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

recedite

Paying over a €5M liability affects their potential profit margin by that amount alright, but its no reason to sue anybody. It would be a cost they incurred themselves through breach of contract.

Anyway the "gifts" they have received since the contract was signed have been worth more than that amount;

F3 wrote: »

3. Sisk were forgiven directly or indirectly debt by NAMA, but no-body knows the detail [which is concerning as its tax payers money]

4. Sisk went back for new planning and got permission for a PCC and were gifted by WCC 3 acres to build a further 34 houses.

cuddlycavies

Who are you arguing with? Yourself? Of course its a farce!

Fiachra2

Cerco wrote: »

There appears to be a lot of confusion as to who supported, abstained and voted against the proposal. Will the minutes of the TC meeting clarify this or will it simply present the result?

The minutes will clarify who voted which way however its somewhat academic.

Tom Fortune quite appealed to all councillors to "get behind the Community Plan" Two other councillors Stephen Stokes and Billy Norman agreed to do so. The others (whether they voted against or abstained) did not. Therefore we have a clear picture of which councillors support the community and therefore deserve our support in next May's local elections.

Annasopra

What is GUBOHs plan now though? I mean is it still advocating the community plan?

pixbyjohn

mango salsa wrote: »

What is GUBOHs plan now though? I mean is it still advocating the community plan?

Great question. Has GUBOH got a committee now and some form of democratic structure. Is its sole purpose to concentrate on the harbour issue only?

Wicklow Will

Fiachra2 wrote: »

The minutes will clarify who voted which way however its somewhat academic.

Tom Fortune quite appealed to all councillors to "get behind the Community Plan" Two other councillors Stephen Stokes and Billy Norman agreed to do so. The others (whether they voted against or abstained) did not. Therefore we have a clear picture of which councillors support the community and therefore deserve our support in next May's local elections.

I agree fully with you, Fiachra. We now have a good picture of who supports the community on this and deserves the support of the electorate next May. It's so very disappointing to see the way the FG members either actively backed SISKs plan or, by their silence (abstention) failed to back the community and allowed SISKs proposal to be passed.

The Bishop Basher

Really disappointed with Grainne on this. For someone who has dedicated so much time and done so much good for the community over the years, it's disheartening to see that she has allowed party politics get in the way of doing the right thing. The future of politics is very bleak on a national level. With this kind of bull**** it appears to be equally as bleak on a local level.

Langerland

Wicklow Will wrote: »

I agree fully with you, Fiachra. We now have a good picture of who supports the community on this and deserves the support of the electorate next May. It's so very disappointing to see the way the FG members either actively backed SISKs plan or, by their silence (abstention) failed to back the community and allowed SISKs proposal to be passed.

Indeed - and also Tom Fortune in the next General Election when it comes because to me, he has been excellent to date in pursuing this. Our esteemed TD's have been a disaster apart from S Donnellys recent involvement. Simon Harris's silence pretty much lumps him in with the FG block on the issue, which is also very disappointing as he showed promise as a public rep previously but it seems he does not want to get his hands dirty.

clocha_liatha

re grainne mcloughlin, i may have been wrong in my assertion that she voted against but she definetely didnt vote in favour as only 3 councillors voted in favour. it looked to me that she was unhappy not voting to support the proposal, maybe its because she actually wanted to but FG dictated otherwise or else she didnt have the courage of her convictions. It baffles me how they all say they have the best interests of the community at heart and on the other hand pander to develepors at all costs.
a follow up leaflet on the community project should in my opinion be issued and the voting record of all councillors at the last meeting should be on it. if it upsets them so what , its time that people got a bit more proactive on this issue.otherwise we will be looking at another 4 of 5 years of stagnation and little progress

Fiachra2

mango salsa wrote: »

What is GUBOHs plan now though? I mean is it still advocating the community plan?

Yes we are indeed. There are a few things to be borne in mind:

• • Only four out of Nine town councillors voted against the motion
  • This is not the first time a motion to ask Sisk to landscape the area has been defeated.
    The vote was taken on the misunderstanding that the community plan costs €8M. This is totally incorrect.
  • Those councillors who assert that the vast majority of the community are basically wrong or who assert that actually only 6 people in Greystones want the area landscaped will have difficulty sticking to their positions indefinitely especially with local elections coming.

