Lissadell House to re-open tomorrow

magnumlady

For a limited time:

http://www.sligotoday.ie/details.php?id=5076

teddy_303

so the dublin solicitors were forced to open the place, as per the terms in agreeing the relatively cheap price they paid for it. maybe there is some justice in the world after all...

bigpaw-sligo

at least it free

blackiebest

teddy_303 wrote: »

so the dublin solicitors were forced to open the place, as per the terms in agreeing the relatively cheap price they paid for it. maybe there is some justice in the world after all...

Your interpretation of the story is staggering. I have no doubt but that following the court case you will feel there is no justice. Who exactly do you think "forced" the Cassidy family to reopen there home?

Thankfully Sligo's best cultural amenity is available to the tiny amount of tourists we have here this year and here and hopefully post court case the owners of the property will see fit to reactivate the original business plan and keep the property available to all year round. Congratulations to Mr. Perry TD and Clr J. McGarry for going against the grain and for opening reasoned discussions which brought this result.

Essexboy

The Revenue Commissioners deserve the credit for reopening Lissadell House.

"Under section 42 of the Finance Bill such properties can avail of tax relief for expenditure on repair and maintenance work but are required to open to the public for 60 days annually, including 40 days from May to September."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0716/1224250762919.html

blackiebest

Essexboy wrote: »

The Revenue Commissioners deserve the credit for reopening Lissadell House.

"Under section 42 of the Finance Bill such properties can avail of tax relief for expenditure on repair and maintenance work but are required to open to the public for 60 days annually, including 40 days from May to September."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0716/1224250762919.html

Possibly, however the suggestion the owners have been forced to re-open is misleading at best. The 'dublin solicitors' reference to them is immature, and while tax relief is an incentive for them to reopen I do not for one second believe they need relief to survive financially. Were the owners as thick and stubborn as many of their neighbours and local councilers Lissadell would still be closed. But hey, this is Sligo! Of course we have to make all good things sour

teddy_303

This being Sligo, is it. How about this for Sligo. Wealthy people, given a hugely discounted price against what was the current market value, in addition to massive subsidy payments at the expense of the taxpayer, grabs all around them, and then try to not honour the terms of the agreement which does not suit.

I'd say that's about as Sligo as you will get. Sounds like they have really settled in.

magnumlady

The council were offered Lissadell, they didn't want it.

teddy_303

The council could not afford it. The resources were not available at the time to purchase or to refurbish the property. That is barely anything to do with the financial incentives gladly received by the wealthy, courtesy of the tax payer, for the wealthy to renege on their commitments in the deal.

teddy_303

In addition to the above, a few years back, Saehan Media allegedly told the
IDA they needed a very expensive , €3.5 million I heard it was, piece of machinery to remain open. The Irish tax payer footed the bill on the understanding it would save to company. The machine in question was purchased and delivered to the site in Hazelwood. The box was opened, the machine checked, then resealed and cargo ed to their Korean plant immediately to be used for the first time and the Sligo factory shutdown discreetly over a short period of time. Its a pity the authorities in Ireland don't share information to use tax money more wisely, and not leave us open to exploitation. If we had instead of giving the Koreans a present of millions, when they were always going to pull out of the country leaving a hundred or so people unemployed, why not buy Lissadell house instead. That way makes more sense to me at least. The people who visit wouldn't have to curtsy the Lady of the manor, and the Koreans would not be laughing at us stupid "grateful for nothing" irish people. I'm not grateful. I don't know why anybody would be. It's typical Irish shortsightedness. Any other civilised country would have sacked, possibly prosecuted the "public servants" responsible for what goes on it Sligo.

dardevle

.the bottom line is nobody in the council had the foresight to see the potential in lissadell house back when it was sold as-lets face it "a going concern"....and certainly nobody that i can recall ever requested jocyln gore booth to open the estate to save the tourist season in Sligo! maybe because up until 6 years ago most people gave the place a wide berth and were not too bothered about rights of way since there was not alot going on with the place.....should the council or the government have stepped in and purchased the estate for the people of Ireland-absolutley!
but they would/did not, and i feel that those who did should be allowed to proceed with there plans to secure the future of the estate.



.

shellyriver

Hi Teddy

You are a new poster here -- you'll will quick ascertain that opinions are very split re the Lissadell 'rights of way' issue.

You do seem a little strident in your points -- and drawing an analogy between Saehen (which you seem to suggest they pulled a fast one over fawning bureaucrats) and the purchase of Lissadell (thereby their being some form of implicit parallel) seems a little unconvincing.

