Crazy council plan for clontarf.

Degsy

drkpower wrote: »

So, as Clontarf/D3 residents, on average, pay more tax than the nationalaverage,

Says who?

drkpower

Says who? Says the links and arguments I made above. Do you have any counter arguments using any statistics and or rational argument? do you have any answers to the other questions I asked? Indeed, do you have any coherent point other than making a fool of yourself?

Your lack of any real capacity to think has led you to supporting the clontarf residents rights to superior flood defences by mistake!! Hohoho!

expectationlost

drkpower wrote: »

Can you outline the costs of all proposals made by the Clontarf residents?
Can you then demonstrate how the latter is outlandishly more expensive than the former?

i dont' think you can answer these question either.

drkpower

expectationlost wrote: »

i dont' think you can answer these question either.

No, but I asked that question of degsy who claims that the clontarf residents solutions cost way more than the dcc plan. so I presume he knows the respective costs , unusually though he has avoided that question too. Hohoho!

More seriously, no,of course I don't know but the dcc should be able to and I would like to hear that info.

Degsy

drkpower wrote: »

Says who? Says the links and arguments I made above.

A link relating to house prices does not prove that people in a given area pay more tax than "the national average".

Can you prove that people in Clontarf pay more tax than anybody else in the country and by implication are deserving of special treatment vis a vis the allocation of funds?

Of course you cant.

A load of nonsense based on a selfish conceit and some babble about a seaview being compromised.

The people of clontarf should put up,shut up or pay for the works themselves.

_blank_

drkpower wrote: »

Says who? Says the links and arguments I made above. Do you have any counter arguments using any statistics and or rational argument? do you have any answers to the other questions I asked? Indeed, do you have any coherent point other than making a fool of yourself?

Your lack of any real capacity to think has led you to supporting the clontarf residents rights to superior flood defences by mistake!! Hohoho!

Do not get personal like this again

Cookie_Monster

drkpower wrote: »

Can you outline the costs of the original proposal?
Can you outline the costs of all proposals made by the Clontarf residents?
Can you then demonstrate how the latter is outlandishly more expensive than the former?

it doesn't matter if it's €10 more or €10 million more, the point is they are moaning about the council option and want a more expensive solution purely for aesthetics. If they want the more expensive one let them bridge the funding gap outa their own pockets, the council plan does the job fine...

I see no reason why the council plan is not perfectly acceptable, apart from the destruction of all the trees/bushes (but I would presume they'll be replaced)

drkpower

Degsy wrote: »

A link relating to house prices does not prove that people in a given area pay more tax than "the national average"..
Can you prove that people in Clontarf pay more tax than anybody else in the country and by implication are deserving of special treatment vis a vis the allocation of funds?

Of course you cant.

Average disposable income in Dublin above the national average.
Rental prices in D3 above the national average.
House prices in D3 above the national average.

On the balance of probabilities, I certainly have proven it. Particularly when you have posited no information whatsoever in response. Do you want to try?

Degsy wrote: »

The people of clontarf should put up,shut up or pay for the works themselves.

But your own view is that paying more tax than the average, which they do, justifies them getting better works. Using your logic, you are actually in favour of them getting these better works.

Now, have you finally managed to give the following any thought?:
Can you outline the costs of the original proposal?
Can you outline the costs of all proposals made by the Clontarf residents?
Can you then demonstrate how the latter is outlandishly more expensive than the former?

drkpower

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it doesn't matter if it's €10 more or €10 million more, the point is they are moaning about the council option and want a more expensive solution purely for aesthetics.

Have you read/heard what the objections are? You might list them and while you are at it, consider whether any of them relate to anything other than aesthetics? You will quickly see that you are wrong.

Secondly, would you consider that 'aesthetics' are a relevant consideration when it comes to public amenities (ie. public parks, open spaces, gree belts)? You might have a think about what the functions of a public amenity are?

John Mason

drkpower wrote: »

Average disposable income in Dublin above the national average.
Rental prices in D3 above the national average.
House prices in D3 above the national

average.

?

i also know at least 2 NAMA builders living in the area.

Yahew

those arguments are correct, but it doesn't follow that public spending is spent on the rich(er) neighbourhoods. Taxation is supposed to equalise that kind of spending.

drkpower

Yahew wrote: »

those arguments are correct, but it doesn't follow that public spending is spent on the rich(er) neighbourhoods. Taxation is supposed to equalise that kind of spending.

I agree with you. The affluence (or otherwise) of those living in an area should not influence the nature of the works they get.

I only discuss it because Degsy believes that if you pay more taxes, you should get better public works. Personally, I disagree with him.

Degsy

drkpower wrote: »

I only discuss it because Degsy believes that if you pay more taxes, you should get better public works. Personally, I disagree with him.

