Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
12-01-2009, 08:33   #76
darealtulip
Registered User
 
darealtulip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,337
shellyriver what a first post! welcome to the boards. Well said if there is right of way get it in court, if not they can do as they wish.
darealtulip is offline  
Advertisement
12-01-2009, 09:55   #77
Cork4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 65
Well done shellyriver

Super post shellyriver
Cork4ever is offline  
12-01-2009, 10:51   #78
jimmmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cork4ever View Post
Look the man wants to shut down one way of accessing his property.....yes his property.....they have 7 kids, he wants to shut down one way of accessing the property so his family are more secure.
He and his family only use it as a holiday home / come here for holidays. He does not have to literally lock 400 acres to feel secure. He can lock the door of the house, the gate to the courtyard /containing the shop + cafe etc no problem.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cork4ever View Post
he just wants to shut down access in the interests of secuirty.
Why did the previous ownrers not "shut down access in the interests of secuirty" so ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cork4ever View Post
The man purchased the property when no one else wanted it,
He was reported to have paid only 1.5 million for 400 acres of land in scenic north Sligo, and the price included Lisadell house + other buildings. Maybe if people did not use the right of way going through the lands the price would have been higher ?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cork4ever View Post
has done a super job on doing it up,
Pity he did not buy most of the antiques / contents of the house at the well publicised auction at the time so....it would be a more original package now if he had.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cork4ever View Post
has brought 40,000 visitors to the place and a few serial objectors to anything to do with planning and premission and rights of way are making it impossible for a man, his wife and 7 kids to feel secure on property they own.
lol. I think he has angered more than a " few serial objectors ". Many of the locals as well as visitors to the area are not impressed with the shoddy new barrier he erected, denying access on an often and well used right of way.
jimmmy is offline  
12-01-2009, 11:28   #79
shellyriver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 194
Cheers Slapband and DaReal

Re reply from the above - tnx

I know the first blog was a bit of a tour de force -- but having searched web re the closure (having been in the House on Sunday afternoon the last day its open) I was genuinely amazed at some of the blogs.

Anyways - lets hope the hope matter is resoved ASAP. Sligo is a small area, and with the exception of Markree and Annaghmore or Coopershill has little heritage in anything like good order. Tours around Sligo Abbey and Rourke's/Parke's Castle I leave a lot to be desired.

Plans for Hazelwood have to be applauded, with a reservation over housing density -- again private finance.

Look at the bigger picture re culture/history and tourism in the area, Sligo Co Co and Corporation finances -- they can't finish new Museum up the Mall (no money), don't have finance for new bridge at Cleveragh, are paralysed as what to do with O'Connell Street (no funds).

Sligo Co Co had chance to buy Lissadell -- choked or didn't have money.

To me it seems that aside to what I wrote previously, there would appear to be a sense of grievance with the Co Council (by either Executive or Elected Representatives) to get back at 'de Landlord class'.

Will be interested in statement from the County Manager et al.

Pity only half decent local paper didn't run a more extensive article regarding the County Council meeting, which according to Cllrs was a torrid and hotly contested affair -- they all seemed like pussy cats when asked on radio 'why and what exactly they did what they did'.

This affair just reeks of the worst time of typically Irish, typically Sligo small-minded parish pump nonsense, allied with so-called libertarians who essentially without any real entitlement think they can dictate to anybody who fails to be convinced by their prejudice, disregard and often small-minded ignorance.

UP DA ROVERS!!!!!
shellyriver is offline  
12-01-2009, 12:09   #80
blackiebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 603
Shellyriver,

I sincerely hope you will become a frequent poster. Absolutely 'nail on the head' in both your post's and a big +1 from me. It appears though that unless Ed Walsh is a bluffer, the game is up; "But lawyers Eddie Walsh and his wife Constance Cassidy, who bought the 400-acre estate more than five years ago, claim that irrespective of the outcome of legal action they want to wash their hands of the project." Taken from the Indo, full article here http://www.independent.ie/national-n...n-1597829.html

Now a mate speculated the end result would always be a break up and sell off of the property in order to make €€€€€ and he may be right, but I think Walsh has enough money and his true motive in purchasing this estate was a combination of a type of lifestyle and a love of our history and old houses.

If this facility is to remain closed then shame on all involved, having being there when it was more or less abandoned and decaying and after the work done by this family I could only say that once again the people of Sligo have shot themselves in the foot.

Walsh will probably return to his other 'manor' in Kildare or Meath and recall with bitterness the process of acquiring, restoring and eventually breaking up the historic estate. The irony is that he will probably make millions at the end of it all.

He will end up having the last laugh and Sligo will end up with ......

