News and views on Greystones harbour and marina [SEE MODERATOR WARNING POST 1187]

The Durutti Column

recedite wrote: »

It could work if the swim is conducted in the harbour, but probably won't work if the swim is at a different location. People like a quick outdoor spectacle and a bit of craic in the morning, before the big dinner.

The Xmas swim is usually from the South Beach. So a harbour party with ice cream and music would have to be separate. I do like John's suggestion of hot whiskies in the Beach House. Not so sure about Joe's coffee...

pixbyjohn

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Have a New Year's morning swim and then coffee in Sweeneys or a hot whiskey in the Beach House

This would not interfere with Christmas day annual swim.

Fiachra2

Heres another comment on the opening.

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/cllr-mitchell-warmly-welcomes-the-opening-of-greystones-harbour/

The sign in the picture is interesting. Apparently you must make an appointment with the (apparently non-existent) harbourmaster in order to swim. Now I wonder what I should do if I capsise my boat in the harbour...? As a law abiding citizen to whom should I report my transgression?;)

Cookie_Monster

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Heres another comment on the opening.

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/cllr-mitchell-warmly-welcomes-the-opening-of-greystones-harbour/

The sign in the picture is interesting. Apparently you must make an appointment with the (apparently non-existent) harbourmaster in order to swim. Now I wonder what I should do if I capsise my boat in the harbour...? As a law abiding citizen to whom should I report my transgression?;)

fair enough if it was a commercial port, but I doubt we'll be seeing any 20,000 container ships in there any time soon, pity crazy tbh.

So you can sail, kayak etc but aren't allowed fall out, or maybe you can but just have to float there awaiting a knight in a shining zodiac :pac:

pixbyjohn

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Heres another comment on the opening.

Now I wonder what I should do if I capsise my boat in the harbour...? As a law abiding citizen to whom should I report my transgression?;)

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So you can sail, kayak etc but aren't allowed fall out, or maybe you can but just have to float there awaiting a knight in a shining zodiac :pac:

Common sense should be used in the above scenarios

darter

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Common sense should be used in the above scenarios

Not been evident so far in this whole harbour debacle, esp. from WCC and Sispar, why do you expect it now?

Blandpebbles

1 week open and already dogs**t heaven on the pier. I mean seriously, are people incapable of cleaning up?

A multi million euro litter tray...

Blanchflower

Blandpebbles wrote: »

1 week open and already dogs**t heaven on the pier. I mean seriously, are people incapable of cleaning up?

A multi million euro litter tray...

[FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]here are many compelling reasons why dog poop must be scooped and removed: [/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]It is estimated that a single gram of dog waste can contain 23 million fecal coliform bacteria;[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]It pollutes our groundwater and is potentially harmful to our ecosystem;[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]It attracts disease-carrying pests and flies. Rats feed on dog feces. Enough said! And, of course, flies are not only a nuisance but can transmit diseases also;[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]It could endanger the health of your family, particularly young children;[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]Diseases and parasites can easily be transmitted to other pets through feces;[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]Odor is another huge reason for clearing dog poop. Not only is the smell offensive to you, it could also present a problem with your neighbors if left for any amount of time;[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]It should NEVER be used as garden compost as both dog and cat waste can carry many parasites, even in "healthy" pets;[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]It isn't good fertilizer for your lawn. Unlike cow manure, pet waste is protein based which makes it toxic to your grass (large, brown bare patches?). [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]Roundworms are the most common type of parasite found in pets. They are almost always found in puppies that have yet to be vaccinated and often have the unpleasant habit of eating other dogs' poop. However, even adult dogs and cats can get roundworm and should be de-wormed regularly. If your pet's poop looks like spaghetti, he more than likely has roundworm. Other symptoms include vomiting and diarrhea. Roundworm can also infect humans.[/FONT]


[SIZE=+0]Tapeworms are transmitted to dogs and cats in a couple of different ways depending on the type of tapeworm. One variety of tapeworm is transmitted by fleas (fleas think tapeworm eggs are real tasty!), while another is spread by pets eating wildlife or rodents infested with tapeworms or fleas. [/SIZE]It is important that your dog or cat be treated promptly if you discover these in his poop. Tapeworms can also be transmitted to humans through direct contact with your pet and are extremely hazardous.

