News and views on Greystones harbour and marina [SEE MODERATOR WARNING POST 1187]

LEIN

Please post links to the origin source when posting quotes.

Fiachra2

The full text of Cllr Haydens rather inaccurate statement is here:

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/guboh-plan-b-deadline-unhelpful/

The issue of planning permission is a bit uncertain. Wicklow county council granted themselves permisision for this. It would appear that An Bord Pleanala dont believe they are entitled to do this. However the point is somehwhat academic as Sispar have no funds to build it with or without planning permission.!

Maudi

ciaran67 wrote: »

God, i miss the old town.

towards whats there now and the nobody knowing about what anybodys doing or whats going to be built.etc...you are right...the old harbour was lovely.

The Durutti Column

Jimjay wrote: »

The new story on greystones guide from a local councillor about "plan b" is interesting. He states there should be no deadline set for works at the harbour. If this is the official view then it is very worrying. He also states sispar have an agreement to build the health care centre along with full planning permission?! (didn't realise this) but we should wait as long as it takes for them to raise funding to build it.

I don't care if the deadline is 3 weeks or 12 months, as long as we have a viable plan and a guaranteed deadline date that would great.

There's a comment on the GUBOH website and FB page dealing with all this:

I see that Cllr Ciaran Hayden has condemned GUBOH's and the mayor's call for action on his blog, on Greystones Guide, and so on (http://www.greystonesguide.ie/guboh-plan-b-deadline-unhelpful). His statement is worth reading carefully ....

Hayden states that the Medical Centre has "full planning permission". He appears to be unaware that An Bord Pleanala is at present considering whether or not to turn down the planning permission that Wicklow County Council awarded to itself and Sispar, and that until ABP decides no planning permission exists for this centre.

How can anyone accept Mr H's claim to represent the people of Greystones in this matter? He is opposing and condemning any action to improve the ghost harbour that Sispar, a broke company whose loans are in NAMA, has left to us.

Instead of joining with his fellow-councillors, the mayor, and community groups like GUBOH to have waste and rubbish removed from the site, the last of the ugly hoardings removed, and some temporary landscaping done on the derelict, rubbish-strewn building site, he proposes that we do nothing, that the entire community, not just Sispar, must wait on NAMA rather than do anything to improve our town's amenities and attractiveness.

There are many statements which are either false or unverifiable in Mr H's latest diatribe on behalf of Sispar.

For example: "The HSE, the medical partners and Sispar have an agreement in place to build a state of the art healthcare facility at Greystones Harbour." With all due respect, so far there is no clear evidence that the HSE have signed any contract with the Sisk subsidiary which will run any Medical Centre, and as far as any public record goes, it appears only one medical practice in the town has expressed an interest in moving to the centre.

He does say one thing that is 100% true: "The project is awaiting funding at present and Sispar have no control, whatsoever, on the funding decision from NAMA or from an alternative funding source."

The problem indeed is that we are "awaiting" funding. We have now been waiting for over a year to hear from NAMA. In fact, Sispar heard from NAMA some months ago, but cleartly did not get a promise of funding as they have since been in discussions with NAMA and are awaiting the latter's final offer, if there is one.

What GUBOH is saying is very simple: More than a year after construction work stopped, more than a year after the name of NAMA started to be used to prevent any action to remediate the site — more than a year of kicking the can down the road is enough.

A deadline is essential. The summer season is only three months away. If NAMA has no clear response by the next meeting of the HLC, then Sispar and WCC must produce a Plan B for temporary landscaping and remediation of the derelict site and the ghost harbour we are saddled with, in the interests both of the restoration of our amenities to the local community and in order to stimulate some return of tourists and visitors and thereby benefit the local economy.

For Mr Hayden, on the contrary, it appears only the interests of Sispar matter.

