolute” right to engage in the planning process.

crazydude wrote:

Letter 2.
http://www.waterford-news.com/news/story.asp?j=23239

How can anybody disagree with this. The right to object to planning is a fundemtal right in this country and attacks on it (for self intrest purposes) should be strongly resisted.

The point is BMC is ABUSING our fundamental rights. It is not implausible that someone who for genuine reasons need to object to something for personal reasons like a phone mast near their land, being absolutely convinced it causes cancer. This person may now be reluctant to do so because of the publicity and ire BMC has created out of lodging objections.

crazydude wrote:

Letter 3.
http://www.waterford-news.com/news/story.asp?j=23238

I have yet to find someone who thinks these blocks add to the city. Go on surprise me!

They are populating a previously derelict and rundown part of the City centre in the Glen. Which has been derelict for years? They are of a density appropriate to a City centre and not the urban sprawl Waterford is accustomed to. There is already a plethora of Business opened up there. Large business represented by Aldi (I think they would be more familiar to you as “Greedy fat cats trying to get their hands on Viking Waterford”) and diverse small businesses. So far these have included Russian, Polish and indigenous Irish businesses. Perhaps the reason you can’t find anyone with something positive to say is because you’re mixing with people who think private apartment complexes of five/six floors are “high rise” flats.

crazydude wrote:

If you ask me Des Purcell has succeeded in getting McCann elected on the next election. He will get my vote this time.

Perhaps but then we all know that this is the real reason McCann is doing this for political gain. But we’ll see.

crazydude wrote:

Oh! And Mad-Man I'm writing my letter too.

Write away it is after all your “fundamental” right and expected after seeing last weeks hysterical rants. But let’s see if you can do it and tell the truth. Or without throwing around emotive statements like “fat cat, greedy developers, capitalist and P.D” However that might decimate your vocabulary, so if you can’t don’t worry about it.

All this makes me laugh. It is like the people who objected to the movement of the Luke Wadding statue. Where were they beforehand to raise his profile to celebrate him? The answer, NOWHERE. Then when there is a mood for change they come out of the woodwork.

Likewise I believe the heritage council recently organized a series of tours and events, practically a festival of Irelands Walled towns and cities. The omission of Waterford was sinful. There was towns and cities involved who have not one piece of there city walls LEFT. Where was BMC and his ilk when this neglect was going on. The answer again is NOWHERE.

This is my view proves that the plight of the city walls used by these people is in reality an attempt to justify NIMBYISM.

Maharet

I really don't understand the problem with Railway Square. It's really starting to look great now the hoarding is down. The tower there actually looks more prominent against the backdrop of Railway Square. And compared to how desolate and rundown it used to look there Railway Square is a huge improvement. Then again some people will never be happy, like McCann, I think it's a disgrace that he gave his approval of Railway Square and then objected anyway, talk about lack of honour. :rolleyes:

Bookee

mad man wrote:

you’re mixing with people who think private apartment complexes of five/six floors are “high rise” flats.
OTE]

mad man

Bookee wrote:

mad man wrote:

you’re mixing with people who think private apartment complexes of five/six floors are “high rise” flats.
OTE]

We better watch out.Some terrorists might try and fly a 737 into the TAX office:D

Bookee

Letter in W'Ford Today - www.waterford-today.ie/index.php?id=19541&what=4&issue=321

Who are these "people" ?
Calling Purcell arrogant, what about the clear arrogance of McCann't each time he's lodging an objection/"observation".... on behalf of the Waterford People :rolleyes:

merlante

Anyone pick up the News & Star today? Letters aren't on the site yet.

trishw78

I got the N&S today didn't get to the letters page yet. But I'm predicting another objection by McCann't. Farran Park Shopkeeper is ready to do battle. He seems to be making the same prediction. I don't understand why MaCann't is involved in Farren Park is the otherside of the city. Has he money invested in the Adkeen shopping complex or Tesco perhaps. I'm interested in seeing what happens out there

merlante

trishw78 wrote:

I got the N&S today didn't get to the letters page yet. But I'm predicting another objection by McCann't. Farran Park Shopkeeper is ready to do battle. He seems to be making the same prediction. I don't understand why MaCann't is involved in Farren Park is the otherside of the city. Has he money invested in the Adkeen shopping complex or Tesco perhaps. I'm interested in seeing what happens out there

There is no logic to it. He's been at this for years.

