Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Future of Tramore’s Metalman and pillars safe

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    invalid wrote: »
    I applaude the moving of the 5 towers to local ownership and i wish it every success. To progress this project will require the drive and energy of a dedicated group. The last place the towers should reside is with the Council, and i am the last one to bash the council, but it is simply the wrong place for a specialist project like this. They do not have the time or resources to possibly bring this project to fruition, especially at the, moment when the merger has paralyzed the organization completely.

    Its worth noting that most public structures are bought by the council (across the country) and than leased out to heritage groups to 'do their thing'. This is the safest way to deal with a public structure but it allows a 'community' group to do the work.

    Its a bit dangerous for the group themselves to have it all for themselves. Even if it was the pope and all the apostles. :)


  • Options
    #33
    tbayers
    Registered Users Posts: 501 ✭✭✭tbayers


    I was asking did you oppose the idea of a private group (although now public) being set up to take over the pillars. You have answered the question though, mainly that you do have your doubts.

    I know the people involved, and I personally think their intentions are positive in the long run. I kind of look at it in a similar way to TBay Surf Club, they can make a profit but money goes back into the club. They can also sell the building they now own but no one can make a profit from that. It technical though and I can understand that quite a few people are getting lost in it all!!

    Another thing, and this is no way personal but are you not a member of Fine Gael and kind of have to support what your fellow colleague Cllr. Power says and does? Im just curious is all :)

    And as you said, I hope for everyones sake that this becomes the town of Tramore's trail


  • Options
    #34
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    tbayers wrote: »
    I was asking did you oppose the idea of a private group (although now public) being set up to take over the pillars. You have answered the question though, mainly that you do have your doubts.

    I know the people involved, and I personally think their intentions are positive in the long run. I kind of look at it in a similar way to TBay Surf Club, they can make a profit but money goes back into the club. They can also sell the building they now own but no one can make a profit from that. It technical though and I can understand that quite a few people are getting lost in it all!!

    Well in terms of private ownership - which it effectively is in a way- I'm not in agreement with that. I'd prefer we followed the model used by all other public structures (which supporters of the idea claim they are doing, but its been pointed out they are not doing the same) being owned by the council and leased out. I'd be happier with that personally, but the council don't seem bothered so then the next thing I would prefer is that the group setup a proper structure of articles that didn't permit the sale of assets or payment for officers.
    Another thing, and this is no way personal but are you not a member of Fine Gael and kind of have to support what your fellow colleague Cllr. Power says and does? Im just curious is all :)

    Well considering Fine Gael councilors are split on this, with two voting in favour - Cllr. O'Sullivan & Cllr. Raine - the answer is no. :)

    What your getting mixed up with is the whip system, which more applies at national government level where TDs go by the party whip in voting and are not allowed vote outside of that. It applies at times to the council level also, but didn't apply on the night in question of the vote as we had two FG in favour and two FG not in favour. The whip system doesn't apply to members of the party or supporters either, who are entitled to their own view. :)

    I can't say I agree with much of what Cllr. Power says or does in general, so this is a rare moment that I see her concerns and I think she shouldn't be slated for bringing them to our attention. Its also rare that Cllr. Raine doesn't agree with her, they generally worked very closely together since he entered politics but that link seems to be breaking away and Cllr. Raine has a voice of his own. She said herself in the town council meeting that she didn't teach him very well and I thought that comment was a low blow and very unfair.


  • Options
    #35
    Smiley Burnett
    Registered Users Posts: 511 ✭✭✭Smiley Burnett


    as an aside to discussion, as much as i think it is important that the future of the metalman is secured, i really dont think anyone will pay to get access to the it....


  • Options
    #36
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    Smiley Burnett wrote: »
    as an aside to discussion, as much as i think it is important that the future of the metalman is secured, i really dont think anyone will pay to get access to the it....

    We pay to see most structures and its the only way you can fund it?

    (Or pay the officers :P)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Smiley Burnett
    Registered Users Posts: 511 ✭✭✭Smiley Burnett


    Sully wrote: »
    We pay to see most structures and its the only way you can fund it?

    (Or pay the officers :P)

    lots of attractions around the country are free....they are run by the OPW....CHARGE FOR THE METALMAN AND YOU WILL HAVE A BIG WHITE ELEPHANT ON YOUR HANDS!!

    P.S. how are things going in CELTWORLD??


  • Options
    #38
    tbayers
    Registered Users Posts: 501 ✭✭✭tbayers


    Thanks for clearing up that Sully, interesting to see who was voting for what side.