Similarly, what happened with its previous incarnation Snia is instructive -- it was obvious the Government of the day would do whatever necessary to try and inject a form of industrialisation in the North-West. But fair being fair, the farmers of Calry and North Leitrim who worked there but went missing whenever there was turf to be clamped or ewes to be dosed mustn't be forgotten -- so we're not bad at wanting to have our cake and eat it.

Anyways, like the Sligo Post 'advocate' I have a sneaking suspicion you may be masquardeing as new postie, with much of the same opinions that have been expressed earlier. I am sure readers are aware of the pheonomena of multi-identity posters. I could be wrong, but I am harbouring a doubt.

That said the arguments on both sides re Lissadell I'm sure haven't changed greatly since a similar thread was previously locked. And what I want to discover if account that there was a Mummified Cat lying on the records associated with Lissadell, in Sligo Co Council's archive facility, is true or not!

If so -- the said Tabby should be allowed to be displayed in the now reopening Lissadell House.:D

Essexboy

Following a protracted legal battle, the High Court has ruled that public rights of way do exist at the historic Lissadell estate in Sligo.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-rules-public-rights-of-way-exist-on-lissadell-estate-486371.html

mike65

I've not read the background but thats a crazy legal battle to have ended up fighting and losing. Why didn't the current owners seek to establish what rights exist and then test same before they bought it?

BoxingIrel.com

Well I have to say that that is a dissapointment.

It's my opinion that Sligo will lose many times more than a small minority will gain because of this.

Agh! just read the article and is says "only during daylight hours"

A happy medium I think.

Carry on!

John_Rambo

magnumlady wrote: »

The council were offered Lissadell, they didn't want it.

And they don't want anyone else to have it. I am not sure if the current owners are going to be accountable for car crashes, injuries etc on the roads.

It's a crying shame.

saywhatyousee

i feel sorry for the couple.if i shelled out that amount of money for a house i would not like strangers wandering around my garden when they please.
government had the chance to buy it the didnt so... they should be allowed do as they please

Buford T Justice

saywhatyousee wrote: »

i feel sorry for the couple.if i shelled out that amount of money for a house i would not like strangers wandering around my garden when they please.
government had the chance to buy it the didnt so... they should be allowed do as they please

Pffft. She's a barrister and she couldn't have looked into the possibility of the Right of Way before she bought the house? As If!

Serves them right, Thinking they could waltz into this town with their money and push everyone around as they saw fit.

A victory for the small people imo.

dardevle

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Pffft. She's a barrister and she couldn't have looked into the possibility of the Right of Way before she bought the house? As If!

Serves them right, Thinking they could waltz into this town with their money and push everyone around as they saw fit.

A victory for the smallminded people imo.

fyp

itac

John_Rambo wrote: »

I am not sure if the current owners are going to be accountable for car crashes, injuries etc on the roads.

It's a crying shame.

Naive and all as it may sound, I wish there was some way of saying to people if you do injure yourself on these rights of way, you can't claim unless it can proven that it's due to the owners neglect. The Walsh-Cassidy's shouldn't be responsible for two drivers that crash into each other, nor should they be responsible for someone injuring themselves by falling over/wandering off the path etc.

It was going to be a sad outcome either way-personally, I'm glad that I, and my family now and in future, will be able to spend time in Lissadell. I'm glad that locals don't have try and walk the country roads all the way round to the other entrance, dodging speeding cars on narrow bends.

However, I'm sad that the amazing work the Walsh-Cassidy's have done over the last few years may be in vain if they do pull out. I spent a wonderful drizzly morning during the summer taking the tour; the history geek in me loved wandering around the exhibition rooms, and then finished with lunch in the tea-rooms. I'd be disappointed not to have that opportunity again.

Don't really see any winners in this case tbh... : (

promethius

itac wrote: »

Don't really see any winners in this case tbh... : (

The only winners are the cassidy's legal representation.
Almost everyone else loses. The cassidy woman seems arrogant, locals might have been more flexible perhaps, didn't make for a great mix. Sligo will go on with or without the house regardless of their threats to close it to the public. Would of course be missed.

Pete M.

dardevle wrote: »

fyp

:rolleyes:

Essexboy

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Pffft. She's a barrister and she couldn't have looked into the possibility of the Right of Way before she bought the house? As If!

Serves them right, Thinking they could waltz into this town with their money and push everyone around as they saw fit.

A victory for the small people imo.

Anyone buying land in North Sligo needs to take care - they are dealing with people who smile into your face, then stab you in the back! :mad:

T runner

Essexboy wrote: »

Anyone buying land in North Sligo needs to take care - they are dealing with people who smile into your face, then stab you in the back! :mad:

I think thats a quite unfair and horrible generalisation. The law of the land must be upheld. That is not stabbing someone in the back. If you have a legal disagreement with someone it is not necessary to fall out with them.