ABP won't report on this for months. NAMA doesn't give a sh!te about our needs — its job is to minimise debt and loss, not finance white elephants. Clear to me anyhow that Tom Fortune and GUBOH have the right of it. But so far only CH has broken his silence — what have the other brave warriors on our soon to be abolished town council got to say? Are they with the community, or with Hayden and Sispar?

F3

Ok let me get this straight and simple once and for all. Having listened, looked and learnt over the last 12 months, my understanding is as follows:

Sispar had loans with Aib at a low rate of interest. (less than 2%) (c€50m)

When AIB were nationalised loans over a certain amount automatically went into Nama. The 50m went into NAMA

During this transition period, the construction of the breakwater was in progress, and Sispar / Sisk Park funded the completion of the breakwater with their own parent company funds. ( circa 14m) , why? Because lack of funds would not be a reason to leave a partially built breakwater to be lost if an easterly storm occurred. Thus Sispar insurers would not pay out, thus the asset had to be protected. Mother nature i guess would not wait for NAMA.

Sicon (the mother company to Sisk who are joint and several with Park D) have guaranteed the loan repayments to AIB (and thus Nama) and must therfore be continuing to meet re payments (if they were not, NAMA would call in the guarantee).

Sispar have maintained a public position that they are waiting for a decision from NAMA to decide the fate of the project (including interalia the Medical Centre). This might be half true, but it's a distracting misnomer. The decision is whether NAMA can continue to fund the project picking up on AIB's agreement at a low rare of interest. Sispar have always always maintaned in the same sentence that they await a decision on NAMA, suggest seeking funding from 'another source'.

This reference to 'another source' is the telltale that Sispar know, and have always known, that they have a contractual responsibility to fund this project from whatever source.mThe problem is that money is now very expensive and very scarce. So any lender to Sispar will be faced with the same question regarding security of the loans going forward which must be in the region of 150 to 200million if they were to complete everything, this question Is whether the project viable going forward? (bearing in mind they still owe AIB/NAMA)

So, with allied public representatives swallowing the NAMA story hook line and sinker, Sispar happily allow these defensive positions to be published without correction as Sispar have always also maintained the "other source" for funding, an thus cannot be accused of telling lies.

NAMA simply has nothing to do with Sispar completing their contracted works.

The fact that AIB have failed in ther agreement to fund the entire project for Sispar is inconvenient but it is also entirely irrelevant.

You came to the casino, you put €65million on black, and it came up red.

Sorry guys?!

This Plan B must therefore be one of the following three options:-

1)Sispar get funding from China or some other source at a much much higher rate than the original AIB loan, and finish their contracted works

Or

2) Sispar properly open the amenity for the people and business of greystones, which include access to all piers and landscape the building site, and thus buy themselves time until the market changes in 20 years

Or

3) WCC terminates Sispars contract, for them failing to proceed with the works (By failing to secure the funds to complete from any source)

The contract is NOT between WCC and AIB, nor is it between WCC and NAMA,

The contract is between WCC and Sispar

The time has come to make the option B choice, no more nonsense, no more smoke and mirrors, and please please please no more waffle about NAMA through the usual waffley sources.

F3

By the way, option 3 would include WCC getting their hand on the 10million bond to landscape the site which should kick start greystones becoming a destination town once more.:D

The Durutti Column

F3 wrote: »

Ok let me get this straight and simple once and for all. Having listened, looked and learnt over the last 12 months, my understanding is as follows:

Sispar had loans with Aib at a low rate of interest. (less than 2%) (c€50m)

When AIB were nationalised loans over a certain amount automatically went into Nama. The 50m went into NAMA

During this transition period, the construction of the breakwater was in progress, and Sispar / Sisk Park funded the completion of the breakwater with their own parent company funds. ( circa 14m) , why? Because lack of funds would not be a reason to leave a partially built breakwater to be lost if an easterly storm occurred. Thus Sispar insurers would not pay out, thus the asset had to be protected. Mother nature i guess would not wait for NAMA.

