Residents object to temporary halting site

KERSPLAT!

Our apologies for the delay, there was a lot to go through in the last thread and we all have work and other commitments the same as anyone else so sometimes these things take more time than we'd like. Thanks for your patience

http://www.98fm.com/Residents-Object-To-Rehousing-Horror-Fire-Survivors-

That's the only link I can find regarding this issue. This thread is in relation to the residents objecting to the temporary halting site. I understand there will be cross over with the tragic events of the fire last week but that thread has been closed and will remain closed. Please stay on topic here.

Bigotry, bashing, etc won't be tolerated. This will be the only warning, bans will follow.

Thanks

Tigger

Temporary housing of this sort seems to become constant sometimes.
halting sites cause nearby property to drop in value so i understand why the residents are doing what they are doing, its not what i would do but i'll admit id be disappointed if i was in their position

Sheep Lover

1 pic of a dead toddler on a beach in Europe and people were going to put up millions of refugees in their homes.

10 dead kids in a nearby community and they won't let the families temporarily live in a field next door.

Strange world

smash

"Temporary"

Sure...

CatFromHue

Sheep Lover wrote: »

1 pic of a dead toddler on a beach in Europe and people were going to put up millions of refugees in their homes.

10 dead kids in a nearby community and they won't let the families temporarily live in a field next door.

Strange world

Well I do wonder what would have happened if all those room donors were called up on their room donations. I think the reality of having people staying with you for months/years might have changed their mind pretty quick.

Call Me Jimmy

double post

Call Me Jimmy

It would be sitcom gold though

Roger Hassenforder

notwithstanding the terrible tragedy, to a certain extent I have some pity for the residents.
but could they not have struck a deal with the Council; if it is to be "emergency", the Council could lodge a substantial cash bond, that they forfeit as compensation to the residents if they havent found more permanent site in the 6 months.

I'd hope i'd be a bit more tolerant and accommodating, but I'm not sure I would.
its very easy to call the residents inhumane heartless basterds, when its not the end of your road getting the halting site.

c montgomery

I wouldn't want them moving anywhere me.
I doubt many would.

Long Time Lurker

c montgomery wrote: »

I wouldn't want them moving anywhere me.
I doubt many would.

The brutal yet simple honesty of the matter really. I second that.

whatismyname

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/655009971944443905

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

Temporary housing of this sort seems to become constant sometimes.
halting sites cause nearby property to drop in value so i understand why the residents are doing what they are doing, its not what i would do but i'll admit id be disappointed if i was in their position

People have no right to an expectation that vacant land near them belonging to AN Other will be used for purposes that will enhance the value of their own. It's just...insane. If I buy land and 200 apartments full of Dubs go up in the field next door, thems the breaks, I can't say oh they should have preserved it just the way I liked it.

Tigger

Deleted User wrote: »

People have no right to an expectation that vacant land near them belonging to AN Other will be used for purposes that will enhance the value of their own. It's just...insane. If I buy land and 200 apartments full of Dubs go up in the field next door, thems the breaks, I can't say oh they should have preserved it just the way I liked it.

where did i say they did
i said i'd be dissapointed

whatismyname

Tigger wrote: »

Temporary housing of this sort seems to become constant sometimes.
halting sites cause nearby property to drop in value so i understand why the residents are doing what they are doing, its not what i would do but i'll admit id be disappointed if i was in their position

Doesn't seem to be why they are doing it though.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1015/734924-carrickmines/

Meanwhile, Labour Councillor Lettie McCarthy told RTÉ's Morning Ireland that there are pre-existing problems with the proposed site and she did not believe this is a case of settled versus Traveller people.

"It's an extremely confined site," she said.

"There's just a footpath each side. It's a very narrow entrance in, they have no place to park their cars except on the road so it's very difficult to access.

"That has always been a difficulty, it hasn't been invented because residents don't want Travellers going into that site. It has always been an issue between residents and the council."