Right now we are looking at a few options and trying to sort out some of the misunderstandings about the Community Plan.

We will be back shortly!

tennisplayer

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Yes we are indeed. There are a few things to be borne in mind:

• Only four out of five town councillors voted against the motion

Was there not more than 5 councillors at the meeting? Or are you not including the county councillors who are town cllrs. also?

Fiachra2

Well spotted!

I meant four out of nine town councillors. (and consequently two out of four county councillors)

Annasopra

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Well spotted!

I meant four out of nine town councillors. (and consequently two out of four county councillors)

I'm a bit confused on that. My understanding was that the 4 MCCs are Fortune, Mitchell, Jones and McLoughlin and that the 3 FG voted against.

Fiachra2

My original understanding of what happened was incorrect. Grainne in fact abstained. This is good as now both the FF and FG groups are divided (to some extent) on the issue.

cuddlycavies

Fiachra2 wrote: »

My original understanding of what happened was incorrect. Grainne in fact abstained. This is good as now both the FF and FG groups are divided (to some extent) on the issue.

Yes, but not before she gave a cock and bull excuse for doing so which totally contradicted her position on facebook that week. The truth is, that a whip was in operation and any excuse to back the two senior FG councillors was used. Sisk are well out of order, they have left our town like a building site. There isno likeliehood of units being built in 2014. They do not hold as strong a hand of cards as Grainne insisted they did.In the event of any stimulus in construction for eg, a start on the Nat Childrens Hospital. sisk would be a major contender. would they sue WCC for€60m whilst tendering for such jobs wher a EIS was required and a good record too! NO!

recedite

Abstaining in a vote is common practice where a politician intends to allow a vote go a particular way, but doesn't want any blame from the public attaching to them.
The party whip will have counted up the votes in advance, and calculated how many in the party can abstain while still getting the desired result. Then the politician(s) who would suffer most political damage by association with the result are selected, and they are allowed to abstain.
If the proposed vote looks close, nobody is allowed to abstain.

gibbon6

Fiachra2 wrote: »

My original understanding of what happened was incorrect. Grainne in fact abstained. This is good as now both the FF and FG groups are divided (to some extent) on the issue.

I beg to differ with you on that one. Grainne's shameful abstention effectively led to the defeat of the Peoples Plan by the Blueshirts Mittyesque alternative.

Fiachra2

cuddlycavies wrote: »

Yes, but not before she gave a cock and bull excuse for doing so which totally contradicted her position on facebook that week. The truth is, that a whip was in operation and any excuse to back the two senior FG councillors was used. Sisk are well out of order, they have left our town like a building site. There isno likeliehood of units being built in 2014. They do not hold as strong a hand of cards as Grainne insisted they did.In the event of any stimulus in construction for eg, a start on the Nat Childrens Hospital. sisk would be a major contender. would they sue WCC for€60m whilst tendering for such jobs wher a EIS was required and a good record too! NO!

In any situation like this there will be voting practices that are distasteful to say the least. (Note the manner in which FG and FF councillors closed ranks on Monday to protect the county Manager from the consequences of his recent outrageous behaviour).

However when public representatives say one thing and then do another there is always scope for modifying their behaviour. For example the local FG TD himself opposed the harbour development and would claim to be on the community's side on this matter yet he maintains a deafening silence on the subject presumably for political expediency. He can continue to do that until challenged by members of the public whereupon he will probably do the right thing.

The same applies to the councillors who opposed the community plan. Apart from one who appears to believe that the community plan has no support they would all claim to be on the side of the community and so it is up to the individual members of that community to make it clear to them what is the only acceptable course of action.