Sicon (the mother company to Sisk who are joint and several with Park D) have guaranteed the loan repayments to AIB (and thus Nama) and must therfore be continuing to meet re payments (if they were not, NAMA would call in the guarantee).

Sispar have maintained a public position that they are waiting for a decision from NAMA to decide the fate of the project (including interalia the Medical Centre). This might be half true, but it's a distracting misnomer. The decision is whether NAMA can continue to fund the project picking up on AIB's agreement at a low rare of interest. Sispar have always always maintaned in the same sentence that they await a decision on NAMA, suggest seeking funding from 'another source'.

This reference to 'another source' is the telltale that Sispar know, and have always known, that they have a contractual responsibility to fund this project from whatever source.mThe problem is that money is now very expensive and very scarce. So any lender to Sispar will be faced with the same question regarding security of the loans going forward which must be in the region of 150 to 200million if they were to complete everything, this question Is whether the project viable going forward? (bearing in mind they still owe AIB/NAMA)

So, with allied public representatives swallowing the NAMA story hook line and sinker, Sispar happily allow these defensive positions to be published without correction as Sispar have always also maintained the "other source" for funding, an thus cannot be accused of telling lies.

NAMA simply has nothing to do with Sispar completing their contracted works.

The fact that AIB have failed in ther agreement to fund the entire project for Sispar is inconvenient but it is also entirely irrelevant.

You came to the casino, you put €65million on black, and it came up red.

Sorry guys?!

This Plan B must therefore be one of the following three options:-

1)Sispar get funding from China or some other source at a much much higher rate than the original AIB loan, and finish their contracted works

Or

2) Sispar properly open the amenity for the people and business of greystones, which include access to all piers and landscape the building site, and thus buy themselves time until the market changes in 20 years

Or

3) WCC terminates Sispars contract, for them failing to proceed with the works (By failing to secure the funds to complete from any source)

The contract is NOT between WCC and AIB, nor is it between WCC and NAMA,

The contract is between WCC and Sispar

The time has come to make the option B choice, no more nonsense, no more smoke and mirrors, and please please please no more waffle about NAMA through the usual waffley sources.

Dead right, F3, on all counts. My only quibble is this, for clarity — Tom Fortune and GUBOH's "Plan B" is for someone, anyone, to start work immediately to restore some semblance of attractiveness to the harbour starting from the end of February. And that to happen IF, as is virtually 100% certain, there has been no further response from NAMA to Sispar by that date. You are using "Plan B" for something much bigger.

Let's call your plan something else.

But you are 100% on the essential choice:

EITHER Sispar now bites the bullet and carries out your option 2 above, landscaping the site and providing full access and use;

OR failing that, Wicklow County Council pulls the trigger on the non-performance clause in the contract between them and Sispar, gets its hands on the €10 million, and uses that to do the necessary work and end this sorry deprivation of what should be a prime amenity in the town and a visitor magnet.

Are we going to have five more years of this sh!t? The project is more than 24 months behind schedule — WCC must say STOP. NOW!!

Blanchflower

F3 wrote: »

By the way, option 3 would include WCC getting their hand on the 10million bond to landscape the site which should kick start greystones becoming a destination town once more.:D

I would favour Option 3, F3. Wicklow County Council to call on the performance bond on €10 million. As Sispar is insolvent this would have to be paid by Sicon and Park Developments (Dublin) Limited.

The big problem is that Wicklow County Council appear to be joined at the hip to Sispar. I understand that the long strategic budgets of Wicklow County Council are heavily reliant on Sispar based on its budgeted profits from the Greystones Harbour Development. Indeed it is said that Wicklow County Council stood to gain more out of the PPP project than even Sispar itself. Now if Wicklow hit the nuclear button an extinguish the Sispar entity they would effectively destroy their own strategic budgets thus crystalising a black hole in their plans. So the failure of Wicklow County Council to protect the people of Greystones by bending over backwards to keep the hopelessly insolvent Sispar alive is been done purely out of selfish self interests to maintain the pipe dream that the super profits will come some day. :eek:

Fiachra2

Derek Mitchell joins the debate.

