DCC to consider putting traveller accommodation in public parks

Thelonious Monk

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-city-council-to-consider-using-public-parks-for-traveller-housing-schemes-1.4479511

With all the furore over housing being built in St Anne's park, surely this is some kind of joke?
Can they not build traveller specific sites around the M50 somewhere, seems to still be plenty of space?

BattleCorp

Great way to turn a public park into a sh1thole.

SuperSean11

Michael D should let them set up a site on his front lawn

Bubbaclaus

Surely there is enough space somewhere that wouldn't result in public parks becoming derelict no go zones?

Stihl waters

Great idea, plenty grass for the horses as well, at least they wont have to go far to dump the rubbish

Thelonious Monk

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Surely there is enough space somewhere that wouldn't result in public parks becoming derelict no go zones?

You would think so. It's almost like they're playing some game, they can't be stupid enough to think people would ever allow accom to be built in public parks.

DCC, what the hell? Take their caravans off them and put them in housing and be done with it. This nonsense is not a cultura accommodation, as it’s all about convenience to evade authority and no more. Provide housing and do like other EU nations do; make it compulsory to have a registered fixed abode.

Of all the half assed pandering crap local authorities come up with to deal with ‘travellers’, turning public amenities into littered wastelands has to be the worst.

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_

I think allowing people to live side by side with traditional traveller culture would be positive. NIMBYism and wanting them to be sent somewhere else isn't the solution.

Hmob

JayZeus wrote: »

DCC, what the hell? Take their caravans off them and put them in housing and be done with it. This nonsense is not a cultura accommodation, as it’s all about convenience to evade authority and no more. Provide housing and do like other EU nations do; make it compulsory to have a registered fixed abode.

Of all the half assed pandering crap local authorities come up with to deal with ‘travellers’, turning public amenities into littered wastelands has to be the worst.

Speaking of half-assed.


"make it compulsory to have a registered fixed abode"

mickdw

I love it. Im reminded of the presidential debate where each and every one bar Peter Casey said they would be delighted to have travellers on their doorstep. Michael D even said the park would be fine.
Put the travellers in parks in well to do areas and let these people see the reality, the filthy conditions they create and leave behind, the lawlessness, the voilence and the increased local crime levels and then maybe, just maybe we will get more realistic public policy.
I dont know how every travellers appears to be entitled to a state provided parking / living space.

mfceiling

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_ wrote: »

I think allowing people to live side by side with traditional traveller culture would be positive. NIMBYism and wanting them to be sent somewhere else isn't the solution.

Traditional traveller culture died out years ago.

Bare knuckle boxing to solve disputes, taking kids out of school early, encouraging daughters to marry at 16 and racing piebald ponies and sulky traps on public roads is not culture.

BattleCorp

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_ wrote: »

I think allowing people to live side by side with traditional traveller culture would be positive. NIMBYism and wanting them to be sent somewhere else isn't the solution.

Would you be happy with a halting site right next to you?

Hmob

And so it begins ,......

Invidious

There were two sites sites [sic] where dumping was on-going on a “massive, commercial scale and efforts of the staff to respond have been met with threats and intimidation” the council said.

And the solution is to transfer this behavior to public parks?

Annasopra

mickdw wrote: »

I love it. Im reminded of the presidential debate where each and every one bar Peter Casey said they would be delighted to have travellers on their doorstep. Michael D even said the park would be fine.
Put the travellers in parks in well to do areas and let these people see the reality, the filthy conditions they create and leave behind, the lawlessness, the voilence and the increased local crime levels and then maybe, just maybe we will get more realistic public policy.
I dont know how every travellers appears to be entitled to a state provided parking / living space.

Didnt Peter Casey say all travellers should move into Phoenix Park?

Larbre34

The DCC executive under Owen Keegan is getting entirely too big for its boots.

beakerjoe

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_ wrote: »

I think allowing people to live side by side with traditional traveller culture would be positive. NIMBYism and wanting them to be sent somewhere else isn't the solution.