You could'nt make it up!
blackiebest is offline  
Advertisement
12-01-2009, 12:09   #81
jimmmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by shellyriver View Post
To me it seems that aside to what I wrote previously, there would appear to be a sense of grievance with the Co Council (by either Executive or Elected Representatives) to get back at 'de Landlord class'.
Cannot see how you make that out. While 'de Landlord class' was treated shamefully in much of 20th century Ireland ( the carving up of the estates etc ) the country council has nowadays more to do than "get back at 'de Landlord class'" by upholding peoples right of way. Pity the new owners erected that new barrier etc
jimmmy is offline  
12-01-2009, 12:27   #82
partyguinness
Registered User
 
partyguinness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 2,976
People seem very certain about the law in this matter. I doubt if there is anyone the who knows all the facts.

I am sure there is alot more to it than what we read about in the paper or hear via local pub gossip.

In other words unless we know all the facts we should be very slow to pass speculation about Rights of Way off as fact.

Where were the Sligo CC in 2003 when the place was up for sale. It appears now that the property is a success that the Council want to get a free ride on the back of the owners.
partyguinness is offline  
12-01-2009, 12:46   #83
T runner
Registered User
 
T runner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by partyguinness View Post
People seem very certain about the law in this matter. I doubt if there is anyone the who knows all the facts.

I am sure there is alot more to it than what we read about in the paper or hear via local pub gossip.

In other words unless we know all the facts we should be very slow to pass speculation about Rights of Way off as fact.

Where were the Sligo CC in 2003 when the place was up for sale. It appears now that the property is a success that the Council want to get a free ride on the back of the owners.
In fairness, Its not the county councils job to purchase and turn huge houses into tourist attractions. There money is far better spent on more everyday service maintenance and they have no right to invest speculatively in stuff like this using public money. It would actually be outrageous.

As regards the right of way, the owners are claiming that there are legally no rights of way. Thats a fact. If they don't want to take the council to court they should at least explain why.

The rights of way to a property and that property closing because it is not viable to continue are two distinct issues.

The only connection between those two issues are being made by the owners. It is up to them to explain exactly how they are related otherwise we should assume they are still unrelated.
T runner is offline  
12-01-2009, 12:56   #84
partyguinness
Registered User
 
partyguinness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 2,976
It wldnt be the owners who wld take the Council to court over rights of way.

The Council wld have to initiate proceedings which I doubt they have the appetite for.

Asserting public Rights of Way in Irish law via Court is incredibly difficult.
partyguinness is offline  
Advertisement
12-01-2009, 13:04   #85
shellyriver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 194
Hi Black & Jimmy

Hi Blackbestie -- thanks for the update from the Indo concerning Eddie Walsh's expressed interest in selling Lissadell -- real shame in the short and long term.

Going back in time I was in favour of State purchasing the house -- but they didn't.

Lissadell gets kicked from both sides, one side says all the original artefacts are gone, the house is a form of shell which embodies only relicts of oppression/landlordism etc.

Others in favour of a more pro-British friendly (revisionist) history say they are not interested in the house because countess markievicz was a 'bloody thirsty murderess'.

But in my humble opinion, these are the extremes of views expressed re Lissadell -- the vast number are just genuinely interested in it as a curious relict of our shared past and a day out, along with any particular interests they may hold.

If Eddie Walsh sells the house -- best of luck to him. But I think its a pity and it's a pity there weren't 10 more couples in North Sligo like he and his wife to promote this area (like them or loathe them they did the job wonderfully).

If, as suggested, the breakup of the estate part of their exit strategy then the gombeens who offered him this, as you and your 'informed'? mate predict(ed), a very lucrative compensation package (if he is the machievellian character some view him) then he must be laughing up his sleeve at the stupidity and blundering of Sligo Co Co, as representatives of their electorate, who offered him this golden opportunity.

However maybe, just maybe, he had a love of the area, the house, ALL the characters associated with that historic home and wanted to undertake the project because he is a wealthy, ambitious and talented human! Maybe that is hard for some to understand who shuffle through this mortal coil, filled with venom and bile. None of us know everything about the place, but its important to be fair and balanced.

Those who are informed, intuitive and reflective just might entertain the prospect that there is another side to the avalanche of infective that people, including this blog, such as Jimmy hold (by the way its nothing personal, Jimmy, I don't know you -- the above is mere crystallised theorising).

But back to the real world, Lissadell is closed. If its for sale -- its a bad time to sell. There are only 400 acres at Lissadell its mostly forestry and foreshore. I suppose some in cyberworld will say he will ride back to Kildare suffering this sheckles in his back pocket, god help them!, as if is is part of a grand master plan.

Now if he sells it lets see if the State, with a second opportunity and bite of the cherry will go for Lissadell -- however, considering the shortage of available cash outlined for current projects outlined in Sligo; allied with inglorious Government killing of Cancer services in Sligo and our local reps inability to a great deal about this life-and-death matter allied with others, I very much doubt it.

There are more important things in life that all this -- 2,000 in Dell have lost their jobs, that's mind-blowing. They can't pick up a canvas and try and sell some art for inflated sums, they live in the real world.

