The NMH at St. Vincents

pilly

seamus wrote: »

I don't think oppenheimer is opposing a CPO, just the notion that the site could be CPO'd for nothing or "for a cent".

The rules around CPOs would still require that a market price is paid for the land, regardless of what the landowner is willing to accept. Even if the SoC said, "give us a tenner", someone could (and probably would) bring a case against the state accusing it of breaking the law. In order to satisfy the law, the state would have to hand over the market rate in consideration for the property, or the SoC voluntarily donate it to the state.

In any case "no profit" can easily be interpreted to require the SoC to give the proceeds to charitable funds, use it to pay down their compensation liability, or allow them to place it in a retirement fund.

Don't know why you thought I was saying that he was opposing a CPO. I couldn't care less how they buy the land, so long as SOC have nothing whatsoever to do with the new hospital.

Hotblack Desiato

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Most nuns in ireland today are retirement age, which is why they appear not to have rehular jobs. When they were younger they worked in jobs just like everyone else their age and without kids did.

So yes then it's correct to say there are no nuns working as doctors or nurses in our hospitals today. We are discussing the present time not 40 years ago.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No. The state cannot confiscate property from a religious institution. It would have to give open market rate even if internal rules of the SoC prevent them from making a profit.

The open market rate for a hospital car park can't be that much. A fraction of the price of development land that's for sure.

Boggy Turf wrote: »

Wow. Good letter from Boylan.

I am going to write to the Minister of Health now.

simon.harris@oireachtas.ie

An email is a waste of time. Send a physical letter.

VinLieger

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

An email is a waste of time. Send a physical letter.

Yup we all learned during the SOPA debacle what our elected officials think of "keyboard warriors" and their opinions

BlinkingLights

lawred2 wrote: »

CPO the land.

There's a specific clause in the constitution that could allow this :

44.6

"6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation."

It's a necessary work of public utility.

lawred2

seamus wrote: »

pilly wrote: »

It's a capital expenditure. Spend 75m, get hospital worth 425m.

Spend nothing get 75m land free, give away 350m.

I know which deal sounds better to me.

Glenster wrote: »

Lets not hide behind the "CPO's are state tyranny" line, what about the dozens of CPOs that have been served since 1990 to facilitate the NTA infrastructure programme?

I don't think oppenheimer is opposing a CPO, just the notion that the site could be CPO'd for nothing or "for a cent".

The rules around CPOs would still require that a market price is paid for the land, regardless of what the landowner is willing to accept. Even if the SoC said, "give us a tenner", someone could (and probably would) bring a case against the state accusing it of breaking the law. In order to satisfy the law, the state would have to hand over the market rate in consideration for the property, or the SoC voluntarily donate it to the state.

In any case "no profit" can easily be interpreted to require the SoC to give the proceeds to charitable funds, use it to pay down their compensation liability, or allow them to place it in a retirement fund.

A CPO is only required where the vendor is unwilling.

The land could easily have been sold for a cent if the SOM were so inclined.

recipio

Given that the nuns will die out in the next 20 years then who will inherit the new hospital ? Not the Irish taxpayer, that's for sure. The Government should stop this travesty immediately. I can see the Dublin FG deputies getting hammered in the next election over this.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

Don't know why you thought I was saying that he was opposing a CPO. I couldn't care less how they buy the land, so long as SOC have nothing whatsoever to do with the new hospital.

Sorry, must have hit the wrong multiquote button, I've corrected it now.

lawred2

Or SOC whichever it is - keep getting these orders mixed up

Walter H Price

recipio wrote: »

Given that the nuns will die out in the next 20 years then who will inherit the new hospital ? Not the Irish taxpayer, that's for sure. The Government should stop this travesty immediately. I can see the Dublin FG deputies getting hammered in the next election over this.

Given the Archbishop is the permanent un-elected chairman of the NMH board i think we exactly where ownership will lie for a hospital we are about to pay €300m to build and countless millions to staff , equip and maintain.

pilly

Walter H Price wrote: »

Given the Archbishop is the permanent un-elected chairman of the NMH board i think we exactly where ownership will lie for a hospital we are about to pay €300m to build and countless millions to staff , equip and maintain.

I almost crashed the car last night when I heard that.

I mean, who the fcuk said lets have an Archbishop on the board of a maternity hospital, that's a great idea.

Walter H Price

pilly wrote: »

I almost crashed the car last night when I heard that.

I mean, who the fcuk said lets have an Archbishop on the board of a maternity hospital, that's a great idea.

1936 i believe that would be De Valera shock horror , who'd of seen that coming.

The issue is not why it was but why it is , it's 2017 this organisation has been charged with countless crimes in the last decade how is this still accepted.

boombang

Is there any protest planned this weekend? I know the weather is likely to be wet.

I haven't marched since before Gulf War II, but like others I'd march against this.

Walter H Price

boombang wrote: »

Is there any protest planned this weekend? I know the weather is likely to be wet.

I haven't marched since before Gulf War II, but like others I'd march against this.

I've never marched , agreed with water charges and college fees ... but this i would happily go out for , particularly after listening to Boylan and Carr today , the church need out of public life for good.

Priests , Nuns Bishops should have no involvement at all with Pregnant women and kids at any age.

oppenheimer1

Walter H Price wrote: »

1936 i believe that would be De Valera shock horror , who'd of seen that coming.

The issue is not why it was but why it is , it's 2017 this organisation has been charged with countless crimes in the last decade how is this still accepted.

The RCC has not been charged with countless crimes in the last decade. A small number of priests have.

This is not to minimise their crimes, but we should be accurate.

hungry hypno toad

boombang wrote: »

Is there any protest planned this weekend? I know the weather is likely to be wet.