Hookworms are blood suckers and are easily transmitted through the pads of a dog's feet and the skin on his belly by being picked up from infected soil. Hookworm is one of the classical internal parasites infecting puppies and can even be transmitted to pups still in the womb.



Coccidia are one-celled parasites that multiply in the intestinal tracts of dogs and cats and are spread through fecal matter. The primary sign of an animal suffering with coccidiosis is diarrhea which can be mild to severe depending on the level of infection. Blood and mucus may be present, especially in advanced cases. Severely affected animals may also vomit, lose their appetite, become dehydrated, and in some instances, die from the disease.

[FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]Giardia is another one-celled parasite that lives in soil, food and water. It may also be on surfaces that have been contaminated with waste. It can cause diarrhea but usually the infected animal will not lose its appetite, but they may lose weight. The feces is often abnormal, pale in color, has a bad odor, and appears greasy. Small children can be at risk as they have a tendency to place objects in their mouth that may have come in contact with contaminated soil, surfaces or water.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]Parvovirus is a killer for most dogs and is transmitted from dog to dog through physical contact and contact with feces. This virus is very hardy and can live in the environment and remain contagious for up to 12 months. It is typically more severe in puppies. The symptoms include extreme lethargy, very pale gums, vomiting, fever and diarrhea.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Sans-serif]Heartworms although not transmitted through fecescan be deadly. They are transmitted through mosquitoes and if left untreated can kill your dog. Some of the symptoms are coughing, weight loss, fainting and labored breathing. The parasites make their way to your dog's heart and thrive until heart functions are totally blocked, leading to heart failure and death.[/FONT]

http://www.calltodoody.com/scoop_the_poop.html

dudmis

and its a pain in the backside to clean off buggy wheels and runners!

Blandpebbles

Blanchflower wrote: »

http://www.calltodoody.com/scoop_the_poop.html

Jeez you are full of s**t facts

LEIN

Back on topic now please.

Blanchflower

Stephen Donnelly and Simon Harris have both written to NAMA asking them to fund the Sispar to build a Primary Care Centre, various clubhouses and a public square on the Greystrones harbour development.

http://www.stephendonnelly.ie/news/my-letter-to-nama-greystones-harbour/

In the light of the drastic cuts to capital expenditure announced yesterday it would seem that these calls may end on the deaf ears of NAMA. :eek:

It would be very difficult to justify spending public money on this when so many other very compelling projects have been effectively scrapped by the Government.

It's about time Sisks and Park Development honoured their contractual committment and stopped using NAMA as an excuse for their inaction.

The Durutti Column

Blanchflower wrote: »

Stephen Donnelly and Simon Harris have both written to NAMA asking them to fund the Sispar to build a Primary Care Centre, various clubhouses and a public square on the Greystrones harbour development.

http://www.stephendonnelly.ie/news/my-letter-to-nama-greystones-harbour/

In the light of the drastic cuts to capital expenditure announced yesterday it would seem that these calls may end on the deaf ears of NAMA. :eek:

It would be very difficult to justify spending public money on this when so many other very compelling projects have been effectively scrapped by the Government.

It's about time Sisks and Park Development honoured their contractual committment and stopped using NAMA as an excuse for their inaction.

Dead right, Blanch. The purpose of NAMA as set up is to RECOVER as much debt as possible or PAY IT DOWN ASAP to benefit the public finances. It is NOT to rescue developers and their failed projects.

The clubhouses and public square were part of the cost to Sispar of this project and would contribute nothing to their revenue stream. For Donnelly and Harris to ask NAMA to fund these is asking NAMA to throw public money into a black hole contrary to its public interest obligations.

Why are they asking NAMA to throw taxpayers' money away? It's the same old pork barrel politics — if NAMA does it, they claim the 'credit'. But there's no difference between what they are up to and Michael Lowry's casino politics.

