Crazy council plan for clontarf.

bamboozle

John_Rambo wrote: »

People care about their area, what's elitist about that? Sure you're saying nasty things about people from Clontarf, the restaurants, you seem to relish the thought of certain peoples house prices dropping, even the way they walk bothers you... It's fairly obvious from your history you have a personal hatred of Clontarf and it's residents. Your posts on the subject are viscous, personal and irrelevant.

+1, that poster has this comical obsession claiming people are comparing Clontarf to Dalkey/Vico Road, from reading through this thread the only person who raises this comparison is himself, he fails to appreciate that 5000 people out in protest is an indication of concern by the general area and not a handful of those living on the seafront concerned about the value of property, he fails to appreciate that a lot of the business done by restaurants along the seafront is from people who were walking the prom or beach who pop in for a coffee or a bite to eat afterwards, he fails to appreciate that people wont feel safe walking along a path by the sea if they wont be visable from the road.

Degsy

bamboozle wrote: »

a lot of the business done by restaurants along the seafront is from people who were walking the prom or beach who pop in for a coffee or a bite to eat afterwards,

And they still can pop in for a bite to eat..just like their ability to walk on the prom or the beach isnt going to be affected either...do not the drawings show a footpath quite clearly? Cant people walk on top of the mound?

This development isnt actually going to incovenience anybody..certain people are just being precious.

If residents are so concerned for the wellbeing of the clontarf amenity,why is it that none of them bother to mention the silting up of the lagoon on the dollymount side? If it proceeds apace the lagoon will be nothing but marsh..why not protest about that?

expectationlost

http://www.thejournal.ie/clontarf-residents-unhappy-with-revised-flood-defence-plans-271993-Nov2011/?utm_source=shortlink

expectationlost

Flooding in #Clontarf on 24th October 2011 vid http://t.co/7X5lL5nn commentary on drainage situation

expectationlost

new visuals from dcc ahead of public showings of semi-revised plan http://www.dublincity.ie/WaterWasteEnvironment/WasteWater/Pages/ClontarfFloodDefenceScheme.aspx

Paparazzo

We need a couple of floods in Clontarf this winter so the residents will cop themselves on.

gurramok

Sensible council plan, negligible on the docks views.
http://www.dublincity.ie/WaterWasteEnvironment/WasteWater/Documents/Clontarf%20Views.pdf

sirgandi

Paparazzo wrote: »

We need a couple of floods in Clontarf this winter so the residents will cop themselves on.

Excellent and thoughtful insight there by someone clearly in the know

_blank_

gurramok wrote: »

Sensible council plan, negligible on the docks views.
http://www.dublincity.ie/WaterWasteEnvironment/WasteWater/Documents/Clontarf%20Views.pdf

We went for a walk down Clontarf on Sunday evening, walking from around about where "View 1" is to just after "View 3" (not as far as "View 4" anyway), and I have to say, for much of that distance the trees and general shrubbery were blocking any view from the road and houses out to the water and across to Eastpoint/The Port Tunnel/Dublin Port.

This proposed "wall" is not going to be higher than the greenery already in situ, and those pictures make it look very unintrusive anyway. I do wonder what the white line on the untouched photos is though, the tinfoil hat brigade will probably say that's the actual height of the proposed "wall".

As an aside - does anyone actually use those yellow and red excercise machines dotted along the place down there? They never seem to have any general wear and tear that you'd expect from regular use. I've been down there twice in the last six or eight months, so maybe they're being regularly upkept.

Spear

Des wrote: »

As an aside - does anyone actually use those yellow and red excercise machines dotted along the place down there? They never seem to have any general wear and tear that you'd expect from regular use. I've been down there twice in the last six or eight months, so maybe they're being regularly upkept.

I've seen them regularly in brief use by passers by. Apparently there's some hidden appeal to random exercise equipment left out in public.

expectationlost

cra response http://www.clontarf.ie/_uploads/files/a5_flood_leaflet.pdf

any go to the presentations

Paparazzo

sirgandi wrote: »

Excellent and thoughtful insight there by someone clearly in the know

Thanks.
Either they don't want a sea barrier, or they'll accept the risk of getting flooded.

expectationlost

ok new cra/cba line is We do not want the promenade split in two

http://www.clontarf.ie/news/current-status-of-the-campaign

the mound is still pretty high at the mid point, or the ground is very low there, depending which way you want to see it.