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/were-not-the-bad-guys-say-rockville-drive-residents-701076.html

The residents say they have serious fire safety concerns because of the narrowness of the road leading up to the site and they say the site itself is a flood risk in winter.

A woman identifying herself as a local resident said that the road is 4.9m in width, which see claimed would be in breach of fire regulations.

Filmer Paradise

Deleted User wrote: »

People have no right to an expectation that vacant land near them belonging to AN Other will be used for purposes that will enhance the value of their own. It's just...insane. If I buy land and 200 apartments full of Dubs go up in the field next door, thems the breaks, I can't say oh they should have preserved it just the way I liked it.

Usually there's a thing called Planning Permission & the procedures that go along with it.

That seems to have gone out the window in this case...

Tigger

the residents are lobbying i wonder if they have a license?

whatismyname

Oh and the residents released a statement this morning.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/residents-of-rockville-drive-release-statement-700956.html?utm_source=recirc&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=recirc

Residents have released the following statement:

At the outset we wish to place on the record our sincere sympathy for the relatives and friends of the deceased in this awful tragedy. Like everyone in Ireland we are shocked by these events and our hearts go out to the families as they face the funerals of their loved ones.

The Council created the temporary halting site where the fire occurred about 8 years ago. The site was too small, cramped and totally inadequate for travelling families.

Despite the fact that the temporary site was never fit for purpose, the Council did not relocate the families or take steps to provide proper accommodation during those 8 years. Following the recent tragedy, they now seek to repeat the exercise by creating more temporary traveller accommodation at a site at Rockville Drive.

As a result, we find ourselves thrust into the centre of a national problem not of our making, subjected to irrational and unfair criticism with little regard for the impact this dreadful situation is having on each of our families on a human level.

Whilst we cannot speak for the travelling community we stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their criticism of the failure of this Council and other State agencies to provide proper accommodation which is suitable for their needs and their way of life.

In an attempt to resolve the current impasse, we have made various suggestions and we have put certain proposals to the Council.

We will be continuing this dialogue with the Council officers and we have agreed to revert to them in the short term.

Despite almost eliminating all funding for traveller accommodation since 2008, the Government has at last, properly directed that there shall be a nationwide audit of fire safety standards at all traveller accommodation sites. We support this initiative but the Government and the Council must do much more.

whatismyname

Oh and the residents released a statement this morning.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/residents-of-rockville-drive-release-statement-700956.html?utm_source=recirc&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=recirc

Residents have released the following statement:

At the outset we wish to place on the record our sincere sympathy for the relatives and friends of the deceased in this awful tragedy. Like everyone in Ireland we are shocked by these events and our hearts go out to the families as they face the funerals of their loved ones.

The Council created the temporary halting site where the fire occurred about 8 years ago. The site was too small, cramped and totally inadequate for travelling families.

Despite the fact that the temporary site was never fit for purpose, the Council did not relocate the families or take steps to provide proper accommodation during those 8 years. Following the recent tragedy, they now seek to repeat the exercise by creating more temporary traveller accommodation at a site at Rockville Drive.

As a result, we find ourselves thrust into the centre of a national problem not of our making, subjected to irrational and unfair criticism with little regard for the impact this dreadful situation is having on each of our families on a human level.

Whilst we cannot speak for the travelling community we stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their criticism of the failure of this Council and other State agencies to provide proper accommodation which is suitable for their needs and their way of life.

In an attempt to resolve the current impasse, we have made various suggestions and we have put certain proposals to the Council.

We will be continuing this dialogue with the Council officers and we have agreed to revert to them in the short term.

Despite almost eliminating all funding for traveller accommodation since 2008, the Government has at last, properly directed that there shall be a nationwide audit of fire safety standards at all traveller accommodation sites. We support this initiative but the Government and the Council must do much more.

humberklog

I heard it mooted on the radio this week that the travellers effected could be housed on extended land beside an existing halting site in the local (enough) vicinity.