Langerland

Fiachra - Why don't you just say Simon Harris? There's nothing wrong with that. He's a publicly elected representative of the people and yet he not only completely ignores their concerns and demands regarding the Harbour debacle, but even worse, he remains a completely silent bystander. Fair enough, he has other important subject matters on his agenda that I applaud, however this is ridiculous. He won't be getting my vote again.

gibbon6

Fiachra2 wrote: »

In any situation like this there will be voting practices that are distasteful to say the least. (Note the manner in which FG and FF councillors closed ranks on Monday to protect the county Manager from the consequences of his recent outrageous behaviour).

However when public representatives say one thing and then do another there is always scope for modifying their behaviour. For example the local FG TD himself opposed the harbour development and would claim to be on the community's side on this matter yet he maintains a deafening silence on the subject presumably for political expediency. He can continue to do that until challenged by members of the public whereupon he will probably do the right thing.

The same applies to the councillors who opposed the community plan. Apart from one who appears to believe that the community plan has no support they would all claim to be on the side of the community and so it is up to the individual members of that community to make it clear to them what is the only acceptable course of action.

You are being far far too understanding and forgiving. We all know who rejected the Peoples Plan and their treachery will not be forgotten nor forgiven.

tennisplayer

gibbon6 wrote: »

You are being far far too understanding and forgiving. We all know who rejected the Peoples Plan and their treachery will not be forgotten nor forgiven.

Lots of the electorate in Greystones have lots of other reasons to vote for whoever and not just for candidates who support the harbour issue alone. Anyway we get who we vote for and there have been a couple of local elections since the harbour development was started and we must have voted for the councillors we have now.
We don't need single issue blinkered candidates being elected. It would be nice to see the harbour completed to everyone's satisfaction.

gibbon6

tennisplayer wrote: »

Lots of the electorate in Greystones have lots of other reasons to vote for whoever and not just for candidates who support the harbour issue alone. Anyway we get who we vote for and there have been a couple of local elections since the harbour development was started and we must have voted for the councillors we have now.
We don't need single issue blinkered candidates being elected. It would be nice to see the harbour completed to everyone's satisfaction.

You are quite right. We do get the councillors we deserve but next time it will be different. The people are as mad as hell and the culprits will pay for their dastardly deeds at the polling booths next year. Those councillors who are elected by their families and buddies, sometimes not even reaching the quota, will not succeed next time.

tennisplayer

gibbon6 wrote: »

You are quite right. We do get the councillors we deserve but next time it will be different.

?????

gibbon6

tennisplayer wrote: »

?????

So do the right thing and banish those councillors who rejected the Peoples Plan to the fires of Hades!

Fiachra2

Langerland wrote: »

Fiachra - Why don't you just say Simon Harris? There's nothing wrong with that. He's a publicly elected representative of the people and yet he not only completely ignores their concerns and demands regarding the Harbour debacle, but even worse, he remains a completely silent bystander. Fair enough, he has other important subject matters on his agenda that I applaud, however this is ridiculous. He won't be getting my vote again.

Then I would strongly urge you and others who feel the same way to communicate that fact to him. A letter of that nature can have a significant effect on a candidates behaviour. Posting the same view here is important but not nearly as effective.

fenris

There is no point talking or writing to them, they will do what they are told by either their party or cronies.
Just write them off and don't give them a second chance to betray the trust of the local community.
Their weakness of character has been exposed, just move on and forget them.

cuddlycavies

fenris wrote: »

There is no point talking or writing to them, they will do what they are told by either their party or cronies.
Just write them off and don't give them a second chance to betray the trust of the local community.
Their weakness of character has been exposed, just move on and forget them.

Aw Simon Harris is not that bad! He's ok really

Taltos

cuddlycavies wrote: »

Aw Simon Harris is not that bad! He's ok really

I expect more of my public representatives.
Might be a nice chap, but I prefer our reps to stand for us not just do what their party tells them.

F3

I have a slightly different view on the vote. Firstly, I think it should never have gone to a vote and secondly the back drop to the vote was based on an entirely misleading letter from Sisk received by the town council on 21 October ( meeting was on the 29th after the bank holiday.