Can me and my mates be moved side by side too? I did grow up with all them so its my culture, way of life too.

Why cant they live separately? Why do public parks need to be used to house anyone?

angel eyes 2012

Larbre34 wrote: »

The DCC executive under Owen Keegan is getting entirely too big for its boots.

DCC should place a traveller family beside Keegan if he likes the diversity so much so he can lead by example. You would think he would be more concentrated on the massive public housing crisis instead of the obsession with cycle lanes and now this.

I see the areas being considered are mostly located on the Northside. I think Bushy Park and Marlay Park would be far better locations to pilot the project, seems to be greater land availability in parks in those areas than the areas mentioned in the article.

SteelyDanJalapeno

The NIMBYism (Never Is My Back Yours) in this thread is something else

There is a difference in NIMBYism and being concerned about amenities being taken away.
There are few enough green areas and parks in the city.
Putting housing, any kind of housing, over them, is not the answer!

GreeBo

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

I think Bushy Park and Marlay Park would be far better locations to pilot the project

Well you can feck right off with yourself and that idea!

I think the Sally Gap would be a far better idea, or perhaps a field in Mayo.

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_

BattleCorp wrote: »

Would you be happy with a halting site right next to you?

There aren't many suitable areas where I live, but I have no problem with it in principle. Decades ago people and travellers lived side by side with no issue. My grandad used to welcome them to stay on his land every summer. This is what we need to get back to.

Blazer

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_ wrote: »

There aren't many suitable areas where I live, but I have no problem with it in principle. Decades ago people and travellers lived side by side with no issue. My grandad used to welcome them to stay on his land every summer. This is what we need to get back to.

the travellers of decades ago and the absolute scum who exist now are nothing like what your grandad remembers.
In fact if he saw them he'd be loading the double barrel and telling them to move on asap.

Wibbs

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

I see the areas being considered are mostly located on the Northside. I think Bushy Park and Marlay Park would be far better locations to pilot the project, seems to be greater land availability in parks in those areas than the areas mentioned in the article.

The problem being that years back when encampments showed up in those areas and others in that neck of the woods, the local councils had to spend hundreds of thousands clearing up the sites after they left. The amount of rubbish was unreal, trees were ringed and killed and the councils spent god knows how much on top of that to erect barriers to caravans to stop it happening again.

BattleCorp

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_ wrote: »

There aren't many suitable areas where I live, but I have no problem with it in principle. Decades ago people and travellers lived side by side with no issue. My grandad used to welcome them to stay on his land every summer. This is what we need to get back to.

:rolleyes:

You might as well go for World Peace while you are at it.

cruizer101

The demand/need for Traveller-specific accommodation is outstripping what is available

This annoys me so much, if you are getting housing supplied to you from the state it should be basic housing, you don't get to have specific requirements (disabled being the only exception to this ) if you want specific features save up and buy your own house.
Otherwise you just go on the same list as everyone else, no discrimination, everyone treated the same regardless of background.

biko

Trinity College has a big park.
Merrion Square has a big park.
These two should be able to handle all the unsettled Travellers in Dublin.

Hmob

Sorcha Dhuisigh _She_Her_ wrote: »

There aren't many suitable areas where I live, but I have no problem with it in principle. Decades ago people and travellers lived side by side with no issue. My grandad used to welcome them to stay on his land every summer. This is what we need to get back to.

We're gone past that now

The old generation of traveller was different to now

SEPT 23 1989

West Dublin and North Dublin have their share South East Dublin needs a good taste of the culture the residents champion so much

suicide_circus

I'm all for it.

Herbert Park
Bushy Park
Marlay Park
Dartry Park
People's Park
Cabinteely Park
Blackrock Park
Killiney Hill Park

SEPT 23 1989

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

West Dublin and North Dublin have their share South East Dublin needs a good taste of the culture the residents champion so much

And again!
Halting sites/traveller accommodation exists in;
Booterstown, Blackrock, Foxrock, Sandyford, Cabinteely, Dun Laoghaire, Glenamuck, Shankill, Rathmichael.