This was blown out of the water by a Traveller advocate that said it wasn't possible as there was big trouble regarding inter feudal problems between the effected families.

So it was OK for travellers to discriminate between themselves but settled people needed shut up and put up.

Tigger

whatismyname wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be why they are doing it though.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1015/734924-carrickmines/



http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/were-not-the-bad-guys-say-rockville-drive-residents-701076.html

thats because as Conor said, they have no right to expect development to always suit them but their other concerns are more "vaild"

gandalf

To be honest the real bad guys here are the council. They have botched this royally. The residents have every right to object to this land being used in this fashion with no planning permission and absolute no consultation by the council. The location is highly illogical for this given the size of the road in question. The residents have also said that they know of anti-social behaviour from the people who the council are attempting to house in the temporary site. Bear in mind that the site where this tragedy occurred was a temporary site for the last eight years.

The question also has to be asked as to why these people are getting special treatment over all the others who are currently in the emergency housing mechanism. They are being accommodated in hotels I believe which is what all the other people who are waiting for council accommodation have to endure. Why are these people getting special temporary accommodation built for them on top of this? They will have a promise of a permanent location in six months which is a lot more than the majority of non travellers currently stuck in the emergency housing system can look forward to.

If the travelling community want to be truly equal they should endure what the non-travelling community have to endure equally and not expect preferential treatment all the time.

gandalf

[snip]

Tigger

humberklog wrote: »

I heard it mooted on the radio this week that the travellers effected could be housed on extended land beside an existing halting site in the local (enough) vicinity.

This was blown out of the water by a Traveller advocate that said it wasn't possible as there was big trouble regarding inter feudal problems between the effected families.

So it was OK for travellers to discriminate between themselves but settled people needed shut up and put up.

lol
i'd love to see a link for that

Filmer Paradise

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

Usually there's a thing called Planning Permission & the procedures that go along with it.

That seems to have gone out the window in this case...

Is there a breach of planning laws? I didn't hear that. They can then drop their protest and issue proceedings. If I buy a house with a wonderful view and someone sticks a structure in front for which no planning is required, it's just tough luck. I have no right to an expectation that neighbouring land is used for a reason I want.

whatismyname

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there a breach of planning laws? I didn't hear that.

In the letter to residents, the Council said it used emergency powers under the Housing Act to use the site, due to the emergency nature of the situation and urgent need.

Filmer Paradise

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there a breach of planning laws? I didn't hear that. They can then drop their protest and issue proceedings. If I buy a house with a wonderful view and someone sticks a structure in front for which no planning is required, it's just tough luck. I have no right to an expectation that neighbouring land is used for a reason I want.

The very least anybody would expect is some sort of warning of such a development on their doorstep.

Would you think that unreasonable?

humberklog

Tigger wrote: »

lol
i'd love to see a link for that

Can't recall exact show but 106 or RTE1 midweek between 8 and 10 a.m.

Same point was touched upon by Ray Darcy when when interviewing John Connors on Wednesday's show. John Connors gave the same reason.

I'm crap at linking and can't be arsed trying.

Filmer Paradise

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

The very least anybody would expect is some sort of warning of such a development on their doorstep.

Would you think that unreasonable?

It's very simple.

Is it legal or not? If it's illegal, they can go to the Courts. If it's legal...pfffft, they can be disappointed all they like, but tough luck. I don't expect to get warning letters about development in my neighbourhood, if they have to apply for planning it's up to me to keep an eye on applications. If they don't have to apply, well then there is no advertisement requirement. Welcome to the world of planning, here in rural Ireland people have had slatted units and forestry put up all around them with no notification for years.

gandalf

whatismyname wrote: »

In the letter to residents, the Council said it used emergency powers under the Housing Act to use the site, due to the emergency nature of the situation and urgent need.