Didn't take long for the bright new shiny young pols to show up in the same coat as the faded dull shabby old pols, did it?

As for contractual obligations: WCC officials have totally failed to hold Sispar to its obligations, instead facilitating every departure from contract and protecting the developer from the consequences of not delivering. This is one of the problems of PPPs — the co-developer is also the employer of the contractor, and there is no independent supervision to ensure the public interest is upheld.

This development should be totally finished by now, according to the original schedule and plan. It is two years behind. To put that another way, Sispar has achieved only 50% of plan. No commercial employer would accept that from a contractor, and you can be sure there are 'nuclear option' clauses in the contract with Sispar which could be invoked in the light of such failure.

Yet WCC has not said 'boo' to Sispar. That, now, begins to look like dereliction of duty and sheer negligence by the council officials in Wicklow.

We'll be lucky if it's finished by 2050!

Alan_P

The Durutti Column wrote: »

Dead right, Blanch. The purpose of NAMA as set up is to RECOVER as much debt as possible or PAY IT DOWN ASAP to benefit the public finances. It is NOT to rescue developers and their failed projects.

The clubhouses and public square were part of the cost to Sispar of this project and would contribute nothing to their revenue stream. For Donnelly and Harris to ask NAMA to fund these is asking NAMA to throw public money into a black hole contrary to its public interest obligations.

Why are they asking NAMA to throw taxpayers' money away? It's the same old pork barrel politics — if NAMA does it, they claim the 'credit'. But there's no difference between what they are up to and Michael Lowry's casino politics.

Didn't take long for the bright new shiny young pols to show up in the same coat as the faded dull shabby old pols, did it?

As for contractual obligations: WCC officials have totally failed to hold Sispar to its obligations, instead facilitating every departure from contract and protecting the developer from the consequences of not delivering. This is one of the problems of PPPs — the co-developer is also the employer of the contractor, and there is no independent supervision to ensure the public interest is upheld.

This development should be totally finished by now, according to the original schedule and plan. It is two years behind. To put that another way, Sispar has achieved only 50% of plan. No commercial employer would accept that from a contractor, and you can be sure there are 'nuclear option' clauses in the contract with Sispar which could be invoked in the light of such failure.

Yet WCC has not said 'boo' to Sispar. That, now, begins to look like dereliction of duty and sheer negligence by the council officials in Wicklow.

We'll be lucky if it's finished by 2050!

On the point of accountability :- I've asked just about every local politician about what the contract says in the event of Sisk failure to complete. I've got numerous, contradictory answers :- the most consistently repeated claims were that :-

1. There's a bond in place of either 10 or 20 million euro that Sisk surrender if they fail to complete the project.

2. Sisk have until 2014 to complete :- there's absolutely no question of the bond being surrendered till then.

The Durutti Column

Alan_P wrote: »

On the point of accountability :- I've asked just about every local politician about what the contract says in the event of Sisk failure to complete. I've got numerous, contradictory answers :- the most consistently repeated claims were that :-

1. There's a bond in place of either 10 or 20 million euro that Sisk surrender if they fail to complete the project.

2. Sisk have until 2014 to complete :- there's absolutely no question of the bond being surrendered till then.

This illustrates the total lack of accountability and transparency about the harbour project.

There is a bond. Whether it's €10m or €20m depends on whether Phase 1 is accepted as complete; as there is no marina or facilities for such, it is not complete, so the bond is still €20m.

The project has taken twice as long to get to this point as was scheduled. If WCC was simply the employer of the contractors, Sispar, then we are entitled to believe that WCC would have pulled the trigger on the delivery clauses in the contract by now — no commercial contract can run 100% over time without consequence. They would have called in the bond and spent the €20m on completion of the clubhouses, public plaza, and marina and have had change left over. And we would now have a proper working harbour and amenity instead of the prison camp environment combined with dump that Sispar have got away with.

