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

Cerco

Fiachra2 wrote: »

In fairness if we are to ever resolve this issue we need to get unequivocal commitments from politicians that-if elected-they will force Wicklow County Council to properly landscape and open up the harbour and then we need to vote for those politicians who give that commitment. To date Tom Fortune and Stephen Stokes have consistently supported the community in this matter. It looks like this chap is onside and hopefully others and, if they do, we should vote for them.

I would have thought the same about Grainne McLoughlin but then sadly disappointed.
The majority of politicians will do or say anything to get elected and once elected will soon forget.
However we should give new comers an opportunity and hope they will join the notable exceptions.

patrickneil

I have used the marina in the summer (2013) and found it an excellent facility which will help the town's economy. Feel sorry for the owners of the houses who lost their sea views, however.

Doubleskipper

patrickneil wrote: »

I have used the marina in the summer (2013) and found it an excellent facility which will help the town's economy. Feel sorry for the owners of the houses who lost their sea views, however.

Sisks have left the harbour area in a mess for over 3 years now. Its state has hampered business in the town. Only the blueshirt councillors who foisted this on the town spin the fantasy that it has helped the economy of the town. Sisks are a disgrace.:mad:

F3

patrickneil wrote: »

I have used the marina in the summer (2013) and found it an excellent facility which will help the town's economy. Feel sorry for the owners of the houses who lost their sea views, however.

Yes it is an excellent facility, but it should be finished. The fundamental purpose of the PPP was to greatly improve the harbour amenity for the community of greystones, not just the yachters or the clubs, the entire community.No permanent works have been executed for the past 3 years and this key purpose has been forgotten by WCC. We do not want to stop Sisk completing the development, but what we do want is an interim plan executed until such time as the construction resumes. This will be phased construction so Sisk must work around the interim plan. We will not tolerate an open ended construction programme.

I'm not sure Sisk understand the gravity of the problem. Perhaps over the Christmas, the Sisk family might reflect on the trouble that they have caused, and mores the pont what they stand to lose. I know they read this thread, so I'm asking you to reconsider your Postion carefully. You might be kicked off this contract in 2014 for a fundamental breach and if that happens, you will lose I reckon €20-€30 Million. For gods sake get advice before it's too late. Everyone could win out of this if Sisk play their cards right.

They say they only have €100k to spend on an interim solution which is not nearly enough. Ask yourselves this last question, how much would you spend if you thought you would lose €30,000,000? :rolleyes:

patrickneil

Blueshirt councillors, Doubleskipper? Let's not start refighting the wars of the early last century again. My opinion of the marina was limited to it. The waste area beside the marina is, I believe, still awaiting development. No sane developer would have gone ahead with construction since the crash. However, now that things seem to be picking up economically, maybe there will be movement on development of the site soon. Have you any evidence (show fact and figures) to show that the town's business has been affected badly by the site's non-development to date? The area will eventually be built up and with the increased population living near the town's centre the local economy with thrive, I'm sure.

Cerco

patrickneil wrote: »

Blueshirt councillors, Doubleskipper? Let's not start refighting the wars of the early last century again. My opinion of the marina was limited to it. The waste area beside the marina is, I believe, still awaiting development. No sane developer would have gone ahead with construction since the crash. However, now that things seem to be picking up economically, maybe there will be movement on development of the site soon. Have you any evidence (show fact and figures) to show that the town's business has been affected badly by the site's non-development to date? The area will eventually be built up and with the increased population living near the town's centre the local economy with thrive, I'm sure.

Interesting first and second posts. Every now and again I see first time posters popping up to try and defend the indefensible.
Demanding facts and figures while making sweeping assumptions about the future benefit.
Welcome to Boards and the Greystones forum.

F3

patrickneil wrote: »

Blueshirt councillors, Doubleskipper? Let's not start refighting the wars of the early last century again. My opinion of the marina was limited to it. The waste area beside the marina is, I believe, still awaiting development. No sane developer would have gone ahead with construction since the crash. However, now that things seem to be picking up economically, maybe there will be movement on development of the site soon. Have you any evidence (show fact and figures) to show that the town's business has been affected badly by the site's non-development to date? The area will eventually be built up and with the increased population living near the town's centre the local economy with thrive, I'm sure.

Perhaps you should speak to the Byrne Group who invested €600k in the Beach House expecting the development to be finished on time, or the owners of the B&B's that went out of business in the Harbour area, or Pippins Parkinson who's business is on its knees.......do you think this is a joke? or something not real? The cliff walk is a special project for Wicklow [see WCC website] as one of the county's key assets bringing walkers to visit Greystones from all over the world now its a turd trail through a pallisade building site...I echo my friends comments about first time bloggers defending the indefensible....but please have another go after you speak to the above named businesses.

pixbyjohn

But now there are 2 cafes at the harbour. The Beach House is now serving food and just up the road is Summervilles. All doing reasonable business despite the harbour works. The B&B and Hotel industry is long dead in Greystones, well before the harbour works even started. I have spoken to many walkers during the year who use the Cliff Walk and they are not really interested in the harbour at all. I agree the amount of dog fouling is unacceptable but that is surely the dog owners fault. During the past year there have been a lot more visitors cars parked at the harbour than I have ever witnessed before. Maybe the scenery is not idyllic but the place is used a lot.