As for local yokels, when the Gore-Booths were threatened with imprisonment by the State in the 1950s for keeping 200 people employed and looking after their non compis mentis brother, locals and local politicans invited members of the Land Commission down to CARVE UP the estate under these elderly ladies' noses! This was when the Gore-Booths had alreay released 28,000 acres of land to tenants -- under the Wyndham Act, Sir Josslyn Gore-Booth, being the first in Ireland to do this reducing the Estate to about 3,000 acres. By the way, the local farmers were only able to buy back this land after a £100,000,000.00 Million buy-out with money provided by the British Exchequer, because tenants didn't have the proverbial pot (with payments staggered over 60 years).

When they got land around the Gore-Booth estate, what do many of these beneficiaries they do apply for planning permission and sell off their sites at vastly inflated prices.

This is the mentality of some of the people you are dealing with -- either etheral and transient or reactionary post-peasantry!

That's about it, I have my say -- looks like Lissadell is closed as far as the Walshs are concerned. I don't believe its bluster or brinksmanship -- he is independently wealthy of Lissadell, best of luck to the new owner, whoever they are. However, next time it might not just be roads that people claim they are entitled to pass that will be closed but the house and general grounds itself. When dust settles and matter goes to court, could go to the Supreme Court, I don't believe the roads will be made public.

But back to the real world -- the locks are up, 11 people have lost their jobs, local businesses are now not going to benefit, Sligo no longer has a promotional and cultural asset and we are made look like a bunch of reactionary fools, cutting off our collective nose to spite our face (for the benefit of a handful of faceless individuals how either had the wherewithal, finance, brains, ability or courage to assert a right of way themselves, in which they could have been assisted (as mentioned earlier) by none other than the Attorney General.

By striking a blow against tyranny, these snivellers sought a new master, the Local Authority, and cowered under the cloak of a tax-payers blundering democrarcy. Edward Said, quoted: 'The oppressed in turn become the WORST oppressor'. What an abuse of such privilege!

Again, take a bow Sligo Co Co.
shellyriver is offline  
12-01-2009, 13:19   #86
jimmmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by T runner View Post
In fairness, Its not the county councils job to purchase and turn huge houses into tourist attractions. There money is far better spent on more everyday service maintenance and they have no right to invest speculatively in stuff like this using public money. It would actually be outrageous.

As regards the right of way, the owners are claiming that there are legally no rights of way. Thats a fact. If they don't want to take the council to court they should at least explain why.

The rights of way to a property and that property closing because it is not viable to continue are two distinct issues.

The only connection between those two issues are being made by the owners. It is up to them to explain exactly how they are related otherwise we should assume they are still unrelated.
Excellent post, you hit the nail on the head there....and you have done so without personally criticising another poster. Judging by the poor visitor numbers at Lisadell - certainly in the tea rooms, and by the lack of turnover in the sizeable shop there - the 11 jobs in Lisadell were not sustainable. Even the staff themselves there will tell you that. If the place was a money-making business, then certainly nobody other than a fool would shut it down in this day and age.
jimmmy is offline  
12-01-2009, 13:24   #87
partyguinness
Registered User
 
partyguinness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 2,976
The owners said last week that numbers had increased from around 4000 per annum to around 40000 per annum under their ownership. Were they lying or exaggerating?

Marketing is not my field but that seems like an impressive increase.
partyguinness is offline  
12-01-2009, 13:26   #88
jimmmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackiebest View Post
It appears though that unless Ed Walsh is a bluffer, the game is up; "But lawyers Eddie Walsh and his wife Constance Cassidy, who bought the 400-acre estate more than five years ago, claim that irrespective of the outcome of legal action they want to wash their hands of the project." Taken from the Indo, full article here http://www.independent.ie/national-n...n-1597829.html
I read that article as well. People would not be surprised if the estate went back on the market. I have been told from a reliable source rents were increased a lot 5 years ago, after it changed hands. It is reported to have cost only 1.5 million , or 3750 euro per acre, so it would not be surprising to see it split up, as the ground itself alone must be worth at least that.
jimmmy is offline  
12-01-2009, 13:34   #89
partyguinness
Registered User
 
partyguinness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 2,976
they want to wash their hands of the project.

Typical Indo sensationalist bull****..

"They" claimed no such thing.
partyguinness is offline  
12-01-2009, 13:37   #90
jimmmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by partyguinness View Post
The owners said last week that numbers had increased from around 4000 per annum to around 40000 per annum under their ownership. Were they lying or exaggerating?
I am sure the present controversy will do their business no harm when it reopens ( during the peak summer months - there is money there for the picking , showing people around the house + charging well for it ) to buy the amount of free publicity they have got nationally would easily cost hundreds of thousands.

Is the 40,000 figure since they opened or per annum ? Is it visitors to the house, or does it include visitors who may visit the cafe / shop / courtyard area only ?

Either way the 40,000 is a nice little figure. What else is in the area of historic importance for people to visit ? If it was properly managed, and if the contents of the house were all authentic Lissadel, and people were not sometimes discouraged by a barrier, I am confident visitor numbers could be higher. It is in an area of great natural beauty, not far for the main "west coast highway" full of tourists in the summer.
jimmmy is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search