Residents object to temporary halting site

CatFromHue

Basil Fawlty wrote: »

The council own swathes of land around carrickmines. There is a halting site that is only half occupied at the end of Glenamuck Road. Why are the fellow travellers not offering to help their own first? I suspect there is a lot more to this story.

Whereabouts is this one? I'm not familiar with it.

Is it up at the Kilternan end or the M50 end of the road?

Kenny Logins

CatFromHue wrote: »

Whereabouts is this one? I'm not familiar with it.

Is it up at the Kilternan end or the M50 end of the road?

Ballyogan Grove.

Spanish Eyes

Jayop wrote: »

Social housing with travellers likely wouldn't be a problem for the residents although I can't say that with any certainty. The issue is a messy halting site which would be there for ever.

I was being a very bold girl in the post you quoted. Have another read of it, and see the T word mentioned in relation to social housing!

c montgomery

end of the road wrote: »

the council can enter the site at any time, any day. the residents will eventually get board of looking over their shoulders. the council can simply sit back and wait. bide their time, and when the time is right enter the site.



not in my back yard

Ah, thanks.

CatFromHue

Ha, the last time I noticed that place was before the M50 existed!

The Talking Bread

end of the road wrote: »

its illegal to blockade entrance and access to a site which would be used for legitimate purposes. so their peaceful nimbyism would not be covered, compared to the laws that exist and would be on the council's side


yes i am, and if you read my post i suggest it would be speculation, however i don't believe this will end well for nimbys wishing to blockade council sites to stop them from being used.

Sure as you keep telling us about SJWs', there i no such thing as a NIMBY. Its just a made up word.................


Anyway, as you have been criticising the residents so vigorously over the the last while, will you not take a similar stance against the Council "for failing to follow legislation" and conceding to the residents...............

Thought not.......

Jayop

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I was being a very bold girl in the post you quoted. Have another read of it, and see the T word mentioned in relation to social housing!

Ah I'm having a slow day!!

BoatMad

the decisian came from the council and any nimby protests don't work on local authorities.

what..... local politics in ireland have no effect , do you live on mars

end of the road

The Talking Bread wrote: »

as you have been criticising the residents so vigorously over the the last while, will you not take a similar stance against the Council "for failing to follow legislation" and conceding to the residents...............

Thought not.......

what legislation did the council not follow? can you quote the relevant legislation and what parts they didn't follow?

BoatMad

no victory as possibly any legislation in relation to giving travelers ethnicity could include legislation to stop the blockading of planned haulting sites by local residents, possibly even using lethal force. of course thats just speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if this doesn't end well for anyone having an issue with haulting sites

You think in an election year, the Gov will bring any travellers rights issues to bear against the mass of the voting middle classes


not a chance mate, not a snowballs chance,

Ri_Nollaig

end of the road wrote: »

no victory as possibly any legislation in relation to giving travelers ethnicity could include legislation to stop the blockading of planned haulting sites by local residents, possibly even using lethal force. of course thats just speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if this doesn't end well for anyone having an issue with haulting sites

just when I thought you couldn't get any funnier

Duvetdays

I know if I was a resident I'd be breathing a sigh of relief but wouldn't be ending the road block until it was set in stone that they're not being housed there or until the weekend when they're placed on water works land. I've two neighbours who are council workers based up there were they're being put it'll be interesting to see what they the workers make of this with the security of their cars if it's the carpark they're being housed on.

Also from the residents side of things again if I was in the process of buying a house on that road I would be seriously considering pulling out of the sale if the site got the go ahead. I certainly wouldn't be paying the price I'd agreed on as a halting site at the end of your cul de sac would knock a fair whack off the house value.

Hopefully the residents can get back to some normality over the coming days.

melekalikimaka

end of the road wrote: »

the council can enter the site at any time, any day. the residents will eventually get board of looking over their shoulders. the council can simply sit back and wait. bide their time, and when the time is right enter the site.

A captain always go down with their ship as the say.