Zoo4m8

Cerco wrote: »

Interesting first and second posts. Every now and again I see first time posters popping up to try and defend the indefensible.
Demanding facts and figures while making sweeping assumptions about the future benefit.
Welcome to Boards and the Greystones forum.

Well that's told you Patrickneil, how dare you 'pop' up here as a first time poster with a view with even a slight variance to that held by the regular thread sitters !

Welcome to Boards and the Greystones forum indeed....

Zoo4m8

pixbyjohn wrote: »

But now there are 2 cafes at the harbour. The Beach House is now serving food and just up the road is Summervilles. All doing reasonable business despite the harbour works. The B&B and Hotel industry is long dead in Greystones, well before the harbour works even started. I have spoken to many walkers during the year who use the Cliff Walk and they are not really interested in the harbour at all. I agree the amount of dog fouling is unacceptable but that is surely the dog owners fault. During the past year there have been a lot more visitors cars parked at the harbour than I have ever witnessed before. Maybe the scenery is not idyllic but the place is used a lot.

All through the summer groups of walkers could be seen leaving their cars at the harbour car park and heading for the walk, like Pixby I spoke to quite a few and most couldn't care less about the harbour and when asked their thoughts on the poor condition of the start of the walk it was invariably pointed that that part formed a minute percentage of the overall distance.
The Beach House has also benefited from the increased ( maybe due to the good summer) numbers of walkers as well as a the large new free car park at their front door.

Cerco

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

All through the summer groups of walkers could be seen leaving their cars at the harbour car park and heading for the walk, like Pixby I spoke to quite a few and most couldn't care less about the harbour and when asked their thoughts on the poor condition of the start of the walk it was invariably pointed that that part formed a minute percentage of the overall distance.
The Beach House has also benefited from the increased ( maybe due to the good summer) numbers of walkers as well as a the large new free car park at their front door.

You must also be very concerned about the poor condition of the site so much so as to take on your own "market research".

Zoo4m8

Cerco wrote: »

You must also be very concerned about the poor condition of the site so much so as to take on your own "market research".

What! You mean you never saw me standing down there day in and day out complete with clipboard and hi viz vest ....

Very interesting what you can learn when you actually listen to people, all kinds of points of view to take on board....;)

I'm more interested in the maintenance of the walk further up, failure to cut back undergrowth etc, so I find it more of an effort to get overly exercised about the temporary (albeit drawn out) horrible nature of the harbour end.

recedite

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

I'm more interested in the maintenance of the walk further up, failure to cut back undergrowth etc, so I find it more of an effort to get overly exercised about the temporary (albeit drawn out) horrible nature of the harbour end.

Maybe you noticed a section of the path falling down the cliff, roughly level with the north end of the North Beach around a year ago?
IMO the landslide was not unconnected with the accelerated erosion and the failure to apply beach nourishment or protection. The current is now diverted further out to sea to get past the new harbour walls, and taking the sand with it.

Doubleskipper

recedite wrote: »

Maybe you noticed a section of the path falling down the cliff, roughly level with the north end of the North Beach around a year ago?
IMO the landslide was not unconnected with the accelerated erosion and the failure to apply beach nourishment or protection. The current is now diverted further out to sea to get past the new harbour walls, and taking the sand with it.

Sisks have not placed the beach nourishment material on the north beach that they as supposed to and this is resulting in huge erosion on the cliffs. Why do the blueshirts still support their now delinquent developer who is very clearly in total breach of contract. Shame on Sisks and the way they are treating the people of Greystones.:mad:

Fiachra2

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

I'm more interested in the maintenance of the walk further up, failure to cut back undergrowth etc, so I find it more of an effort to get overly exercised about the temporary (albeit drawn out) horrible nature of the harbour end.

Fair enough but if you accept that its in a "horrible" condition why not support those who want to get it sorted rather than arguing against them?

Also I would be wary of the use of the word "temporary". There is a very real chance that the area will stay like that for a very long time.

Zoo4m8

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Fair enough but if you accept that its in a "horrible" condition why not support those who want to get it sorted rather than arguing against them?

Also I would be wary of the use of the word "temporary". There is a very real chance that the area will stay like that for a very long time.

Hmmm, 'if your not for us then you must be against us'

I don't see it as arguing, I see as expressing an alternative view, some posters in there em, enthusiasm, to jump on another's opinion quite often omit the odd salient fact. That I said it as I see it could be, in a reasonable discussion, considered balance. I'm sure you and the other regulars won't see it like that,but hey, that's your perogitive...

The fact that the area is a complete eyesore is a given, but it's just one of a number of eyesores in this town, the Grand Hotel, the building on the old national school site, Marine Road, the abomination built on the finest marine site in the town on the old parochial hall site... I could go on, you have chosen to campaign on the harbour issue, I don't share your agenda it's as simple as that..

