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

pixbyjohn

Jimjay wrote: »

So i anyone going to be heald accountable for lying to the community for the last two years about the funding? Which has delayed anyone forcing the landscaping.

NO

Maudi

... there has been so many lies told by so many liars about this vital center..and i for one gave all of the liars the benifit of the doubt each time..yet i cant recall any of the names that promised it was getting underway..anybody care to jog my memory..

Cheeky Chops

Maudi wrote: »

... there has been so many lies told by so many liars about this vital center..and i for one gave all of the liars the benifit of the doubt each time..yet i cant recall any of the names that promised it was getting underway..anybody care to jog my memory..

It was the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. :P

Maudi

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

It was the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. :P

Jokin aside all the above delivered...

Taltos

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

It was the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. :P

Maudi wrote: »

Jokin aside all the above delivered...

Really?
Easter Bunny got diabetes, no more hopping since losing his left leg.
Santa got stuck in the chimney after one too many mince pies.
And the Tooth Fairy - did nobody here see that horror film a few years ago???

Moral of the story is, while everyone loves a fairy tale, no-one enjoys living in it. Ah who knows maybe the Fairy Godmother will wave her wand over the wasteland and turn it into something beautiful where the officials responsible for this mess show us the real use of stocks...

Cookie_Monster

Why do WCC still insist on not using the €10m bond they are supposed to have to finally finish all of it?

fenris

Try comparing the boats in the marina with the for sale section on the bj marine site, then the number of visiting boats drops and the "thriving" description begins to look a little overblown.

I think that it is particularly amazing that the bond has not been invoked, given the usual appetite for any available funds to be channeled into pet projects complete with plaque to remind us of how lucky we are too have such fantastic representatives. You would expect that they would be queuing up to access the bond.

So who is holding the strings or is it simpley a case of waiting until the next election is close enough so that promises can be made without enough time to see if they are followed through on?

pixbyjohn

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Why are the citizens of Greystones not pushing the powers that be on the long outstanding issues of the problems of the Harbour and North Beach areas?
Reading through the threads on Boards.ie there are a small minority of residents unhappy and continue to post about the lack of progress etc. but it appears that the majority of residents do not wish to become involved with the civic authorities on these issues. In other parts of the country I have read about mass meetings and protests etc. when locals are unhappy about something like this but in my opinion Greystones appears to be very complacent in this regard. The constant complaining on Boards.ie over the past number of years by a few has not changed anything.

Is it time for the people of Greystones to put up? Where are the "pressure groups" now?

Annasopra

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Is it time for the people of Greystones to put up? Where are the "pressure groups" now?

wasn't there talk of GUBOH running a candidate in 2014 for the local elections?

Blanchflower

I totally agree that a health centre plonked on Greystones Harbour would have been totally inappropriate. Now is the time for Wicklow County Council to determine their contract with Sispar (Sisks) due to their non performance and to call on the €10 million performance bond forthwith.

It would now seem that John Sisks and Son, a once proud company with a 150 year history spanning over three centuries, is yet another modern day victim of faerie wraith for destroying the faerie forts in Darcy's Field. They have had nothing but bad luck since and besides the Greystones Harbour fiasco they have also lost €100 million in an ill-fated road building contract in Poland. It seems that they are now are so cash strapped that they cannot even afford the cost of some basic landscaping of the harbour area. The sooner this apparently zombie company is taken out of the picture the better for all of us in Greystones.

Maudi

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Is it time for the people of Greystones to put up? Where are the "pressure groups" now?

Pushing the powers that be?or should we "punishing"the powers that be.

youknowwho

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why do WCC still insist on not using the €10m bond they are supposed to have to finally finish all of it?

You can only call on the bond if the contractor breaches the contract, and even then there maybe certain conditions. As WCC have extended the time for completion and seem to have agreed to all the contractor's request to amend the contract I seriously doubt that the contractor is in breach.

