Residents object to temporary halting site

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.

whatismyname

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.

humberklog wrote: »

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.

Here's the Ray Darcy interview http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#!rii=9%3A20863381%3A19148%3A14%2D10%2D2015%3A.

Just listened to all 37 minutes of it, as I'd not heard it previously.

Only a short section of it at the start related to the Carrickmines fire and the issue regarding temporary halting site.

Most of the interview was regarding traveller issues more generally and it was very informative.

Feuds touched on briefly, but not in any way that's connected with the Carrickmines issues, and not in the context that you described above.

Filmer Paradise

Sheep Lover wrote: »

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

I only asked how you're fixed with your mortgage. Just curious mind.;)

Sheep Lover

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

I only asked how you're fixed with your mortgage. Just curious mind.;)

It's none of your business really, you are now just deflecting very badly on your very ill informed and idiotic statements.

Fyi: I've paid off not one but three mortgages in my time.

Eugene Norman

[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.

Why would no planning be required? Neighbours can object. Loss of a view is in fact a valid reason. Or loss of privacy.

Filmer Paradise

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Fyi: I've paid off not one but three mortgages in my time.

Any stats for that?

Sheep Lover

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

Any stats for that?

So you can't expand on how halting sites decrease property value?

Shocking honestly it is.. probably.

Filmer Paradise

Sheep Lover wrote: »

So you can't expand on how halting sites decrease property value?

Shocking honestly it is.. probably.

Talk to Joe...

Why are the council putting the travellers in a field?
That's it, just a field at the end of a cul de sac.

There's a empty halting site, with at least 5 houses and 3 or 4 bays within a six minute drive of where the fire took place.
Why don't they put them there? Services in place and its not at the end of a residential cul de sac.

Eugene Norman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why would no planning be required? Neighbours can object. Loss of a view is in fact a valid reason. Or loss of privacy.

I'd be interested in seeing planning objections upheld for loss of view or loss of privacy. Because of course a view is not a legal right at all, whereas privacy is only a very recent development in law and usually linked to the publication of images. You got links to decisions based on them?

Filmer Paradise

bubblypop wrote: »

Why are the council putting the travellers in a field?
That's it, just a field at the end of a cul de sac.

There's a empty halting site, with at least 5 houses and 3 or 4 bays within a six minute drive of where the fire took place.
Why don't they put them there? Services in place and its not at the end of a residential cul de sac.

It's because of their vast contribution to the wider society in general.

Sheep Lover will fill you in on the main points.