No i dont..i said if you want better public works then you should pay more taxes,

You're not even from clontarf yet you seem to be an expert on the region and its status as a motherlode of taxable income.

Degsy

drkpower wrote: »

.
House prices in D3 above the national average.

http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/31-caledon-road-east-wall-dublin-3/423803

Heres a house in Dublin 3 for 115,000...

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

The affluence (or otherwise) of those living in an area should not influence the nature of the works they get.

Too right, if they want a more expensive option so their views are not obstructed, pay out of their own pockets.

drkpower

Degsy wrote: »

No i dont..i said if you want better public works then you should pay more taxes,.

The reverse being that if you pay more taxes, you get better works, right?

Degsy wrote: »

You're not even from clontarf

Do you actually read posts or do you have a different definition of 'from' to normal people?

Degsy

drkpower wrote: »

The reverse being that if you pay more taxes, you get better works, right?


Do you actually read posts or do you have a different definition of 'from' to normal people?

drkpower wrote: »

I lived in East Wall for about 6 years until a short few years ago.I live in Clontarf now

You're not from clontarf...and i take it you spent your time in east wall studying the amount of tax people were paying and comparing it with that being payed in your new Clontarf home?

drkpower

Degsy wrote: »

http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/31-caledon-road-east-wall-dublin-3/423803

Heres a house in Dublin 3 for 115,000...

Can you see any issue with extrapolating a conclusion from one piece of evidence, cant you.

Now, here's a rental/sales price survey from daft. I wonder which is more representative...?!!

http://www.daft.ie/report/constantin-gurdgiev-2011q2

http://www.daft.ie/report/rachel-breslin

When you have read them, you might come back to this question, which you have avoided about 5 times now:

Can you outline the costs of the original proposal?
Can you outline the costs of all proposals made by the Clontarf residents?
Can you then demonstrate how the latter is outlandishly more expensive than the former?

drkpower

Degsy wrote: »

You're not from clontarf...and i take it you spent your time in east wall studying the amount of tax people were paying and comparing it with that being payed in your new Clontarf home?

:DOh, I see, are you saying that because I havent lived there all my life...?!!:D

Serioucly, is that the best you can do?!!:D

Degsy

drkpower wrote: »

:DOh, I see, are you saying that because I havent lived there all my life...?!!:D

Serioucly, is that the best you can do?!!:D

So you're backing up my theory that most of the protesters are blow-ins!

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

Too right, if they want a more expensive option so their views are not obstructed, pay out of their own pockets.

You should be taking your issues up wiht Degsy,who believs that if you pay more taxes, you should get more expensicve public works.

You might list the reasons why the residents oppose the works as currently formulated; then compare it against what you believe those reasons to be. That might help you.

drkpower

Degsy wrote: »

So you're backing up my theory that most of the protesters are blow-ins!

:DWhen it comes to the future plans for the Clontarf flood-works, you might explain what the duration of someone's residence in Clontarf has to do with the veracity or otherwise of one's views.....

And then, can you address these questions which are at the heart of your concerns:

Can you outline the costs of the original proposal?
Can you outline the costs of all proposals made by the Clontarf residents?
Can you then demonstrate how the latter is outlandishly more expensive than the former?

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

You should be taking your issues up wiht Degsy,who believs that if you pay more taxes, you should get more expensicve public works.

You might list the reasons why the residents oppose the works as currently formulated; then compare it against what you believe those reasons to be. That might help you.

Read the thread first.

gurramok

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1117/1224307706061.html

Residents remain opposed to their construction on the grounds that they would ruin the local amenity and the views of Dublin Bay.

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1117/1224307706061.html

Are you serious?!!! Even that article - and that quote - gives an alternative reason to 'views'......:D Hohohoho!

(nevermind the other reasons that have been given and which are available publically)

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

Are you serious?!!! Even that article - and that quote - gives an alternative reason to 'views'......:D Hohohoho!

(nevermind the other reasons that have been given and which are available publically)

No it does not. What's with the hohoho, is this AH?

Its there in the article for you, they object on 2 grounds to the flood defence, that is the ruination of the amenity and the ruination of their views of Dublin Bay.

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

Its there in the article for you, they object on 2 grounds to the flood defence, that is the ruination of the amenity and the ruination of their views of Dublin Bay.

So why did you suggest previously that the objection was purely about 'views'? Or were you just trying to be disingenuos? Or do you not understand that ruination of an amenity means more than obstructing views?

Too right, if they want a more expensive option so their views are not obstructed, pay out of their own pockets.

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

So why did you suggest previously that the objection was purely about 'views'? Or were you just trying to be disingenuos? Or do you not understand that ruination of an amenity means more than obstructing views?

The views part was and is prominent among the residents, it would not be among the people who do not live there and use the place solely for amenities.

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

The views part was and is prominent among the residents, it would not be among the people who do not live there and use the place solely for amenities.