I haven't marched since before Gulf War II, but like others I'd march against this.

Nothing stopping you organising something.

ScumLord

I wonder would people ever boycott mass in protest?

Walter H Price

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The RCC has not been charged with countless crimes in the last decade. A small number of priests have.

This is not to minimise their crimes, but we should be accurate.

and the church which as an organisation has been found by numerous reports to have know about abuses and pedophile priest , sheltered them , moved them around from parish to parish while they continued abusing kids , paid off victims , sold children , need i go on ?????? all while moralizing about divorce and contraception.

If my friend kills or rapes someone and i know and help them cover up the crime i'm guilty of perverting the course of justice , if an employee kills or harms someone though negligence and a company covers it up they are guilty of the same , so what is the RCC ?

I would honest question the mental capacity of anyone who can still stand by the RCC, i understand the elderly they were intensively brainwashed from the inception of the state but anyone under about 50 i cannot comprehend.

VinLieger

ScumLord wrote: »

I wonder would people ever boycott mass in protest?

Weekly attendance is already in the low 20% the only people left going probably agree the nuns should be in charge

oppenheimer1

Walter H Price wrote: »

and the church which as an organisation has been found by numerous reports to have know about abuses and pedophile priest , sheltered them , moved them around from parish to parish while they continued abusing kids , paid off victims , sold children , need i go on ?????? all while moralizing about divorce and contraception.

If my friend kills or rapes someone and i know and help them cover up the crime i'm guilty of perverting the course of justice , if an employee kills or harms someone though negligence and a company covers it up they are guilty of the same , so what is the RCC ?

I would honest question the mental capacity of anyone who can still stand by the RCC, i understand the elderly they were intensively brainwashed from the inception of the state but anyone under about 50 i cannot comprehend.

You said the RCC has been charged with countless crimes. Please give an example, just one will do.

Now, not individuals, the organisation like you claimed.

pilly

ScumLord wrote: »

I wonder would people ever boycott mass in protest?

When you say boycott do you mean not go or protest outside. As far as I can see very few going to mass anyway.

My name is URL

Everyone talking about ownership and hardly a word about what it's costing. It's on track to be the second most expensive hospital build on earth

pilly

My name is URL wrote: »

Everyone talking about ownership and hardly a word about what it's costing. It's on track to be the second most expensive hospital build on earth

I think you might be getting confused there with the Childrens hospital. 350m is not a huge amount for a hospital.

Walter H Price

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You said the RCC has been charged with countless crimes. Please give an example, just one will do.

Now, not individuals, the organisation like you claimed.

No to be fair your right , i'm not sure we ever had the actual b#llox to prosecute these shower of scumbags.

But the reports have clearly shown they knew , they covered it up and they paid off victims

My name is URL

pilly wrote: »

I think you might be getting confused there with the Childrens hospital.

Well that explains the lack of comments about cost :pac:

oppenheimer1

Walter H Price wrote: »

I've never marched , agreed with water charges and college fees ... but this i would happily go out for , particularly after listening to Boylan and Carr today , the church need out of public life for good.

Priests , Nuns Bishops should have no involvement at all with Pregnant women and kids at any age.

This rhetoric is cheap though, the reality would be ferociously expensive.

For good or ill, the majority of schools and a substantial number of hospitals are built on land owned by RCC affiliated organisations. If it were even legally possible for the state to acquire so these lands it would bankrupt it - it would cost billions. There is no feasible alternative to the current system (or mess depending on your perspective).

NuMarvel

lawred2 wrote: »

CPO the land.

Leaving aside any legal or financial aspects, this wouldn't work on a practical basis. A CPO would be fine if the new maternity hospital was going to be stand alone, but the aim is that it will work in partnership with Vincent's. And I can't see that happening if we CPO a plot of land right next to the current hospital, and turn it into a building site for 3 to 4 years. It would be akin to a forced marriage.

Like it or not, and I completely understand why people don't, but if we want this to proceed as originally planned, the solution has to be one that Vincent's are agreeable to as well as everyone else. It's not in anyone's long term interests to force this on them.

pilly

NuMarvel wrote: »

Leaving aside any legal or financial aspects, this wouldn't work on a practical basis. A CPO would be fine if the new maternity hospital was going to be stand alone, but the aim is that it will work in partnership with Vincent's. And I can't see that happening if we CPO a plot of land right next to the current hospital, and turn it into a building site for 3 to 4 years. It would be akin to a forced marriage.

Like it or not, and I completely understand why people don't, but if we want this to proceed as originally planned, the solution has to be one that Vincent's are agreeable to as well as everyone else. It's not in anyone's long term interests to force this on them.

It is in the women of Irelands best interest.

judeboy101

Can someone clarify what happens if sick pregnant woman has to be transferred from proposed new hospital to vincents due to specialised equipment etc and then while in Vincents requires termination? As they are technically in vincents, which ethos wins?

ScumLord

pilly wrote: »

When you say boycott do you mean not go or protest outside. As far as I can see very few going to mass anyway.

I'd be thinking more of catholics that would normally go to mass. My local church still gets a surprising attendance each week. I'd say it's mostly full by the amount of terrible parking where they park 3 deep at the side of the road rather than park more than a 30 second walk away.

A protest outside the cathedrals by everyone else should be arranged.

judeboy101

judeboy101 wrote: »

Can someone clarify what happens if sick pregnant woman has to be transferred from proposed new hospital to vincents due to specialised equipment etc and then while in Vincents requires termination? As they are technically in vincents, which ethos wins?

As abortion is already legally permitted in case of threat of life to the mother, I imagine a termination would be permissible in SVUH in such a scenario.