Blanchflower

youknowwho wrote: »

You can only call on the bond if the contractor breaches the contract, and even then there maybe certain conditions. As WCC have extended the time for completion and seem to have agreed to all the contractor's request to amend the contract I seriously doubt that the contractor is in breach.

Sispar is clearly in breach of the PPP contract. So the BIG question is WHO in Wicklow County Council authorised an extension to the contract to Sispar? Did that individual (or individuals) have the authority to grant such an extension and what was their motivation? As is worryingly common with Wicklow County Council secret clandestine decisions are made without any recourse whatsoever to our elected councillors.

legrand

Indeed.

The release of the Bond is key to resolving the mess that is down there. I would wager that a portion of that bond could be used to resolved the mess (vis cleaning up/greening the site etc). The rest of the 10M could still be retained for 'other' works later.

I don't have the language nor articulate enough - but a finely scribed letter to the national papers that would force a response from Wicklow CoCo might be a start..

youknowwho

If I recall correctly there was an payment of a few million euros to WCC at the commencement of the project and Greystones didn't see the benefit of any of that. In fact it was only after the event that the general population discovered the existance of the payment.

What makes you think that WCC will spend any funds they receive on the Greystones area. This thread has repeatedly questioned the competance of WCC and in particular the manager. Do you really want to let them spend up to€10m as they want?

On the bond issue - just because there is a bond up to €10m in place doesn't mean you just walk up and ask the bondsman for the full sum. Bonds like all financial documents have terms and conditions. I suspect that they include; a breach being committed, notice to the Contractor that it's in breach and giving it an opportunity to remedy the breach, notice to the bondsman before the expiry of the bond and supporting documentation to vouching the loss - you don't get money for nothing, just to remedy the loss.

That begs another question what is the loss - this isn't a mechanism that calls for sentmentality it has to be a quantifiable loss based on the rights of the parties under the Contract.

Two other points of note, sometimes the bondsman instead of paying out can step-in and complete the work but in this case I'm sure that nobody wants the original scope completed. He will not be responsible for the completion of a different scheme unless it comes about under the existing Contract. Saying that I would prefer any bondsman to complete the work rather than WCC.

Finally, bondsmen will be released from their obligations if the underlying contracts are varied. With construction contracts the bonds include indulgence clauses which allow variations and extensions of time without voiding the bond - but within reason. A five year plus extension is not in my opinion reasonable or within the contemplation of the parties when they made the agreement. The reason being that the risk that the bondsman originally took on has been adversly changed by such a long extension and given the financial downturn. In those circumstances the Bondsman will be released from his obligations

You can get the bondsman to agree to particular variations but if that wasn't done here the Bondsman would have a good case for resisting any call.

Maudi

youknowwho wrote: »

If I recall correctly there was an payment of a few million euros to WCC at the commencement of the project and Greystones didn't see the benefit of any of that. In fact it was only after the event that the general population discovered the existance of the payment.

What makes you think that WCC will spend any funds they receive on the Greystones area. This thread has repeatedly questioned the competance of WCC and in particular the manager. Do you really want to let them spend up to€10m as they want?

On the bond issue - just because there is a bond up to €10m in place doesn't mean you just walk up and ask the bondsman for the full sum. Bonds like all financial documents have terms and conditions. I suspect that they include; a breach being committed, notice to the Contractor that it's in breach and giving it an opportunity to remedy the breach, notice to the bondsman before the expiry of the bond and supporting documentation to vouching the loss - you don't get money for nothing, just to remedy the loss.

That begs another question what is the loss - this isn't a mechanism that calls for sentmentality it has to be a quantifiable loss based on the rights of the parties under the Contract.

Two other points of note, sometimes the bondsman instead of paying out can step-in and complete the work but in this case I'm sure that nobody wants the original scope completed. He will not be responsible for the completion of a different scheme unless it comes about under the existing Contract. Saying that I would prefer any bondsman to complete the work rather than WCC.