But because WCC is basically in bed with Sispar as co-developer it has shielded Sispar from these consequences, and has abandoned its duties to the public interest (if it ever took them into account which, given some other WCC idiocies, is very doubtful).

The assertion that Sispar have until 2014 to complete is dubious.

What seems most likely is that Sispar could get at most an extension to 2012, just next year, because of market decline. Which means that, at the outside, WCC can pull the trigger on Sispar in about six months time. It's up to the local pols to start burrowing and find out what is in that contract, because it is perfectly plain that Sispar is in gross breach of contract at this stage, and has little hope of ever delivering. Its latest accounts show that Sispar is barely a going concern.

Alan_P

The Durutti Column wrote: »

The assertion that Sispar have until 2014 to complete is dubious.

What seems most likely is that Sispar could get at most an extension to 2012, just next year, because of market decline. Which means that, at the outside, WCC can pull the trigger on Sispar in about six months time. It's up to the local pols to start burrowing and find out what is in that contract, because it is perfectly plain that Sispar is in gross breach of contract at this stage, and has little hope of ever delivering. Its latest accounts show that Sispar is barely a going concern.

To be clear, I have no particular knowledge whether the 2014 date is real. My previous post was just to give a sense of what I've heard from local politicians.

pixbyjohn

Greystones Harbour 13/11/2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr


Greystones Harbour 13/11/2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr
Lots of dogs on leads too and no dog pooh

pixbyjohn

Greystones Harbour 13/11/2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr


Greystones Harbour 13/11/2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

pixbyjohn

Greystones Harbour 13/11/2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

loyatemu

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Greystones Harbour 13/11/2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

some fencing company has made a fortune out of this harbour.

Cookie_Monster

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Greystones Harbour 13/11/2011 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

what's the need for fencing there? Presumably the bottom section is open as that looks like where you took the pic from

pixbyjohn

Cookie Monster, The area you see in the photo is fenced off. That is the area which will be the boat yard and where the crane will be located. I actually took that photo from the Cliff road near the anchor.

Fiachra2

pixbyjohn wrote: »

That is the area which will be the boat yard and where the crane will be located. .

And there lies a major bone of contention. The chances of locating either a boat yard or crane there are virtually nil as it will be exposed to wave overtopping during storms. Wicklow County council dispute this but from a position of severly deficient knowledge. By way of compromise GUBOH have argued that the area should be left open to the community until such time (if ever) as somone is prepared to build the boatyard. To date the council have not accceeded to this request.

youknowwho

The Durutti Column wrote: »

This illustrates the total lack of accountability and transparency about the harbour project.

There is a bond. Whether it's €10m or €20m depends on whether Phase 1 is accepted as complete; as there is no marina or facilities for such, it is not complete, so the bond is still €20m.

The project has taken twice as long to get to this point as was scheduled. If WCC was simply the employer of the contractors, Sispar, then we are entitled to believe that WCC would have pulled the trigger on the delivery clauses in the contract by now — no commercial contract can run 100% over time without consequence. They would have called in the bond and spent the €20m on completion of the clubhouses, public plaza, and marina and have had change left over. And we would now have a proper working harbour and amenity instead of the prison camp environment combined with dump that Sispar have got away with.

But because WCC is basically in bed with Sispar as co-developer it has shielded Sispar from these consequences, and has abandoned its duties to the public interest (if it ever took them into account which, given some other WCC idiocies, is very doubtful).

The assertion that Sispar have until 2014 to complete is dubious.

What seems most likely is that Sispar could get at most an extension to 2012, just next year, because of market decline. Which means that, at the outside, WCC can pull the trigger on Sispar in about six months time. It's up to the local pols to start burrowing and find out what is in that contract, because it is perfectly plain that Sispar is in gross breach of contract at this stage, and has little hope of ever delivering. Its latest accounts show that Sispar is barely a going concern.

I asked the question before of GUOHB as to whether anyone got a copy of the contract documents and got no reply. I thought this would have been a sensible place to start rather than speculating.