They'll make a statue of you

tom_k

end of the road wrote: »

no victory as possibly any legislation in relation to giving travelers ethnicity could include legislation to stop the blockading of planned haulting sites by local residents, possibly even using lethal force. of course thats just speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if this doesn't end well for anyone having an issue with haulting sites


its not. the laws are on the council's side. if they wanted to badly use that site they could do it.

It's a good thing no one takes your posts seriously. You've clearly got no idea about how our society or legal system works.

Lethal force - funniest and most ridiculous post I read in ages. Thanks for that :pac:

To Elland Back

melekalikimaka wrote: »

A captain always go down with their ship as the say.

They'll make a statue of you

Will be robbed and melted down for scrap

Seek first to understand

end of the road wrote: »

the council will probably have found something better. it won't be because of a few nimbys if they have decided not to use the site. either way this family rightly will be helped dispite those who have an issue.

>I sincerely hope the council have found something better for them and they get the support they need. Not one of the residents I know or have met over the last few days have any issue whites family getting all the help they need.

i think any attempt to do that should be met with every piece of legislation to force unblocking. hopefully then the council will leave the land to terun into waste land and not maintain it

> The council have not maintained this land for years, the residents have. cutting gras planting shrubbery etc.

I still don't understand why the council did not expedite the permanent halting site on Glenamuck road that is on their own 2010-2016 development plan. This site was previously a large house so already has water, power and sewage services. The family would not have had to move again. What they have done is just divide a pretty well integrated community.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

no victory as possibly any legislation in relation to giving travelers ethnicity could include legislation to stop the blockading of planned haulting sites by local residents, possibly even using lethal force.

Ha ha ha, you're hilarious!!!
So now you think LETHAL force could be used on peaceful protesters??
Like water protesters perhaps...........

LOL

foggy_lad

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I hope the depot has a good security system

well done residents

It has everything except a sewage connection but the Council have bought some 3 bedroom mobile homes for the families to live in! those things cost a fortune!

Penn wrote: »

So I take it then you're admitting the decision to use the site in Rockville Drive was a poor and rushed decision and that better options were available?

I mean it's either that or you're trying to save face by not admitting the residents' arguments and protesting succeeded.

THe council would not take legal action because they would have lost badly and that then would set a precedent which they do not want to happen!

end of the road wrote: »

the council will probably have found something better. it won't be because of a few nimbys if they have decided not to use the site. either way this family rightly will be helped dispite those who have an issue.


i think any attempt to do that should be met with every piece of legislation to force unblocking. hopefully then the council will leave the land to terun into waste land and not maintain it

The site they are going to use is not better but there are no residents from any local estates or cul de sac blocking access to the site.

As for helping them, they are being bought massive 3 bedroom mobile homes while normal non-traveller people have to wait to be housed for 10-20 years!

My Father said it right when he was alive, "behave like a **** and you will always get what you want"!

The council decided NOT to take legal action because they were most likely told it would fail miserably and they may even be ordered to compensate the residents for all the upset and disruption they have caused.

Does anyone know offhand which of the local TD's or councillors spoke up for the residents? And which spoke for the travellers.
I'd be very interested to know, seeing as there's an election next year.

katydid

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Best solution all round.

The residents are to be commended for the peaceful way they undertook their legitimate protest. They didn't go mad and bad, they just peacefully did what I and others would have done in similar circumstances.

Now the bereaved will have a home and the Rockville residents can hopefully go back to peaceful enjoyment of THEIR homes.

I would be very wary still though. That site at Rockville is zoned for Social Housing, now I'm not saying they will, but what is to stop the council from building social houses and accommodating travellers in those houses out of sheer bloody spite lol.

I need to take a step back and breathe. This has been a terrible episode for all concerned.