Interesting perspective: We have have had to wait 12 years and sure..if we have to wait another 12, what of it..? (At least nobody looks stupid!)


In spite of the protests of GUBOH, the best way is to work on each of the issues to get completion. Their protests disguise the fact that we already have the best Community Harbour open in Ireland. Their demand to set an end of February is not sensible and will delay completion. I have spent 12 years pushing the project forward and at all times progress has been achieved by basing proposals on Engineering and Financial facts, not on dreams.



In contrast the GUBOH people demanded that we built a harbour which would have been too rough to moor boats. We would all have looked very stupid if they had got their way!



Progress is expected as follows:
Our much needed Primary Health Care Centre depends on funding and NAMA hope to release further information in March.
The Minister for State, Brian Hayes T.D. visited the site and has undertaken to clear bureaucratic issues on the Coastguard Station and building is expected next year.
Subject to there being adequate demand we hope the marina will open this Spring.

Given the mess in the country that is plenty to be achieving.
http://www.greystonesguide.ie/patience-needed-to-get-harbour-completed/

Jimjay

Apparantly nama have said they have given their decision on harbour funding to sispar and are waiting for their reply before divulging any further information ????

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/harris-receives-update-from-nama-on-greystones-harbour-and-la-touche-hotel/

Simon harris
"“From this information, it is now clear, that NAMA has contacted the developer of the Greystones Harbour project and informed them of their decision regarding the next tranche of funding for this project. I would appeal to the developer to ensure that any information sought by NAMA is furnished to them as quickly as possible. We need to know exactly where the funding for the remaining phases of this important project now stands and I hope this can happen as quickly as possible. I will continue to seek information from NAMA on this as soon as it is available,” stated Deputy Harris."

Seems to bit a bit of an embarrasment for Ciaran Hayden's latest release about sispar having no control over waiting for nama decision

Alan_P

Jimjay wrote: »

Apparantly nama have said they have given their decision on harbour funding to sispar and are waiting for their reply before divulging any further information ????

http://www.greystonesguide.ie/harris-receives-update-from-nama-on-greystones-harbour-and-la-touche-hotel/

Simon harris
"“From this information, it is now clear, that NAMA has contacted the developer of the Greystones Harbour project and informed them of their decision regarding the next tranche of funding for this project. I would appeal to the developer to ensure that any information sought by NAMA is furnished to them as quickly as possible. We need to know exactly where the funding for the remaining phases of this important project now stands and I hope this can happen as quickly as possible. I will continue to seek information from NAMA on this as soon as it is available,” stated Deputy Harris."

Seems to bit a bit of an embarrasment for Ciaran Hayden's latest release about sispar having no control over waiting for nama decision

Can anyone think of any reason why Sispar shouldn't release the NAMA decision immediately ? Whatever NAMA are waiting for is of interest only to them :- there's no reason for Sispar to delay releasing the decision.

Jimjay

I agree alan, sispar should be made to immediately give details of this decision.

The Durutti Column

Here's Derek Mitchell's latest:

In spite of the protests of GUBOH, the best way is to work on each of the issues to get completion. Their protests disguise the fact that we already have the best Community Harbour open in Ireland. Their demand to set an end of February is not sensible and will delay completion. I have spent 12 years pushing the project forward and at all times progress has been achieved by basing proposals on Engineering and Financial facts, not on dreams.

In contrast the GUBOH people demanded that we built a harbour which would have been too rough to moor boats. We would all have looked very stupid if they had got their way!

Progress is expected as follows:

• Our much needed Primary Health Care Centre depends on funding and NAMA hope to release further information in March.
• The Minister for State, Brian Hayes T.D. visited the site and has undertaken to clear bureaucratic issues on the Coastguard Station and building is expected next year.
• Subject to there being adequate demand we hope the marina will open this Spring.