Finally, bondsmen will be released from their obligations if the underlying contracts are varied. With construction contracts the bonds include indulgence clauses which allow variations and extensions of time without voiding the bond - but within reason. A five year plus extension is not in my opinion reasonable or within the contemplation of the parties when they made the agreement. The reason being that the risk that the bondsman originally took on has been adversly changed by such a long extension and given the financial downturn. In those circumstances the Bondsman will be released from his obligations

You can get the bondsman to agree to particular variations but if that wasn't done here the Bondsman would have a good case for resisting any call.

Id love to know who got the "few million"

Maudi

youknowwho wrote: »

If I recall correctly there was an payment of a few million euros to WCC at the commencement of the project and Greystones didn't see the benefit of any of that. In fact it was only after the event that the general population discovered the existance of the payment.

What makes you think that WCC will spend any funds they receive on the Greystones area. This thread has repeatedly questioned the competance of WCC and in particular the manager. Do you really want to let them spend up to€10m as they want?

On the bond issue - just because there is a bond up to €10m in place doesn't mean you just walk up and ask the bondsman for the full sum. Bonds like all financial documents have terms and conditions. I suspect that they include; a breach being committed, notice to the Contractor that it's in breach and giving it an opportunity to remedy the breach, notice to the bondsman before the expiry of the bond and supporting documentation to vouching the loss - you don't get money for nothing, just to remedy the loss.

That begs another question what is the loss - this isn't a mechanism that calls for sentmentality it has to be a quantifiable loss based on the rights of the parties under the Contract.

Two other points of note, sometimes the bondsman instead of paying out can step-in and complete the work but in this case I'm sure that nobody wants the original scope completed. He will not be responsible for the completion of a different scheme unless it comes about under the existing Contract. Saying that I would prefer any bondsman to complete the work rather than WCC.

Finally, bondsmen will be released from their obligations if the underlying contracts are varied. With construction contracts the bonds include indulgence clauses which allow variations and extensions of time without voiding the bond - but within reason. A five year plus extension is not in my opinion reasonable or within the contemplation of the parties when they made the agreement. The reason being that the risk that the bondsman originally took on has been adversly changed by such a long extension and given the financial downturn. In those circumstances the Bondsman will be released from his obligations

You can get the bondsman to agree to particular variations but if that wasn't done here the Bondsman would have a good case for resisting any call.

Id love to know who got the "few million"

Fiachra2

Next Wednesday 17 July at 7.30 in Charlesland GC there is a public workshop on the future of Greystones. It is part of an initiative sponsored by Stephen Donnelly TD to try and make the most of the town's natural resources.

The harbour is central to this and Stephen himself has expressed the view that there is an urgent need to clean up the mess between the marina and the town.

This is a great opportunity to go down and express your views on this issue. Because it is not a Wicklow County Council event, there is a real possibility that your views will actually be listened to.

I would urge everyone who can to go down even for a while and make their opinions known.

Tabnabs

What's the feeling in the town now that the harbour and marina is up and running? A success and a positive addition or an unwelcome hindrance?

Charlie-Bravo

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Next Wednesday 17 July at 7.30 in Charlesland GC there is a public workshop on the future of Greystones. It is part of an initiative sponsored by Stephen Donnelly TD to try and make the most of the town's natural resources.

The harbour is central to this and Stephen himself has expressed the view that there is an urgent need to clean up the mess between the marina and the town.

This is a great opportunity to go down and express your views on this issue. Because it is not a Wicklow County Council event, there is a real possibility that your views will actually be listened to.

I would urge everyone who can to go down even for a while and make their opinions known.

Without going off topic too much, the workshop is primarily about Greystones as a whole, not just the harbour and marina. It is a public workshop so all are welcome - there is huge interest in this so booking is advised. I will agree the harbour and marina are key to Greystones in terms of tourism and recreational activity, this will be discussed. Do go to the workshop and give ideas. Greystones is 'branding' itself, and all businesses in the town are backing this. It is only good for us.