What would be wrong with social housing? Travellers living in houses isn't a problem; the problem is the dirty, messy halting sites where they can keep horses and have bonfires etc. Travellers living in houses and behaving properly is fine. It should be easier to maintain order in a house; no excuse for horses or bonfires or litter. Of course, they would be expected to pay for their own utilities, which would be an easing of the taxpayer burden

foggy_lad

katydid wrote: »

What would be wrong with social housing? Travellers living in houses isn't a problem; the problem is the dirty, messy halting sites where they can keep horses and have bonfires etc. Travellers living in houses and behaving properly is fine. It should be easier to maintain order in a house; no excuse for horses or bonfires or litter. Of course, they would be expected to pay for their own utilities, which would be an easing of the taxpayer burden

When travellers move into housing estates most other people move out if and when they can because of anti-social behaviour and the dirt and scrap piles accumulating in gardens spilling into neighbouring gardens as well as the constant stream of visitors at all hours

Mrsbananas

The site they are now going to use is a working depot carpark. It's hardly a better site. Far from it. There has been security on both depots on ballyogan road since the afternoon.

katydid

Mrsbananas wrote: »

The site they are now going to use is a working depot carpark. It's hardly a better site. Far from it. .

It's free accommodation, provided for by the taxpayer. They should be grateful.

cerastes

katydid wrote: »

What would be wrong with social housing? Travellers living in houses isn't a problem; the problem is the dirty, messy halting sites where they can keep horses and have bonfires etc. Travellers living in houses and behaving properly is fine. It should be easier to maintain order in a house; no excuse for horses or bonfires or litter. Of course, they would be expected to pay for their own utilities, which would be an easing of the taxpayer burden

That's not the reality though in the main, there have already been many instances of properties being destroyed or completely unfit for use due to fueds and no way to account for the loss. Ive every sympathy and completely support the residents based on my own experiences with travellers many of who put on a victim mentality face while threatening some of the most evil things in private.
You are not really seeing the reality, you say easing the burden on the taxpayer, I wonder what planet youre on, its simply not a reflection of reality, I sympathise that the circumstances are tragic but I've never really heard of such overwhelming support for other ordinary members of society in difficult circumstances.

katydid

foggy_lad wrote: »

When travellers move into housing estates most other people move out if and when they can because of anti-social behaviour and the dirt and scrap piles accumulating in gardens spilling into neighbouring gardens as well as the constant stream of visitors at all hours

How do you known that "most people move out"? What evidence do you have?

If scrap build up in gardens, the council should do something about it.

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

The council decided NOT to take legal action because they were most likely told it would fail miserably and they may even be ordered to compensate the residents for all the upset and disruption they have caused.

the residents caused the disruption and upset by blockading a site, so the council if they were forced to pay such compensation could find some way to only pay in trickles. fiver here and a fiver there per resident. would take years to pay in full but it wouldn't cause any major inconvenience to them

katydid wrote: »

It's free accommodation, provided for by the taxpayer. They should be grateful.

as they are entitled to it by law, they should not be greatful.

tom_k

bubblypop wrote: »

Does anyone know offhand which of the local TD's or councillors spoke up for the residents? And which spoke for the travellers.
I'd be very interested to know, seeing as there's an election next year.

Councillor Lettie McCarthy seemed to be a voice of reason early on. The rest of her Labour colleagues that I heard we expressing their disgust at the residents.

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.rte.ie/news/2015/1015/734924-carrickmines/

To Elland Back

katydid wrote: »

How do you known that "most people move out"? What evidence do you have?

If scrap build up in gardens, the council should do something about it.

On a side issue, can you PM me the contact number for this free service? I've being pricing firms to take away a lot of my crap and, I have to say, the quotes are horrenduous

The Talking Bread

end of the road wrote: »

the residents caused the disruption and upset by blockading a site, so the council if they were forced to pay such compensation could find some way to only pay in trickles. fiver here and a fiver there per resident. would take years to pay in full but it wouldn't cause any major inconvenience to them



as they are entitled to it by law, they should not be greatful.

give up. its over. how many hours have you spent on this thread talking nonsense with noone agreeing with you.

you are GETTING NOWHERE

Mrsbananas

katydid wrote: »

It's free accommodation, provided for by the taxpayer. They should be grateful.

Apologies I was answering those who maintained the reason the council backed down was this was a better site.
I'm 100% on the rockville residents side.
Feud or no feud the should have been housed imo on one of the current halting sites, best one being ballyogan Grove. I don't like some of my neighbours but we gave to live with it.