    I doubt very much they will charge for the entry to the metal man. However, I think a system where they charge people for audio tapes, tours etc would be the best way to make money. I just doubt it very much they are planning to charge people to enter the metal man, that would upset the completeness of the trail too ie. 7/8 of the trail is free but you would have to pay to get into metal man, just doesn't make sense! Or maybe they will rely on private funding by those who will indirectly benefit from it?? The public meeting coming up soon will be interesting to see what their plans are.

    Another thing to think about, why do we have to follow what everybody does around the country with similar structures? Yes its the common thing to do but that doesn't necessarily mean its the best way, the easiest maybe but maybe not the best way (sometimes)!

    When you lease something out the main motive is money, it goes to the highest bidder. I think this will work out, it is going to be run by people who are passionate about Tramore and won't be blinded by politics....HOPEFULLY :)


  • Options
    #39
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    tbayers wrote: »
    Thanks for clearing up that Sully, interesting to see who was voting for what side.

    I doubt very much they will charge for the entry to the metal man. However, I think a system where they charge people for audio tapes, tours etc would be the best way to make money. I just doubt it very much they are planning to charge people to enter the metal man, that would upset the completeness of the trail too ie. 7/8 of the trail is free but you would have to pay to get into metal man, just doesn't make sense! Or maybe they will rely on private funding by those who will indirectly benefit from it?? The public meeting coming up soon will be interesting to see what their plans are.

    Another thing to think about, why do we have to follow what everybody does around the country with similar structures? Yes its the common thing to do but that doesn't necessarily mean its the best way, the easiest maybe but maybe not the best way (sometimes)!

    When you lease something out the main motive is money, it goes to the highest bidder. I think this will work out, it is going to be run by people who are passionate about Tramore and won't be blinded by politics....HOPEFULLY :)

    Why do we have to follow everybody? Because its the safest way of doing things. Its not like plans of a house for a housing estate and you decide "Why do I do what they do? Ill build my own design". The structure other companies use ensures the item in question is in safe hands, no money can be made from it etc. Whereas the structure being used at the moment is the opposite. :)

    If the council buy it, its public land and a public structure. Its not owned by a private group in the interests of the public. The council lease it out for only a nominal fee like a €1 so its not the highest bidder. Plus, the council should, in theory, only lease it out to a group they feel they can trust and that will do a good job under their watchful eye.


  • Options
    #40
    wellboytoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭wellboytoo


    Sully wrote: »

    If the council buy it, its public land and a public structure. Its not owned by a private group in the interests of the public. The council lease it out for only a nominal fee like a €1 so its not the highest bidder. Plus, the council should, in theory, only lease it out to a group they feel they can trust and that will do a good job under their watchful eye.

    Sully you are not listening the landowners want nothing to do Waterford County Council, nothing at all, years of distrust of broken promises, so the ONLY reason the Ltd Company is being used is to get around this stumbling block.

    So all this palaver about a private company etc is so much BS , this was the only way that through years torturous negotiation this compromise was reached.
    It was others who brought up these nefarious arguments about Private ownership etc, for their own reasons or through ignorance.


  • Options
    #41
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    wellboytoo wrote: »
    Sully you are not listening the landowners want nothing to do Waterford County Council, nothing at all, years of distrust of broken promises, so the ONLY reason the Ltd Company is being used is to get around this stumbling block.

    So all this palaver about a private company etc is so much BS , this was the only way that through years torturous negotiation this compromise was reached.
    It was others who brought up these nefarious arguments about Private ownership etc, for their own reasons or through ignorance.

    If you read my posts, you will see that I am listening. I'm fully aware that some of the landowners are unhappy with the council and I am aware of the background to the case. I don't live that far from it. I said it would be ideal if the council did lease the land out, but if they can't, we need to ensure the body looking after the Metal Man is setup correctly.

    I'm not sure if this is the case but I was told that the council could force the landowners to hand over the land through a Compulsory Purchase Order. Again, I am not sure what the position in regards to that is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    whynot??
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭whynot??


    Its not a private company its a public company set up by a community group, I seen that on a great blog by westown life. I'll try and post it here,

    http://clarescott.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/brass-necks-and-balls-of-steelthe-battle-for-the-metal-man/


  • Options
    #43
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    whynot?? wrote: »
    Its not a private company its a public company set up by a community group, I seen that on a great blog by westown life. I'll try and post it here,

    http://clarescott.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/brass-necks-and-balls-of-steelthe-battle-for-the-metal-man/

    The Battle for the Metal Man seems a bit of an extreme title! :)

    I think most people refer to it as private because its not the same when compared with the council (a public body that is protected, whereas this company isn't) or the OPW etc.


  • Options
    #44
    whynot??
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭whynot??


    Great blog though! Really sums it up that one councilor hast spent so much time trying to derail a project by a community group, if she speant as much time looking after the people that are going to lose the facilities from the meeting place it might not be closing down?

    Sully, will you inform everyone who calls it a private company that's it's not. It clearly states its a public and all the wrong information being branded out there has upset some people.

    Time to set the record straight as we need this project for the sake of the town!


  • Options
    #45
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    whynot?? wrote: »
    Great blog though! Really sums it up that one councilor hast spent so much time trying to derail a project by a community group, if she speant as much time looking after the people that are going to lose the facilities from the meeting place it might not be closing down?

    Sully, will you inform everyone who calls it a private company that's it's not. It clearly states its a public and all the wrong information being branded out there has upset some people.

    Time to set the record straight as we need this project for the sake of the town!

    Yes but some of what in that article states is suggesting things that are simply untrue and she is avoiding going into what the problem is, so its not a balanced article.

    The councilor in question already clarified why there was a new company setup and she stated very clearly that she does not want the company in question to take over the Metal Man (nor does she herself). The posting seems to want people to draw their own conclusions and I think that's unfair.

    The Facebook page was setup by a 14 year old with, it appears, political influences behind the scene. The page has now been removed and rightfully so. It was a farce. Nobody knew who exactly was running it, some comments apparently were being removed (for and against) and some people were apparently banned. The page admins rarely, if ever, answered anybody directly despite repeated questions posed to them by myself and others. We had a councilor posting through the student running the page which was bizarre and inappropriate. Add onto that the abuse dished out on that page by some members of those advocating the handover and the backlash people were getting for not being in favour - it just wasn't working and people were sometimes rightfully pissed off with the page. There wasn't really any misinformation - just the argument back and forth about it being private or public. Its pedantic, but both sides have a right to claim.

    I'm not sure why there is so much tension between the two groups - for and against when it could be easily resolved. There is a lack of public awareness and a lack of public knowledge. It hasn't been a transparent approach. There are questions to be answered, and for the love of god answer them and address them so we can move on for the sake of Tramore and for the sake of tourism. Nobody is bigger than the town, and nobody should do this on a solo run 'their way'.


  • Options
    #46
    jad2007
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭jad2007


    Without getting into the whole public / private debate. I would just like to point out some issues around a CPO. Many people are saying sure why dont the council just CPO the land and job done.

    Firstly this was suggested before to the council and the reply was that they were not in favour of entering a "potentially open ended legal process".

    Secondly there is no real legal history of CPO being used to open a right of way. So it would be breaking new legal ground and could turn very messy ( and expensive).

    People should also remember that the Metalman is not in public hands at the moment it belongs to the CLI. If they wanted to the CLI could sell the Metalman in the morning to a private party and there would be very little that could be done about it. Now thats not going to happen but people have to remember that the CLI dont want it and im sure their patience is not limitless


  • Options
    #47
    tbayers
    Registered Users Posts: 501 ✭✭✭tbayers


    Accuse my lack of common sense but CPO?


  • Options
    #48
    jad2007
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭jad2007


    Compulsory Purchase Order


  • Options
    #49
    tbayers
    Registered Users Posts: 501 ✭✭✭tbayers


    Thank you!


  • Options
    #50
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    jad2007 wrote: »
    Without getting into the whole public / private debate. I would just like to point out some issues around a CPO. Many people are saying sure why dont the council just CPO the land and job done.

    Firstly this was suggested before to the council and the reply was that they were not in favour of entering a "potentially open ended legal process".

    Secondly there is no real legal history of CPO being used to open a right of way. So it would be breaking new legal ground and could turn very messy ( and expensive).

    A fair point, I hadn't heard any response to that suggestion until now.
    People should also remember that the Metalman is not in public hands at the moment it belongs to the CLI. If they wanted to the CLI could sell the Metalman in the morning to a private party and there would be very little that could be done about it. Now thats not going to happen but people have to remember that the CLI dont want it and im sure their patience is not limitless

    That's not true and is misleading. The Commissioner Of Irish Lights works for the Irish & British governments and is the Lighthouse Authority and a Statutory Corporation. The Board is made up of 12 Commissioners, 4 Officials from Dublin Corporation, the Chief Executive and 4 Heads of Department. This body is covered under Irish law. The organisation works for the state, effectively.

    Whereas what is being proposed for the Metal Man is completely different and cannot be compared. It would be run by private individuals, some of whom are business owners. The talk about having representatives from the council is under serious doubt, as stated by the Town Manager. If I heard correctly, they would lose their position on the board of directors as soon as the election is held and there is a small matter of the merging of the two councils which throws another spanner in the works.