But what emergency need from the reports I have read the families involved are being accommodated in the normal emergency housing fashion in hotels. Why are they entitled to preferential treatment over all the others who are in the emergency housing mechanism?

Also looking at the pictures of Rockville Drive the location of this site seems totally unsuitable with access from a very narrow road with no real parking available.

NachoBusiness

There'd be less objection to rehousing residents of Arbour Hil ffs.

Can't believe the sickening, selfish, heartless attitude of some people. Imagine burying members of your own families after sudden deaths and then having to listen to people in your own country talking about you as if you had ebola or something. It's disgusting. Get over yourselves and be thankful something like this hasn't visited your door just around the corner from Christmas.

Filmer Paradise

Deleted User wrote: »

It's very simple.

Is it legal or not? If it's illegal, they can go to the Courts. If it's legal...pfffft, they can be disappointed all they like, but tough luck. I don't expect to get warning letters about development in my neighbourhood, if they have to apply for planning it's up to me to keep an eye on applications. If they don't have to apply, well then there is no advertisement requirement. Welcome to the world of planning, here in rural Ireland people have had slatted units and forestry put up all around them with no notification for years.

Whatever.

So Conor. Here's the big question.

Would you like a development of this sort in your back garden??

Sheep Lover

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

.

Would you like a development of this sort in your back garden??

Why wouldn't you want members of the travelling community living in your area?

Irish Praetorian

Can someone set out for me the reasoning behind having the government provide halting sites in the first place? Does the traditional method of buying land and then living on it not work? Don't normally see this much effort put into homelessness.

Filmer Paradise

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Why wouldn't you want members of the travelling community living in your area?

Anti-social behaviour would be the main reason.

Would you like them living near you? If so why?

Filmer Paradise

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

Whatever.

So Conor. Here's the big question.

Would you like a development of this sort in your back garden??

No, I wouldn't like dozens of Dubs moving into my back garden.

But my attitude about Dubs and their criminality does not give me licence to stop them moving in if it's legal.

Sheep Lover

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

Anti-social behaviour would be the main reason.

Would you like them living near you? If so why?

I do have travellers living near me and they cause no more or no less anti social behaviour than any other neighbour.

Do you live near travellers or have you based your opinion on them from what the people on AH have told you.

Tigger

Deleted User wrote: »

No, I wouldn't like dozens of Dubs moving into my back garden.

But my attitude about Dubs and their criminality does not give me licence to stop them moving in if it's legal.

that's twice you've mentioned Dubs, will they be in flats or mobile homes?

how are Dubs criminal?

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

that's twice you've mentioned Dubs, will they be in flats or mobile homes?

how are Dubs criminal?

Pick up the paper. Read about crime in Finglas and Tallaght.

As I said we all know about Dubs and crime. But again if families of them moved into my neighbourhood, I have no right to prevent it unless the the move is against the law.

gandalf

Sheep Lover wrote: »

I do have travellers living near me and they cause no more or no less anti social behaviour than any other neighbour.

Do you live near travellers or have you based your opinion on them from what the people on AH have told you.

There are two sites near me and based on the experiences of those I would certainly advise the residents to object based on anti-social and criminal behaviour, littering and dumping of car parts outside their designated houses in a housing estate and the halting site further on up the road.

From talking to others who also have traveller sites near them this is a common theme, your experience appears to be in the minority.

Filmer Paradise

Sheep Lover wrote: »

I do have travellers living near me and they cause no more or no less anti social behaviour than any other neighbour.

Do you live near travellers or have you based your opinion on them from what the people on AH have told you.

You're not answering my question, so I won't answer yours.

Sheep Lover

gandalf wrote: »

There are two sites near me and based on the experiences of those I would certainly advise the residents to object based on anti-social and criminal behaviour, littering and dumping of car parts outside their location in a housing estate and the halting site further on up the road.

From talking to other who also have traveller sites near them this is a common theme, your experience appears to be in the minority.