Given the mess in the country that is plenty to be achieving.

It's at http://www.greystonesguide.ie/patience-needed-to-get-harbour-completed

A few choice quotes:

1. we already have the best Community Harbour open in Ireland
2. their demand to set an end of February is not sensible and will delay completion
3. the GUBOH people demanded that we built a harbour which would have been too rough to moor boats
4. Subject to there being adequate demand we hope the marina will open this Spring

1. Hard to know what to say about this, except that the harbour has no boats, no marina, no access to any but a small section, and is MOST DEFINITELY NOT a 'community harbour'. Still less is it 'the best harbour in Ireland'.
2. GUBOH is looking for remedial action on the derelict site IF there has been no positive response, or just no response, from Nama. Nama is a red herring. It is Sispar's failure to find alternative funding to AIB which is delaying completion. GUBOH wants temporary remedial works.
   
3. <snip> ~ potentially libellous part of post removed GUBOH did not exist when differing versions of the harbour were being touted
4. "We hope". But if our dreams do not come true, let's wait another 12 years.

What an id!ot! Now I'm grateful for Phil Hogan's latest U-turn which will allow me to vote against this clown in the local elections in 2014.

Fiachra2

Dont forget that Stephen Donnelly made an identical announcement in mid October that Sispar had advised thatthe decison would be out in weeks.

Dont hold your breath.

(you might look foolish!)

F3

I have spent 12 years pushing the project forward and at all times progress has been achieved by basing proposals on Engineering and Financial facts, not on dreams.

Engineering and Financial facts.........how does this man identify either?? Does does he base the 'facts' from what Sispar and WCC tell him(remember he signed the contract but apparently he either knows little about what he has actually signed or is keeping very quiet about what he has signed) or does he listen to others? has he kept an open mind ? Has he at any point recommended or commissioned an external expert review on what has unfolded / transpired on the project to date? Has his 12 years of pushing interfered with his objectivity / independence? It would appear that he considers himself an authority on the Harbour PPP yet He describes himself as an accountant. Perhaps he should consider what's best for the people of greystones, no?

Blanchflower

F3 wrote: »

I have spent 12 years pushing the project forward and at all times progress has been achieved by basing proposals on Engineering and Financial facts, not on dreams.

Engineering and Financial facts.........how does this man identify either?? Does does he base the 'facts' from what Sispar and WCC tell him(remember he signed the contract but apparently he either knows little about what he has actually signed or is keeping very quiet about what he has signed) or does he listen to others? has he kept an open mind ? Has he at any point recommended or commissioned an external expert review on what has unfolded / transpired on the project to date? Has his 12 years of pushing interfered with his objectivity / independence? It would appear that he considers himself an authority on the Harbour PPP yet He describes himself as an accountant. Perhaps he should consider what's best for the people of greystones, no?

F3, this is a prime example of someone not being able to see the wood from the trees. Someone who has lost all reason as far as the "project" is concerned. 12 years is a mighty long time and any semblence of objectivity he had on the project has long since evaporated. The facts are that his pet project which was concieved during the Tiger is bust. It has run out of cash and its main "asset" - the breakwaters, has no real commercial value. NAMA is "hoping to provide information in March" and not funding. What good is "information"? It won't pay the bills! The harbour and Sispar are in an even bigger "mess" than the counrty.

F3

In spite of the protests of GUBOH, the best way is to work on each of the issues to get completion. Their protests disguise the fact that we already have the best Community Harbour open in Ireland. Their demand to set an end of February is not sensible and will delay completion.

In spite of the protest of GUBOH???? What protests is he referring to? If GUBOH hadn't pushed this time last year, all the hoardings would still be up. Ok let's look at each of the issues that need to be worked on and for the crack, I'll put my estimation of how long it has taken to resolve each issue in my mind

ISSUES:-

1. NAMA funding the entire project to completion

Irrelevant nonsense. Sispar are contracted to complete the works, this has nothing to do with NAMA. Go get your funding else where.