Degsy

expectationlost wrote: »

ok new cra/cba line is We do not want the promenade split in two

.

What else would they like? Jam on it perhaps?

drkpower

expectationlost wrote: »

ok new cra/cba line is We do not want the promenade split in two

That has always been part of the argument. Putting it in bold doesnt make it new.

Dyr

We should build this little hill and put a little railway on top, that would be good

Paparazzo

Someone should explain to them the physics of a sea wall. It has to be high to stop the sea.
Jasus, you'd think they'd be happy their homes would be safe.

Degsy

Paparazzo wrote: »

Someone should explain to them the physics of a sea wall. It has to be high to stop the sea.
Jasus, you'd think they'd be happy their homes would be safe.

They're lucky the promenade is there at all..that was only built comparatively recently to stop flooding too.

Bunch of moaning minnies.

John Mason

gurramok wrote: »

Sensible council plan, negligible on the docks views.
http://www.dublincity.ie/WaterWasteEnvironment/WasteWater/Documents/Clontarf%20Views.pdf

am i missing something here - the views and area are changing very little according to the attachment

i would have thought the hiding of the docks was a good thing, they are ugly and it wuold also reduce noise coming from them

I was with Des on the walk last week and we are lost on what the issue is

hardCopy

I think I'd rather a wall than the stupid hill idea they have at the moment.

Has anybody noticed how many football teams, bootcamps and running clubs use the grass area on the promenade? This will be wiped out in the current plan leaving a path on each side and no usable space in between.

Degsy

hardCopy wrote: »

I think I'd rather a wall than the stupid hill idea they have at the moment.

Has anybody noticed how many football teams, bootcamps and running clubs use the grass area on the promenade? This will be wiped out in the current plan leaving a path on each side and no usable space in between.

And? they arent paying to use the area are they?

drkpower

Degsy wrote: »

And? they arent paying to use the area are they?

So? Can you think of any other public spaces that people do not pay to use? Does the fact that one does not pay to use a public space decrease one's entitlement to use it?

hardCopy

Degsy wrote: »

And? they arent paying to use the area are they?

Do you pay to walk in St Annes? Phoenix Park?

Degsy

hardCopy wrote: »

Do you pay to walk in St Annes? Phoenix Park?

No..and for that reason youy'd have no right to complain about vital works in those areas.

hardCopy

Degsy wrote: »

No..and for that reason youy'd have no right to complain about vital works in those areas.

Of course I would, I pay as much tax as anyone else.

How about we build a vital car park over St Anne's? Does anyone get to complain about that?

drkpower

Degsy wrote: »

No..and for that reason youy'd have no right to complain about vital works in those areas.

Can you think of a way we all pay to use these areas?

Paparazzo

They should use waste asbestos to build the wall. And then put a landfill and sewage treatment facility along there too. That'll learn them.

Degsy

drkpower wrote: »

Can you think of a way we all pay to use these areas?

Well if you want more expensive works then you can pay more tax.

Everybody else who's working is funding it too.

There are far more important things to worry about than a view of the docks and im not happy about clontarf people insisting on outlandishly expensive works just to please them.

Degsy

Paparazzo wrote: »

They should use waste asbestos to build the wall. And then put a landfill and sewage treatment facility along there too. That'll learn them.

These people moaning are all blow ins..for years there was a rubbish dump where the DART station is now..they'd have something to whinge about if they decided to reopen it,nevermind a slight mound on the seafront.

drkpower

Degsy wrote: »

Well if you want more expensive works then you can pay more tax..
Everybody else who's working is funding it too.

The people on my road pay way more tax than those in, lets say, East Wall. Should my road have a better surface, better sewage, more frequent postal services etc...

Can you think of any flaw in your idea now?

Degsy wrote: »

There are far more important things to worry about than a view of the docks and im not happy about clontarf people insisting on outlandishly expensive works just to please them.

Can you outline the costs of the original proposal?
Can you outline the costs of all proposals made by the Clontarf residents?
Can you then demonstrate how the latter is outlandishly more expensive than the former?