Incidentally, I see commissioner ....... In a rare insightful moment has stated that the only improvements done to the town over the last year were courtesy o Tidy Towns, now that's the sort of direction I'm inclined to lean...

EVERYTHING is temporary..

pixbyjohn

Christmas Day 2013 @ The Harbour by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

gibbon6

Look what they have done to Greystones Harbour :mad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Ng9NGN1FQ

thecommander

gibbon6 wrote: »

Look what they have done to Greystones Harbour :mad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Ng9NGN1FQ

You do know there's another beach?

Harbours aren't meant for swimming in. Just because that happened in the past doesn't mean it should happen in the future.

andmar

""Welcome to hell""should be the sign you see when sailing into the "gulag "from the sea.."no swimming" and no walking among the colossus ruinous site.that was once a friendly welcoming harbour.

Last Out

thecommander wrote: »

You do know there's another beach?

Harbours aren't meant for swimming in. Just because that happened in the past doesn't mean it should happen in the future.

Are you for real? You're a troll?

Annasopra

]

Last Out wrote: »

Are you for real? You're a troll?

Thanks but leave the troll accusations to the moderators and use the report post button for suspected trolling

Tabnabs

andmar wrote: »

""Welcome to hell""should be the sign you see when sailing into the "gulag "from the sea.."no swimming" and no walking among the colossus ruinous site.that was once a friendly welcoming harbour.

I sailed into the harbour about a decade ago aboard a 32 foot sailing school yacht. It was a decrepit and exposed pier. You may not like the new harbour, but please, to a visiting boat it was just a destination to say you'd been there (for about an hour on a very calm day).

thecommander

Last Out wrote: »

Are you for real? You're a troll?

I am for real, a harbour is no place for people to be swimming. Now much as you want to reminisce how it was done in the past, that doesn't change anything. Plenty of other places to swim.

If you're going to argue against the harbour, at least pick sensible reasons.

Cheeky Chops

thecommander wrote: »

I am for real, a harbour is no place for people to be swimming. Now much as you want to reminisce how it was done in the past, that doesn't change anything. Plenty of other places to swim.

If you're going to argue against the harbour, at least pick sensible reasons.

Because I hate the place and what they did to it and I hardly ever go near it. Sensible enough?

pixbyjohn

Christmas day @ the Harbour 2013 (122) by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

Honestly!

thecommander wrote: »

You do know there's another beach?

Harbours aren't meant for swimming in. Just because that happened in the past doesn't mean it should happen in the future.

"Harbours aren't meant for swimming in" Comical, I've really heard it all now. Next it'll be a ban on families and kids on the beach (i.e. former beach, now rocks) in case they interfere with the free passage of boats and boat owners.

The harbour as it stands is a total disgrace and Derek Mitchell should be ashamed of the litreature he is dumping* in peoples' doors applauding himself and the developers for this blight. Anyone I show the harbour to from outside Greystones holds the same view. That there has been no upgrading of the area is shocking and those that pushed the development through should either demand dates for progress from their developer mates or resign.

*Yes, dumping. The arrogant councillor thinks printing "not junk mail" on his Fine Gael literature means he can post it in your letter box despite the signs.

Obviously a "troll" as I disagree with your view.

thecommander

Honestly! wrote: »

"Harbours aren't meant for swimming in" Comical, I've really heard it all now. Next it'll be a ban on families and kids on the beach (i.e. former beach, now rocks) in case they interfere with the free passage of boats and boat owners.

The harbour as it stands is a total disgrace and Derek Mitchell should be ashamed of the litreature he is dumping* in peoples' doors applauding himself and the developers for this blight. Anyone I show the harbour to from outside Greystones holds the same view. That there has been no upgrading of the area is shocking and those that pushed the development through should either demand dates for progress from their developer mates or resign.

*Yes, dumping. The arrogant councillor thinks printing "not junk mail" on his Fine Gael literature means he can post it in your letter box despite the signs.

Obviously a "troll" as I disagree with your view.

I agree with you that the harbour is a disgrace as it stands, but to suggest that a working harbour is a place for adults and children to swim is crazy. It's like playing football on a main road, go swim on the beach like everyone else.

gibbon6

thecommander wrote: »

I agree with you that the harbour is a disgrace as it stands, but to suggest that a working harbour is a place for adults and children to swim is crazy. It's like playing football on a main road, go swim on the beach like everyone else.

I walk the harbour frequently and this is not a "working harbour" under any stretch of the imagination. How many people earn their living from any operation in this very quiet place. This is just more pro Sisk spin from the likes of Cllr Mitchell. The harbour is a community facility and always was so.

legrand

I fall into the camp that believes the harbour is a place where we can and should be allowed to swim (I have and will do so regardless if only as a protest - yes I prefer the beach).

But for those of you who disagree and don't understand why many believe the harbour is a general amenity for all and not just for boat owners please refer to the attached from Sisk/Wicklow Co Co. Note the 'nice' beach, the lack of dry dock etc.

Whist some of you may state these images are representative only - please remember too that these images formed part of the overall propaganda
(the pup we were sold and were told we needed).

Happy new year