Time taken to resolve NAMA issued : 5 seconds

2. Build Primary Care Centre


HSE not secured, Doctors not secured, no PCC's built in Ireland making money.
PCC plan a public Distraction, a dream that has no bearing on commercial reality, will do nothing to make entire project commercially viable.

Time taken to resolve PCC'S issue - 10 seconds

3. Community Buildings

Pretend to the people of Greystones that they were not included in phase 1, try and safe guard the 1st €5m bond. Not going to be built, ever.

Time taken to resolve the community buildings - 4 seconds

4. Time required for house prices and financing cost to return to levels that make the entire project commercially viable - 20 years

Time taken to resolve issue about when the project becomes commercially viable again- 3 nano seconds

5. Time taken to convince certain public representatives that the curtain calls

12 months and counting, issue still not resolved......

Tick
Tock
Tick
Tock
Tick
Tock
Cuckoo Cuckoo Cuckoo

The Durutti Column

One of your best, F3.

You the man!!!!

Alan_P

Fiachra2 wrote: »

Dont forget that Stephen Donnelly made an identical announcement in mid October that Sispar had advised thatthe decison would be out in weeks.

Dont hold your breath.

(you might look foolish!)

That's not an identical announcement to Simon Harris's one.

Simon Harris isn't saying that NAMA will make a decision, he's saying that they HAVE made one, and that they've communicated it to Sispar.

Assuming he's correct, the only remaining delay in the decision becoming public knowledge should now be the time it takes Sispar to send an email or make a phone call.

F3

Alan_P wrote: »

That's not an identical announcement to Simon Harris's one.

Simon Harris isn't saying that NAMA will make a decision, he's saying that they HAVE made one, and that they've communicated it to Sispar.

Assuming he's correct, the only remaining delay in the decision becoming public knowledge should now be the time it takes Sispar to send an email or make a phone call.

AP & F2 do you not think that both Harris & Donnelly are feeding fuel to the fire by giving NAMA credibility in this case? NAMA are simply AIB in this case. AIB"s failure has put Sispar in breach of contract, but WCC have given them permission to do so, so therefore they have been excused for breaching. Should our real politicians not be concentrating on the breach and the consent? WCC may have the power to consent to no work being carried out, but does that make it right? Is it Greed, incompentance or dare I say it corruption? In the meantime the town people and businesses suffer the real effects

Alan_P

F3 wrote: »

AP & F2 do you not think that both Harris & Donnelly are feeding fuel to the fire by giving NAMA credibility in this case? NAMA are simply AIB in this case. AIB"s failure has put Sispar in breach of contract, but WCC have given them permission to do so, so therefore they have been excused for breaching. Should our real politicians not be concentrating on the breach and the consent? WCC may have the power to consent to no work being carried out, but does that make it right? Is it Greed, incompentance or dare I say it corruption? In the meantime the town people and businesses suffer the real effects

I'm not particularly taking a view on the relevant responsibilities of Sisk, AIB and NAMA :- I'm simply making the point that various interested parties, for example Ciaran Hayden, are suggesting that we have to wait for the NAMA decision, and that a local TD has said that that decision has been made, and is known to Sispar.

My point is purely that that decision should now be put in the public domain, since it least it takes that particular excuse off the table, and simplifies the discussion as to the best way forward. If the NAMA decision is that they're not providing a single further Euro, (as I would lay money it is), then one set of prevarications and circumventions becomes completely untenable.

Jimjay

Alan_P wrote: »

I'm not particularly taking a view on the relevant responsibilities of Sisk, AIB and NAMA :- I'm simply making the point that various interested parties, for example Ciaran Hayden, are suggesting that we have to wait for the NAMA decision, and that a local TD has said that that decision has been made, and is known to Sispar.