Under the Freedom of Information Act anyone can request them for a token jesture of €15. I have a mind to ask for them myself, I don't see any reason why they would be refused as the Act spells out the grounds for WCC (in this case) to withhold the documents.

The Durutti Column

youknowwho wrote: »

I asked the question before of GUOHB as to whether anyone got a copy of the contract documents and got no reply. I thought this would have been a sensible place to start rather than speculating.

Under the Freedom of Information Act anyone can request them for a token jesture of €15. I have a mind to ask for them myself, I don't see any reason why they would be refused as the Act spells out the grounds for WCC (in this case) to withhold the documents.

No, nobody obtained them. This is a good idea, but you can be sure that WCC would invoke 'commercial confidentiality' to deny the request. But Co Cllr Derek Mitchell signed the contract as chairman of WCC at the time. he should be seeking discovery. Our mayor is, as far as I know.

If you try it, youknowwho, be sure to ask for just THE CONTRACT. The 'contract documents' would fill a room and keep you busy for months.

As for speculation, well, there is speculation and there is knowledge based on expertise in this area. I believe GUBOH has established that there are non-delivery clauses in the contract, but that there is also a 'market decline' clause allowing a two-year extension if the property market falls for more than 12 months and by more than a set percentage. No doubt this has been invoked by Sispar. Pity WCC would not invoke the non-delivery clauses...

Blanchflower

The Durutti Column wrote: »

No, nobody obtained them. This is a good idea, but you can be sure that WCC would invoke 'commercial confidentiality' to deny the request. But Co Cllr Derek Mitchell signed the contract as chairman of WCC at the time. he should be seeking discovery. Our mayor is, as far as I know.

If you try it, youknowwho, be sure to ask for just THE CONTRACT. The 'contract documents' would fill a room and keep you busy for months.

As for speculation, well, there is speculation and there is knowledge based on expertise in this area. I believe GUBOH has established that there are non-delivery clauses in the contract, but that there is also a 'market decline' clause allowing a two-year extension if the property market falls for more than 12 months and by more than a set percentage. No doubt this has been invoked by Sispar. Pity WCC would not invoke the non-delivery clauses...

Under the PPP contract Sispar is responsible for making sure it has the necessary financing in place in order to complete the contract. The line of credit to finance the project it had with AIB is gone. It is now seeking scarce resources from NAMA to fund the building of the Primary Care Centre and various clubhouses on the harbour. Sispar as a stand alone entity now has no funding in place.

Last week the Dargle Flood Protection Scheme was omitted from Governments's Infrastructues and CapitalInvestment Programme.
http://www.davidgrant.ie/news/general-news/news.aspx?p=102316

What is more important people - building a Primary Care Centre and some clubhouses on Greystones Harbour or protecting the residents of Bray from flooding?

Cookie_Monster

Blanchflower wrote: »

What is more important people - building a Primary Care Centre and some clubhouses on Greystones Harbour or protecting the residents of Bray from flooding?

I dunno, Bray could do with a good wash

Fiachra2

Good one!

loyatemu

Fiachra2 wrote: »

And there lies a major bone of contention. The chances of locating either a boat yard or crane there are virtually nil as it will be exposed to wave overtopping during storms. Wicklow County council dispute this but from a position of severly deficient knowledge.

I was down there last week when there was a serious easterly blowing, waves were crashing very high over the rocks at the cove, but nothing was going over the harbour wall, the slope on the seaward side seemed to be doing its job.

Fiachra2

That wasn't a serious Easterly! The conditions that will lead to wave overtopping have hardly happened at all in the last four years. However If you check the GUBOH facebook page gallery you will see a picture of what I mean.
You will also see it in a slideshow on Derek Mitchells website.

The developers themselves have acknowlegded that these conditions will occur. They have suggested that buildings in the vicinity of the walls will need to have a special bunker-like construction. However this is not enough. As many unfortunate homeowners around the country will tell you. A developers assesment of flood risk is often not adequate and when you have been flooded once insurance is problematic at best.
Put youself in the boat yard owners shoes. Would you locate out there if there was any risk of inundation by waves?