Well I know of many that are respectable, upstanding members of the community. Maybe let's not tar everyone with the same brush.

BlaasForRafa

What's the point in having another traveller thread? The experience of most settled people with them is negative but if you say so the right-on SJW mob will just complain so much that the thread gets closed again.

Sheep Lover

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

You're not answering my question, so I won't answer yours.

I'm devastated honestly..

And if you re read very carefully what I posted you'd see I posted that they do live near me and they are no different to anyone. Do you need this in a pictorial form?

gandalf

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

What's the point in having another traveller thread? The experience of most settled people with them is negative but if you say so the right-on SJW mob will just complain so much that the thread gets closed again.

I would consider this to be a thread mainly about residents and their totally valid objection to the council riding roughshod over their wishes.

Filmer Paradise

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Well I know of many that are respectable, upstanding members of the community. Maybe let's not tar everyone with the same brush.

Of course you do.

Just out of interest. What kind of mortgage are you working hard to pay for?

Is it variable, fixed or are you lucky enough to be on a tracker*?

The fact is, is that the values of the properties will fall thru the floor if there's a halting site nearby.


*No smart ass 'I don't know what a tracker is'

gandalf

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Well I know of many that are respectable, upstanding members of the community. Maybe let's not tar everyone with the same brush.

I am sure the majority are. I know that in the settlement the problem is with one family, but my god they cause an awful lot of problems locally and their fellow travellers don't seem willing to deal with them which seems to be a common theme across the traveller community.

The residents of Rockville Drive have said that there has been anti-social behaviour from the group that the council are looking to place in the past so they have first hand experience of the issues that could potentially arise.

Sheep Lover

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

Of course you do.

Just out of interest. What kind of mortgage are you working hard to pay for?

Is it variable, fixed or are you lucky enough to be on a tracker*?

The fact is, is that the values of the properties will fall thru the floor if there's a halting site nearby.


*No smart ass 'I don't know what a tracker is'

Any stats for that or are we working off Pub Facts now?

Filmer Paradise

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

The fact is, is that the values of the properties will fall thru the floor if there's a halting site nearby.
'

Oh true, or if there is a commune of hippies nearby, or maybe a mosque, or a park where kids skate, or a MacDonalds, and so on. Happily the value of houses is not something that should fully dictate how society works.

Eugene Norman

Tigger wrote: »

that's twice you've mentioned Dubs, will they be in flats or mobile homes?

how are Dubs criminal?

Conor74s schtick is to replace what he sees as anti- traveller bigotry with anti-Dublin bigotry in the hope it won't be reported. Feel free to report it.

I too have lived close to travellers. Walked through a site to get to shops. It wasn't the cleanest but it wasn't dangerous. Except the odd mangy dog.

However there are sub groups of criminality amongst travellers. ( often in settled traveller housing).

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh true, or if there is a commune of hippies nearby, or maybe a mosque, or a park where kids skate, or a MacDonalds, and so on. Happily the value of houses is not something that should fully dictate how society works.

And yet traveller sites never turn up in dalkey. So it seems the value of some houses is in fact protected.

S.O

Listening to Rtes drive time the other evening, they had a female resident from the area on, she explained she wasn,t part of the protest, but had her own concerns about potential anti social behaviour, whether some want to admit it or not if there is travellers nearby in an area a sorta defence mechanism activates in some people, back 12 or 13 years ago one night I was going to the gym there were two traveller caravans parked and set up in the gyms car park, everyone parked their cars as far away as they could from the caravans + there were security on the doors for the few nights when there were travellers set up in caravans in the car park that week, another incident I can remember back in the early 90s when I was growing up I lived in a council estate for a small few years, there was a big laneway in the estate at that time , a few travellers set up a few caravans in that laneway, a few residents went around door to door asking people their views + asking them to sign a petition to give to the council to step in on their behalf and negotiate with the travellers to leave the area.