    This is what annoys me about the campaign. Its like a political referendum - people with agendas trying to push away the facts and surround it with a cloud of nonsense, misleading statements and lies. Both sides are at it.

    There are a lot of people jumping down peoples throats for having reservations about it and questioning aspects of the company, as we get when it comes to planning (and look at how planning across Ireland has failed us in recent years). There seems to be people hearing different things and spreading them as fact when its complete bull**** and lies.

    All anybody should want is an open, honest and transparent process that would allow the Metal Man be opened, without anybody making a profit from it (or any money from it) and without any risk to the Metal Man. In the mean time, the heritage trail can go ahead without the Metal Man (another rumour being spread, that the heritage trail cant proceed without The Metal Man). If anybody has questions about the process so far, than so be it - let them be heard and let them be answered. The only reason we are having this drama played out in council meetings and in the local media is because of the bitching that is going on and the attempt to force this through without proper public discussion.


  • Options
    #51
    tbayers
    Registered Users Posts: 501 ✭✭✭tbayers


    In the mean time, the heritage trail can go ahead without the Metal Man (another rumour being spread, that the heritage trail cant proceed without The Metal Man).

    Yes it can go ahead but the metal man would be the icing on the cake and the biggest drawcard, making the trail way more marketable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    tbayers wrote: »
    Yes it can go ahead but the metal man would be the icing on the cake and the biggest drawcard, making the trail way more marketable.

    Yes, but if you can't have it all - should we throw away what we can do?


  • Options
    #53
    Smiley Burnett
    Registered Users Posts: 511 ✭✭✭Smiley Burnett


    Due to all the controversy, what are the odds on Irish Lights keeping control of the metalman??

    RESULT----EVERYBODY LEFT WITH EGG ON FACE!!


  • Options
    #54
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    Smiley Burnett wrote: »
    Due to all the controversy, what are the odds on Irish Lights keeping control of the metalman??

    RESULT----EVERYBODY LEFT WITH EGG ON FACE!!

    Its really infuriating that both sides wont just sit down in public, work out their differences and come back with a solution that is acceptable to all. Otherwise we run the risk of the whole project being abandoned because of a silly solo run.


  • Options
    #55
    tramoreman
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭tramoreman


    from what i understand is that they are giving the metalman away for free and some of the council are for giving it to a private company others are not. and then they have to buy land to put the footpath down

    so from what i can see if the private company got a loan and couldent pay it back the metalman would be part of the assets

    and could be sold and anything could happen after that


  • Options
    #56
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    tramoreman wrote: »
    from what i understand is that they are giving the metalman away for free and some of the council are for giving it to a private company others are not. and then they have to buy land to put the footpath down

    so from what i can see if the private company got a loan and couldent pay it back the metalman would be part of the assets

    and could be sold and anything could happen after that

    There would never have been a charge to "offload" the Metal Man. It was always going to be either gifted to the state or a heritage group. I'm not sure if they intend to buy the land from the landowners or just seek agreement to run a pathway through their land.

    The councilors main objection isn't exactly the company but the memorandum of understanding mainly (re officers being paid and assets being sold). Some councilors would prefer we waited until we get the new council and see about getting the council to buy the land and lease it to this company. Obviously that's debated left right and center on whether the council can or not buy it.


  • Options
    #57
    wellboytoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭wellboytoo


    Sully I wouldn't agree with your synopsis imo it is simply a case of political oppurtunism by a blonde lady counsellor who wants to up her profile before next years election.
    Nothing more nothing less .


  • Options
    #58
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    wellboytoo wrote: »
    Sully I wouldn't agree with your synopsis imo it is simply a case of political oppurtunism by a blonde lady counsellor who wants to up her profile before next years election.
    Nothing more nothing less .

    Considering there are 4 councilors with the same views, I don't think that's a fair assumption!


  • Options
    #59
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    Interesting development. They have abandoned the idea, it appears due to lack of support by the council. The Town Council voted to request the new merged council deal with it instead. A bitter end to a fraught debate.

    http://www.wlrfm.com/news-and-sport/waterford-news/182918-tramore-heritage-company-in-waterford-to-be-liquidated-wlrfmnews.html


  • Options
    #60
    blankAs
    Registered Users Posts: 147 ✭✭blankAs


    Once again the back biting of tramore strikes, well done people........ cant we all just work together for the common good?
    I once again suggest a well advertised occupy style general assembly to reach consensus on what is the common good for tramore.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    tbayers
    Registered Users Posts: 501 ✭✭✭tbayers


    When will the Tramore Council take positive decisions that the Tramore public are behind? Sick to death of all the politics that goes on in the town. Hopefully all is not lost!


Advertisement