My point is purely that that decision should now be put in the public domain, since it least it takes that particular excuse off the table, and simplifies the discussion as to the best way forward. If the NAMA decision is that they're not providing a single further Euro, (as I would lay money it is), then one set of prevarications and circumventions becomes completely untenable.

I am surprised non of the recent posts have been about this announcement that Nama have already made a decision?! To me this is big news that I didn't know before and until we know what this was all the arguments above are irrelevant.
If Nama said they will supply some funding then this end of feb deadline is nonsense. If Nama have refused funding then the deadline has to be put in place. If Nama are waiting for more info from sispar and have guaranteed a an announcement in march then the talk of deadlines needs to wait until march.

Could it be that the councilors know that Nama will provide some funding and are waiting to embarrass guboh at a later date by dropping a bombshell that their patience and not guboh pressure have provided the lifeline for the harbour?

F3

Alan_P wrote: »

I'm not particularly taking a view on the relevant responsibilities of Sisk, AIB and NAMA :- I'm simply making the point that various interested parties, for example Ciaran Hayden, are suggesting that we have to wait for the NAMA decision, and that a local TD has said that that decision has been made, and is known to Sispar.

My point is purely that that decision should now be put in the public domain, since it least it takes that particular excuse off the table, and simplifies the discussion as to the best way forward. If the NAMA decision is that they're not providing a single further Euro, (as I would lay money it is), then one set of prevarications and circumventions becomes completely untenable.

I agree 100% Alan, good point

Cheeky Chops

This thread exhausts me. It just seems to go around in circles and as we all know a circle has no end.

Ok, what can we actually do?

F3

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

This thread exhausts me. It just seems to go around in circles and as we all know a circle has no end.

Ok, what can we actually do?

Welcome back CC, yes it is exhausting, but some how the message has got to get out and repeated time and time again before it finally sinks through to those who have the power and responsibility to do something about it. This thread has about 10 regular contributors but over 200 visits per day. That means about 190 are reading and watching every day.

What can we actually do you say? I know what I want to do, so it depends on what you want to do?

Do you want to wait until the cost of finance returns to unprecedentedly low rates and at the same time property prices increase to a level that made this project commercially viable at the time of tender? if the answer is yes then you will have to wait 20 or 30 years or perhaps longer, that being so what do you want to do with the unsightly and fenced off site in the meantime?

I'm an ordinary resident of Greystones, with no public profile and not very well known, a blow in some might say. But I've seen hearts of fire from people in this town over the past 12 months, not only on this thread but also in GUBOH, united together, asking not for recognition, nor reward, most are anonymous, and speak only through one spokesperson, to provide purpose, explanation, logic and reasoning to those who are not only elected to serve the people, but are paid to serve the people, but have difficulty in understanding precisely what a public representatives foremost role actually is, which is not to put all its efforts into being re-elected but to put all its efforts into serving the people, if thats done correctly, elections will be easily won. I didn't ask them to put themselves forward to undertake such a job, but I will not become exhausted until they do their job.

What can the collective we do? we can decide to give up on the the local politicians who seem to be incapable of addressing this issue with the local public servants, and we should take this matter to Central Government, and demand a public enquiry into this PPP that is shrouded in secrecy and inner circles within circles [are these the circles you identified and referred to in your comment?]

All interested parties are reading this thread, they know who they are, and they are smiling right now [Hi guys and girls]

Exhausting and all as it is, the question is what do you want to do CC?

Blanchflower

I fully agree with you F3. A public enquiry on this clandestine Public Private Partnership is an absolute necessity. TD's Harris and Donnelly should bring this up in Dail Eireann. The burning question that needs answering is what exactly has Wicklow County Council committed the taxpayer to in this disastrous hidden contract. Why have they sat idly by while Sispar blatantly ignored planning condition after planning condition? Why have they accepted a situation where its PPP partner has become insolvent some time ago and they still have not terminated the contract? Why have they permitted their PPP partner to leave the habour area in such a horrible mess without any penalty whatsoever?

recedite

Blanchflower wrote: »

TD's Harris and Donnelly should bring this up in Dail Eireann. ...Why have they permitted their PPP partner to leave the habour area in such a horrible mess without any penalty whatsoever?