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/greystones-strategy-steering-committee-invites-you-to-a-public-workshop/

pixbyjohn

Tabnabs wrote: »

What's the feeling in the town now that the harbour and marina is up and running? A success and a positive addition or an unwelcome hindrance?

This forum won't give you a real answer to your question as there are a very small amount of residents of the area using Boards.ie

legrand

pixbyjohn wrote: »

This forum won't give you a real answer to your question as there are a very small amount of residents of the area using Boards.ie

True. But I have yet to meet anyone (excluding Wicklow CoCo / Councilors) who has anything positive to say about the Harbour and environs.

Fiachra2

As one might expect the feeling towards the marina is positive. People welcome the marine activity. However:

• Concern has been voiced over the fact that it is hidden away from public view
• Some of those who have the confidence to walk down there have noted that when you are at the marina the derelict site looks awful

No forum will give a definitive answer. That could only be established by plebiscite. But combined with chatting to people around the harbour, pubs, clubs etc you get some sense.

NB I hope all those kids swimming in the harbour yesterday adhered to the signs and sought permission before doing so!

Fiachra2

Finally we seem to be getting consensus from all public representatives that we need action soon.


http://www.greystonesguide.ie/mitchell-wants-progress-on-harbour-site/

The Durutti Column

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Finally we seem to be getting consensus from all public representatives that we need action soon.


http://www.greystonesguide.ie/mitchell-wants-progress-on-harbour-site/

Amazing!! Pollyanna is finally stirring from his sleep! The Kraken wakes! Sisk's must be shaking in their Louis Feraud boots!

Seriously, F2. Pollyanna will saddle up if they don't get it on by 31 December 2013. in what way is this "soon"? And this is only one town councillor. We still have to hear anything like this from the outgoing mayor or from Hayden's replacement who is so far below the radar I don't even have a name.

The town council is as much use as tits on a bull. This isn't progress. Pollyanna is a dead weight and having him on 'our' side is a disadvantage.

Maudi

When you walk through the "hoardings"from the new motor home carpark opposite the beach house to the "marina"its a bit of an anti climax..one is funnelled down a fenced corridor to some porta cabins from there you can look through more fence at some boats..on top of that the surrounding reclaimed land is offensive to the eye.

Cerco

The Durutti Column wrote: »

And this is only one town councillor. We still have to hear anything like this from the outgoing mayor or from Hayden's replacement who is so far below the radar I don't even have a name.

The town council is as much use as tits on a bull. This isn't progress. Pollyanna is a dead weight and having him on 'our' side is a disadvantage.

I foresee more "Pauline conversions" as the demise of the town council looms.

The Durutti Column

Cerco wrote: »

I foresee more "Pauline conversions" as the demise of the town council looms.

Not many. There are only two outstanding. Kathleen Kelleher and the replacement Fianna Failure. Six supported the GUBOH position when it came to a vote in May or June last year. But did shag all after that, of course, with the honourable exception of Tom Fortune.

So, two to go to take up formal positions in favour of "doing something". If they had taken that view back in 2011, we might not have this appalling mess beside the marina.

Doesn't that make you think? The only functioning bit of the harbour is the bit that makes some money for Sisk. No public facilities built to plan, only a temporary car park and GITMO boat pens.

Maudi

Im lost..whats the paulines and whats g.i.t.m.o..

recedite

The Durutti Column wrote: »

So, two to go to take up formal positions in favour of "doing something". If they had taken that view back in 2011, we might not have this appalling mess beside the marina.

I thought it was WCC who had the power to call in the bond, or otherwise "lean on" the developer. If so, the formal positions of town councillors are irrelevant. Which I suppose is one of the reasons for abolishing them. But no doubt some will aspire to re-incarnate as county councillors next time round, hence the "pauline conversions" in advance of the elections.