What utter nonsense. The number of houses/apartments that actually benefit from a view that will be affected can scarcely be more than 100-200. The numbers who have signed the petition/attended the various public meeting is in the thousands. The benefit of a 'view' is only an issue for a minority. You should put more thought into your objections so they at least pass some kind of muster.

Degsy

drkpower wrote: »

Can you outline the costs of the original proposal?

Too much...they can easily reduce costs by not including a path in the plans.

I hope common sense prevails and the cheapest option is the one implemented.

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

What utter nonsense. The number of houses/apartments that actually benefit from a view that will be affected can scarcely be more than 100-200. The numbers who have signed the petition/attended the various public meeting is in the thousands. The benefit of a 'view' is only an issue for a minority. You should put more thought into your objections so they at least pass some kind of muster.

Shouldn't residents opinions among these 'thousands' have more significance than outsiders as residents reside in the area and are directly affected by any floods and flood defence proposals?

Its quite obvious from the DCC presentation where you have viewed the altered views that arise from the built flood defences that there their objections are baseless.

expectationlost

Council flies in expert over Clontarf flood battle http://www.herald.ie/news/council-flies-in-expert-over-clontarf-flood-battle-2945989.html

if the CBA/CRA and want the report options looked at again why would they oppose talking to the consultant

http://www.dublincity.ie/WaterWasteEnvironment/waterprojects/Documents/Appendix%203%20Part%204%20EIS%20Report.pdf
page 63 it shows the options that were looked at

anyway this is dublin sized issue not a local one.

drkpower

Degsy wrote: »

Too much...they can easily reduce costs by not including a path in the plans.

I hope common sense prevails and the cheapest option is the one implemented.

Can you outline the costs of the original proposal?
Can you outline the costs of all proposals made by the Clontarf residents?
Can you then demonstrate how the latter is outlandishly more expensive than the former?

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

Shouldn't residents opinions among these 'thousands' have more significance than outsiders as residents reside in the area and are directly affected by any floods and flood defence proposals?.

The promenade is an amenity for the wider area, and wider Dublin, not just for those living on the seafront. Certainly, the seafront residents views are of significant importance because, as you say, potential flooding is something that only they are at risk of. But their views are not the only relevant ones.

gurramok wrote: »

Its quite obvious from the DCC presentation where you have viewed the altered views that arise from the built flood defences that there their objections are baseless.

That sentence doesnt really make sense? What are you trying to say?

You might outline what specific objections are baseless and why?

Gumbo

drkpower wrote: »

Can you outline the costs of the original proposal?
Can you outline the costs of all proposals made by the Clontarf residents?
Can you then demonstrate how the latter is outlandishly more expensive than the former?

i keep seeing this post over and over, Can you outline the costs?

drkpower

kceire wrote: »

i keep seeing this post over and over, Can you outline the costs?

No; but I am not claiming that the residents solution is outlandishly more expensive than DCC's. Degsy is. But s/he is unable to provide any support for that position. Which, of course, robs his position of any merit.

See how it works?

Cookie_Monster

expectationlost wrote: »

Council flies in expert over Clontarf flood battle http://www.herald.ie/news/council-flies-in-expert-over-clontarf-flood-battle-2945989.html
.

So already there's money being pissed away because of those objectionists...

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

That sentence doesnt really make sense? What are you trying to say?

You might outline what specific objections are baseless and why?

Makes perfect sense.

Look at the views(pictures) which I had posted. There is hardly any alteration in the views which leaves one to think that the objections are based on hysterics rather than on actual study.

expectationlost

drkpower wrote: »

No; but I am not claiming that the residents solution is outlandishly more expensive than DCC's. Degsy is. But s/he is unable to provide any support for that position. Which, of course, robs his position of any merit.

See how it works?

how about you stop arguing with him and try to progress the discussion.

what is the residents solution?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1117/breaking68.html

The associations have said that they would be in favour of an option that would see the level of the seawall raised along with the promenade footpath.

ah this is the entire 2005 Royal Haskoning dublin coastal flooding project report http://www.clontarf.ie/_uploads/files/dcfpp_final_report_report.pdf pg 354

expectationlost

http://aodhanoriordain.blogspot.com/2011/10/raising-clontarf-flood-defences-under.html

In Aodhan O'Rriordain's Dail speech he referenced "Dublin City Council’s Clontarf promenade steering committee" what sort of steering committee was that, an internal council technical one? I can no reference to anyway else online.

and "The minutes of the meeting indicate that council officials realised, even at that point, the need to provide clear images and drawings for the public consultation process. This recommendation was not pursued, however."

minutes?