Harris is of course part of the cabal that now controls both the council and the Dail, but you might be onto something there with Donnelly; he has already shown he is not afraid to take them on in regard to the negative equity issue (which is far more important than the appearance of the harbour to the people living in Charlesland)

legrand

It would seem we (concerned residents and posters here) can be fairly sure where the project sits vis-a-vis the contract (Sispar/WCC & AIB/Nama), at least based on my understanding of F3's description of same.

Has a formal letter been written to powers that be (excluding messrs Hayden/Mitchell..pointless and they are not the 'powers that be') that asks for specific answers to the questions raised here vis the contract?

A letter with appropriately worded questions where yes/no answers required with follow on explanation / action. E.g. Yes, Sispar have not met their contractual obligation. Bond will be released.
Simplistic I know but you get the idea.

I know it’s a long shot and an response likely to be fully of political obfuscation and legalese. But if no such letter has been sent can we expect to be having these same posts a year from now?

Who should write such a letter – concerned member of public, GUBOH or perhaps a political representative who understand the communities concerns and their own responsibility to act on behalf of the community?

Cheeky Chops

legrand wrote: »

It would seem we (concerned residents and posters here) can be fairly sure where the project sits vis-a-vis the contract (Sispar/WCC & AIB/Nama), at least based on my understanding of F3's description of same.

Has a formal letter been written to powers that be (excluding messrs Hayden/Mitchell..pointless and they are not the 'powers that be') that asks for specific answers to the questions raised here vis the contract?

A letter with appropriately worded questions where yes/no answers required with follow on explanation / action. E.g. Yes, Sispar have not met their contractual obligation. Bond will be released.
Simplistic I know but you get the idea.

I know it’s a long shot and an response likely to be fully of political obfuscation and legalese. But if no such letter has been sent can we expect to be having these same posts a year from now?

Who should write such a letter – concerned member of public, GUBOH or perhaps a political representative who understand the communities concerns and their own responsibility to act on behalf of the community?

I also think we could directly lobby the TD's concerned by filling their inboxes with emails requesting representation at a national level regarding the harbour and lack of accountability and inaction. Sometimes the easiest way to do this is for someone, who has far more knowledge than me on this subject, to draft a couple of lines, put up the TD's email addresses and then whoever so wishes can easily send correspondence requesting representation. It can be very effective.

The Durutti Column

Quote:
Originally Posted by legrand

It would seem we (concerned residents and posters here) can be fairly sure where the project sits vis-a-vis the contract (Sispar/WCC & AIB/Nama), at least based on my understanding of F3's description of same.

Has a formal letter been written to powers that be (excluding messrs Hayden/Mitchell..pointless and they are not the 'powers that be') that asks for specific answers to the questions raised here vis the contract?

A letter with appropriately worded questions where yes/no answers required with follow on explanation / action. E.g. Yes, Sispar have not met their contractual obligation. Bond will be released.
Simplistic I know but you get the idea.

I know it’s a long shot and an response likely to be fully of political obfuscation and legalese. But if no such letter has been sent can we expect to be having these same posts a year from now?

Who should write such a letter – concerned member of public, GUBOH or perhaps a political representative who understand the communities concerns and their own responsibility to act on behalf of the community?

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

I also think we could directly lobby the TD's concerned by filling their inboxes with emails requesting representation at a national level regarding the harbour and lack of accountability and inaction. Sometimes the easiest way to do this is for someone, who has far more knowledge than me on this subject, to draft a couple of lines, put up the TD's email addresses and then whoever so wishes can easily send correspondence requesting representation. It can be very effective.

I think that's a good suggestion. If we don't tell them, they can always plead ignorance. I'll check out the emails etc and put them up here within a few days...