That said if you should try and uphold what you believe to be right and legal. No favours to friends or locals. If you make exceptions for people because they are rich or are bringing money to the area then that is corrruption.

The owners clearly were aware of an issue with rights of way before buying. They must have known that the promise was made by someone who had previously been a ward of court. They must have had information that the council had been involved in the upkeep of that road and they would have known from teh go that it was been used as a right of way.

For barristers to attempt to pressure the council by publicly stating that all jobs there will be lost if this issue goes against them should raise eyebrows.

Weve had too much of that and similar types of interaction between politicians and rich people in this country. Either it is a right of way legally or it is not. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant: as it should be.

T runner

dardevle wrote: »

fyp

I disagree. The first action in this saga was the owners illegally blocking the right of way. The owners publicly campaigned to the effect that the council had imposed a right of way on their private road out of the blue. They claimed that this agressive act would caost Sligo many jobs. They deliberately were trying to use public opinion to pressure the council to backdown from its obligations to the people in the councils juristiction.

It didnt work, it went to court and the councils position was vindicated.

The court or council were not being small minded. People who think that the rules should be bent for some people in some situations are part of the past of this country and fit more into the small minded category than people who believe everyone should be equal under the Law in this Republic.

Buford T Justice

dardevle wrote: »

fyp

Wow, good work there. :rolleyes:

Essexboy wrote: »

Anyone buying land in North Sligo needs to take care - they are dealing with people who smile into your face, then stab you in the back! :mad:

Because thats specific to North Sligo only?

Pete M.

Essexboy wrote: »

Anyone buying land in North Sligo needs to take care - they are dealing with people who smile into your face, then stab you in the back! :mad:

:rolleyes:


Anyone buying land anywhere should be take care.

Essexboy

T runner wrote: »

I think thats a quite unfair and horrible generalisation. The law of the land must be upheld. That is not stabbing someone in the back. If you have a legal disagreement with someone it is not necessary to fall out with them.

That said if you should try and uphold what you believe to be right and legal. No favours to friends or locals. If you make exceptions for people because they are rich or are bringing money to the area then that is corrruption.

The owners clearly were aware of an issue with rights of way before buying. They must have known that the promise was made by someone who had previously been a ward of court. They must have had information that the council had been involved in the upkeep of that road and they would have known from teh go that it was been used as a right of way.

For barristers to attempt to pressure the council by publicly stating that all jobs there will be lost if this issue goes against them should raise eyebrows.

Weve had too much of that and similar types of interaction between politicians and rich people in this country. Either it is a right of way legally or it is not. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant: as it should be.

I am speaking from (bitter) personal experience and, No, I am not defending the Walshs!
A simple example of the North Sligo mindset. An American couple bought some land in Mullaghmore, came over unannounced to find the previous owner had entered the land and and was demolishing an old building so that he could sell the stone. He could not accept that he had done anything wrong.
Theft! Trespass! What were they?

T runner

Essexboy wrote: »

I am speaking from (bitter) personal experience and, No, I am not defending the Walshs!
A simple example of the North Sligo mindset. An American couple bought some land in Mullaghmore, came over unannounced to find the previous owner had entered the land and and was demolishing an old building so that he could sell the stone. He could not accept that he had done anything wrong.
Theft! Trespass! What were they?

Sorry but that is an example of one individual's alleged attitude and not representative of the whole "North Sligo" mindset. As stated previously the Lisadell case was decided by a court of Law. Nothing to do with North Sligo mindsets and thankfully nothing to do with corruption.

If the council had folded to the Walshes public campaign to equate the right oif way issue with the loss of jobs at Lisadell that would be de facto corruption.

You seem to have a beef with people from North Sligo but it has nothing to do with the Lisadell right of way case.

HollyB

John_Rambo wrote: »

And they don't want anyone else to have it. I am not sure if the current owners are going to be accountable for car crashes, injuries etc on the roads.

I hope that's not the case. I think that, in a case like this, where people are visiting private property without the consent of the owners, they should do so entirely at their own risk, and the owners should not be in any way obliged to maintain roads, paths, etc, for the benefit of those availing of public rights of way.

tedshredsonfire

If you are allowed on the land then legally you are an invitee and have certain rights and should be protected. Its why farmers had to put up all those signs you are on a farm etc. If you are a trespasser you don't have the same rights as an invitee and would have a far stronger case for suing. land legalites are a laugh a minute unless you are caught up in one.
there was a fameous case of some kids vrs esb back in the 70s/80s that was a nuts ruling and one of the kids was killed afaik worth a look up but cant recall the name of the family