I think it's time for all the so-called 'vested interests' to start speaking up for themselves.

trishw78

Ok I've read 2 of the 5 letters.

Mark McLaughlin - I Agree

While letter 2 from Catherine Myler. This is exactly how I feel I particulary like her last paragraph

Waterford has a lot going for it but its struggling to hold its own againstDrogheda... Where once Waterford was among cities, it is now among towns. I say this not as an insult but as a wake up call.

It does have a hell of alot going for it, and it's not living up to it's full potential. I skimmed through the other 2 letters, only one of these appeared to be anti development and anti poor planning in general

merlante

Sounds a bit more evenly balanced this time. How many letters for and against?

Freddie59

merlante wrote:

Sounds a bit more evenly balanced this time. How many letters for and against?

Saw these briefly earlier. All against as far as I remember.:D

Freddie59

crazydude wrote:

Why

Perhaps, Crazy Dude, because the majority of Waterfordians (like me) find it extremely difficult to understand why a person originally from Galway seems to be compulsively objecting to a large amount of job-creating projects in Waterford, apart from those projects under way at his employers (WIT).

While he cites his 'civil right' to do so, he places objections solely in Waterford, even though the majority (such as the Farran Park retail outlet) would have little or no impact on either he or his family. According to the News & Star, Edmund Dick has stated that McCann has said he will object to whatever he proposes.

I find this staggering. How can you propose to object to something you have not seen? Gives an insight into this person's mentality. Maybe he has a power complex?

This man has to be stopped - he is stunting this City's growth potential - full stop. Have the Green Party no rein over him? Or do they care that little about our City?

Brendan McCann - if you're reading this take a good long look in the mirror and ask yourself: what the hell am I doing? What is in this for you, apart from the undermining of your fellow citizens and their children for generations to come?

Is your ongoing crusade really that important to you - just to prove some obscure point?

jmcc

trishw78 wrote:

I don't understand why MaCann't is involved in Farran Park is the otherside of the city

I think McCann lives in the back of Viewmount. That would put him only a few hundred metres away from Farren Park. He's certainly closer to it than D'Arcy (I think he lives off by the Tramore road somwhere.) The media campaign against McCann is having the opposite effect to that intended and is making people support McCann. While I don't think that one person or group should be allowed to hold up development of Waterford, I do think that Waterford should be developed properly.

Regards...jmcc

merlante

jmcc wrote:

I think McCann lives in the back of Viewmount. That would put him only a few hundred metres away from Farren Park. He's certainly closer to it than D'Arcy (I think he lives off by the Tramore road somwhere.) The media campaign against McCann is having the opposite effect to that intended and is making people support McCann. While I don't think that one person or group should be allowed to hold up development of Waterford, I do think that Waterford should be developed properly.

Who doesn't think that Waterford should be developed properly? Name one single person who has suggested that Waterford should be developed at any cost?

McCann is the only extreme. The only person who is applying a blanket 'yes' or a blanket 'no' to anything.

I don't think there is a co-ordinated campaign against McCann. You have a lot of very angry people reacting to him individually. While his supporters are highly organised and can give the impression that he is well supported. Look at the way they took over last weeks News & Star. Without any collaboration at all, the people have reacted by filling up this weeks paper with anti-McCann letters. The majority will eventually win through.

Bards

Jim D'arcy live in Grange Manor rights next to Farran Park.. I think that put's him close to the shop

Bards

Is there anywhere that one or two can meet up say some saturday morning/afternoon and organise a petition on the streets of Waterford and find out people's views on McCann... hey even Des Purcell might sponsor us:D

Something along the lines of "Citizen Action to defend our City from the Evading Galway Rebel"

or

"Defend our Planning system from abuse by serial obectors"... Sign up now

merlante

I think he is a fictional creation by the government to get young people interested in politics.

If the pilot goes well in Waterford, they'll probably bring him to (the national heart of apathy) Dublin.

crazydude

merlante wrote:

I think he is a fictional creation by the government to get young people interested in politics.

If the pilot goes well in Waterford, they'll probably bring him to (the national heart of apathy) Dublin.

I like it.

Sorry guys I know I have not replied to the points raised but I will hopefully tonight when I get more time.