The community plan was accompanied by a budget cost of €1.8m of which €1.5m were works that would be done in any event by Sisk as a part of their contracted permanent works. In reality therefore the "cost" to Sisk (according to the QS's pricing the community plan) is really only €300,000 + the financing cost of spending the €1.5m slightly earlier (say 2 years). Even if this doubled the figure to €600k to allow for funding costs, it is nowhere near the €13,000,000 that Derek Mitchell told the public on East Coast FM and then reduced it to €10,000,000 when challenged by Tom fortune the following morning on East Coast FM.

Getting back to Sisks letter to the town council, it advised a figure of €8.3 million to implement the community plan and warned the town council that there were a multiplicity of planning issues and permissions, including changes to the EIS and special consultation and permissions from Irish rail to cross the railway with a new access road. THIS WAS TOTALLY WRONG and mere PROPAGANDA BY SISK AIMED AT THE TOWN COUNCILORS.

In fairness to the town Councilors,(none of whom are professionally qualified or competent in such matters) were faced with a community plan that according to Sisk was going to cost €6.5m more than what the community costings said, and had major planning issues. On that basis the community plan was not rejected per se, but a different plan ( which looks for different things, arguably more than the community plan wants) was voted to be sent to Sisk, and that the community plan would be independently checked. ( I'm not sure why and for what purpose, but in think if it was just €1.8m they would be happy to support it)

Sisk said the community plan required Rock Armour to the North a Beach and costed this at €4,000,000 with a warning that the beach would be lost and the EIS would need changing and planning was required - I assure you 100% the community plan did not require this. The community plan merely wanted Sisk to replenish the beach as they ought to in their contract and the original EIS. Some members of the community are concerned at the current rate of erosion. No more no less. The note on the drawing was a reminder to Sisk to do their job.

Hence, the €8.3m is now €4.3m straight away.

Secondly, the road identified in the community plan for emergency vehicles to access the north beach vicinity - Sisk In their letter warned of special permissions from Irish rail to gain a new access over the railway together with planning issues and Sisk priced " a significant reinforced concrete structure at the cliff face to support this new road. - again I assure you 100% that the community plan states that this access for emergency vehicles is at the site of the gap bridge which was utilising the existing level crossing Afro emergency vehicles and the community priced 100m of a stoned road east of the level crossing to bring emergency vehicles close to the beach. NO REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE AT THE CLIFF FACE REQUIRED, NO NEW LEVEL CROSSING, NO PLANNING PERMISSIONS NEEDED OR REQUIRED.

I'm sure the 4.3m will easily be reduced by another million on this misnomer.

Let's call it €3.3 m

We then need to look at what Sisk has costed thereafter, and I understand this is what the community QS's are doing right now.

I have no doubt the community costed plan ( which was I recall titled a budget plan) will not be far off the mark, with no planning permission required nor changes to the EIS etc.

So to sign off, there should not have been a vote before the costings were properly examined and the alleged need for additional planning investigated.

I am sure Sisk took great satisfaction in believing their misleading letter worked a treat, and of course we know it did work, but I think only temporarily.

I am sure that when the community publishes it's comparison the Town Council ( or indeed those who were concerned about the €6.5m difference and the planning permission misnomers cleared up) will vote in favour of the community plan.

fenris

cuddlycavies wrote: »

Aw Simon Harris is not that bad! He's ok really

he can be a nice chap and a poor public representative at the same time.
How about this for an idea, you get the job based on the commitments you make and you get to keep the job based on the commitments that you keep?

As far as Simon Harris goes, when he was canvassing I asked him a direct question regarding his ability to represent the local people over the party line if push came to shove on any given local issue and if he could give me an example of standing firm in his career up to that point, I got pure waffle for an answer and we can see the reality of his ability and desire to actually represent us in his last vote, we are just a stepping stone for Simon and Co. and should view them in the same manner, if they help us they are in, if not get rid of them and vote in people who will do their best for us.

I expected more from Simon to be honest and thought that he at least was young enough to still have a bit of spine and spirit. As for the others in fairness we all knew what to expect, Grainne to me showed the least moral fiber with the abstention stunt.

Now we just have to remember to reward what we want more of and disincentive what we want less of.