So often planning involves some badly photocopied technical drawings, that you might not be able to read, Also I think planners don't like to draw diagrams at early stages, because they think that the public may presume they are definitely happening, basically theirs condescension to the public from experts who job it is to make things clear. Would like to see more diagrams with each option, where it shows the how far the sea has and will come.

expectationlost

dcc council review report out http://naoise.ie/?p=1652 page 65 higher costs for seawall raising page 60 twice as much

raising the seawall at the sea means it has to be higher then the setback wall/mound

expectationlost

was looking to sea if the claim that this is all about making it easier to extend the port across the way and what was said about the port expansions effect on clontarf flooding

an bord pleanala say that the extend developement would reduce thee wave height by 1.06 metres

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/PA0007.htm pg23 but on pg 91 it said there be little difference?

unfortunate that the dublin port eis don't exist anymore http://web.archive.org/web/20100508232855/http://www.dublingateway.ie/eis/

did they ever manage to get an alternative report done?

although it mostly about the visuals

Yakuza

Visuals were not the only (nor the main) reason for the objections. The main points were:

Visuals
Loss of amenity
Public safety concerns at the sea wall side of the berm.

The proposal was unanimously defeated. Next time, DCC will hopefully actually engage with the people their proposal will affect.

bamboozle

Degsy wrote: »

Too much...they can easily reduce costs by not including a path in the plans.

I hope common sense prevails and the cheapest option is the one implemented.

Ah Degsy, the logical, rational and well thought out opinions you have enlightened us to on this topic are truly overwhelming. Sure at the end of the day, people dont need amenities, paths, areas to exercise, walk or play football.

expectationlost

bamboozle wrote: »

Ah Degsy, the logical, rational and well thought out opinions you have enlightened us to on this topic are truly overwhelming. Sure at the end of the day, people dont need amenities, paths, areas to exercise, walk or play football.

higher costs for seawall raising, twice as much

raising the seawall at the sea means it has to be higher then the setback wall/mound

bamboozle

expectationlost wrote: »

higher costs for seawall raising, twice as much

raising the seawall at the sea means it has to be higher then the setback wall/mound

i'm not sure what point you are trying to make in responding to my previous comment. I'm fully aware raising the sea wall would have cost more. My issue with that other poster was that irrespective of the outcome or points made on here he has a very strange issue with all things clontarf.

with regards costs for raising the sea wall, i'm just going to hazard a guess in suggesting that world-wide the generally accepted practice for similar flood protection/prevention is by building sea-walls and not mounds of muck which double up to hide water pipes.

expectationlost

bamboozle wrote: »

i'm not sure what point you are trying to make in responding to my previous comment. I'm fully aware raising the sea wall would have cost more. My issue with that other poster was that irrespective of the outcome or points made on here he has a very strange issue with all things clontarf.

with regards costs for raising the sea wall, i'm just going to hazard a guess in suggesting that world-wide the generally accepted practice for similar flood protection/prevention is by building sea-walls and not mounds of muck which double up to hide water pipes.

ah here we have another of all the clontarf civil engineers, that were out campaigning

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

http://aodhanoriordain.blogspot.com/2011/10/raising-clontarf-flood-defences-under.html

In Aodhan O'Rriordain's Dail speech he referenced "Dublin City Council’s Clontarf promenade steering committee" what sort of steering committee was that, an internal council technical one? I can no reference to anyway else online.

and "The minutes of the meeting indicate that council officials realised, even at that point, the need to provide clear images and drawings for the public consultation process. This recommendation was not pursued, however."

minutes?

So often planning involves some badly photocopied technical drawings, that you might not be able to read, Also I think planners don't like to draw diagrams at early stages, because they think that the public may presume they are definitely happening, basically theirs condescension to the public from experts who job it is to make things clear. Would like to see more diagrams with each option, where it shows the how far the sea has and will come.

got a reply from Jane Horgans Jones on this ..." it was Mr. Tom Leahy who made that recommendation re the clear images and drawings...."

seems he failed to implement his own recommendation

expectationlost

here's an idea do the mound but raise the sea/wallpromenade at the _wall_ parts

d4guy

RATM wrote: »

This. The biggest eyesore in Dublin, the power station at Poolbeg ruins any semblance of a view. It is even worse over at Sandymount, I can never understand people paying €2m+ for a house that looks out on two ugly chimney stacks, much better views in Killiney & Dalkey IMO.

I should start by saying that I was fully against the "Wall" and "Mound" at Clontarf and glad that it's not happening now as it is a wonderful amenity. However, as someone from the other side of the bay in Sandymount, it raised questions about our own coastal flood defences.

I must take issue with the above point. The view of the Poolbeg chimney stacks is actually much less of an eyesore than what is made out, by the above point, from the Sandymount side. While their prominence is quite obvious when looking left over the bay, the largest proportion of the view looks right across to see Howth Head and the Irish Sea and to the right, the coast curves to the views of Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire Pier and Killiney/Dalkey. While on the Clontarf side, you need to be a good distance out (past the wooden bridge) to see any decent view without seeing "Dublin Port".