Croke Park residents to seek concert injuctions.....your opinions?

VinLieger · 08-07-2014 09:52AM

First Up wrote: »

I have no dog in this fight but the bit I don't understand is the insistence by the City Manager that the decision is irrevocable. Why?

The situation has been handled appallingly but there is pretty obvious scope for compromise. It sounds as if the City Manager is determined that no compromise can be found. He has a reputation for being pig-headed but why should he be allowed get away with that?

Bacause Keegan is the overlord of Dublin, maybe if we tell him everyone of the 400k people going to grath brooks will sell their cars and buy bikes instead he would change his mind

First Up · 08-07-2014 09:52AM

jack presley wrote: »

I don't know. I'm only saying what he's been saying all along. If he was wrong, I'm sure he would have been pulled up on it by this stage.

I know it is what he has been saying. That doesn't answer the question. I have never heard of a situation in this jurisdiction or any other where a body that is empowered to make a decision is dis-empowered from reviewing it.

ThisRegard · 08-07-2014 09:54AM

VinLieger wrote: »

everyone of the 400k people going to grath brooks

This keeps getting thrown out there too, there may be 400k tickets available, but there isn't 400k people going. Almost everyone I've heard of that are going have tickets for more than one night.

First Up · 08-07-2014 09:54AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Bacause Keegan is the overlord of Dublin, maybe if we tell him everyone of the 400k people going to grath brooks will sell their cars and buy bikes instead he would change his mind

Yes, he's a bit of a bike nut alright. I think he also enjoys a bit of confrontation and controversy.

OldGoat · 08-07-2014 09:55AM

ekimiam wrote: »

of course the number is a factor. what waffle

and it will be interesting to know if DCC is cross referencing these application objections and leaving a clear paper trail.

Numbers have nothing to do with the decision. It's down to the argument presented in any of the observations presented to the planning committee. A single observation could be enough to refuse planning permission/ event license if it's argument is deemed strong enough - which obviously happened.

As to checking the authenticity of the observations DCC have (IIRC) passed the issue to the Gardi.

ThisRegard · 08-07-2014 09:56AM

First Up wrote: »

I know it is what he has been saying. That doesn't answer the question. I have never heard of a situation in this jurisdiction or any other where a body that is empowered to make a decision is dis-empowered from reviewing it.

It comes under the Planning and Development Act which is state wide, not restricted to Dublin.

VinLieger · 08-07-2014 09:56AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

This keeps getting thrown out there too, there may be 400k tickets available, but there isn't 400k people going. Almost everyone I've heard of that are going have tickets for more than one night.

Jesus christ can I not just slag off Keegan for being an absolute cvnt without either side of the argument jumping up and down saying "thats a false statement take it back!"

Red Nissan · 08-07-2014 09:56AM

First Up wrote: »

I know it is what he has been saying. That doesn't answer the question. I have never heard of a situation in this jurisdiction or any other where a body that is empowered to make a decision is dis-empowered from reviewing it.

You must understand how management works. They have a system in place and it starts at 1 and follows all the other stages along the way to a decision. They are asked only ONE question.

If after they reaching a decision you then question that, that itself is in fact is another question and will be tabled for submission and will go through the same stages as the first question did and they may or may not have the authority to enact on this decision. It may just be a recommendation.

First Up · 08-07-2014 09:56AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

It comes under the Planning and Development Act which is state wide, not restricted to Dublin.

And the Act says what precisely?

ekimiam · 08-07-2014 09:58AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Allegedly forged. But it doesn't really matter if the 'ojections' were valid anyway as a a planning decision is based on a point of law/rules or whatever, not by the number of people who object, although it may be a small factor.

its all waffle.

a decision is based on both, your just convoluting obvious statements.

First Up · 08-07-2014 09:58AM

Red Nissan wrote: »

You must understand how management works. They have a system in place and it starts at 1 and follows all the other stages along the way to a decision. They are asked only ONE question.

If after they reaching a decision you then question that, that itself is in fact is another question and will be tabled for submission and will go through the same stages as the first question did and they may or may not have the authority to enact on this decision. It may just be a recommendation.

That clears it up.

ThisRegard · 08-07-2014 09:59AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Jesus christ can I not just slag off Keegan for being an absolute cvnt without either side of the argument jumping up and down saying "thats a false statement take it back!"

There's no room for hysteria around here.

ThisRegard · 08-07-2014 10:01AM

ekimiam wrote: »

its all waffle.

a decision is based on both, your just convoluting obvious statements.

I said it can be a factor, as already pointed out by myself and others, the contents of an objection is what matters most.

You can have thousands of people objecting to something on invalid grounds and they'll all be ignored. You can then have one person objecting on rock solid grounds and that will have more weight than the other thousands.

ekimiam · 08-07-2014 10:01AM

OldGoat wrote: »

Numbers have nothing to do with the decision. It's down to the argument presented in any of the observations presented to the planning committee. A single observation could be enough to refuse planning permission/ event license if it's argument is deemed strong enough - which obviously happened.

As to checking the authenticity of the observations DCC have (IIRC) passed the issue to the Gardi.

numbers have a factor. ie; if there were no complaints that would be a factor in a decision

ekimiam · 08-07-2014 10:03AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

I said it can be a factor, as already pointed out by myself and others, the contents of an objection is what matters most.

You can have thousands of people objecting to something on invalid grounds and they'll all be ignored. You can then have one person objecting on rock solid grounds and that will have more weight than the other thousands.

i have to disagree, with a venue like croke park , they have to be paying attention to the numbers, and the regular complainants , and the cranks, to make an informed decision.

gandalf · 08-07-2014 10:04AM

beakerjoe wrote: »

So is the this whole Garth Brooks thing dead in the water now.

Hopefully. Maybe our Councillors and Lord Mayor can dedicate their time to something that is actually worthwhile :rolleyes:

OldGoat · 08-07-2014 10:04AM

ekimiam wrote: »

numbers have a factor. ie; if there were no complaints that would be a factor in a decision

Huzzah! You got the last word. I salute your keyboardwarriorness and humble myself at your feet.

ekimiam · 08-07-2014 10:05AM

OldGoat wrote: »

Huzzah! You got the last word. I salute your keyboardwarriorness and humble myself at your feet.

?

ThisRegard · 08-07-2014 10:07AM

And the cranks will be obvious based on their ground for objection. However if a regular 'crank' one day has solid grounds for objecting to something it will be taken into consideration.

awec · 08-07-2014 10:07AM

gandalf wrote: »

Hopefully. Maybe our Councillors and Lord Mayor can dedicate their time to something that is actually worthwhile :rolleyes:

This argument is boring. Of course this concert is something they should be looking at right now.

It affects almost half a million people, which is almost the equivalent of the population of Dublin City. The figures (in terms of finance) are pretty huge.

Whether or not you like Garth Brooks there's no point pretending it's not a fairly major issue right now.

ekimiam · 08-07-2014 10:09AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

And the cranks will be obvious based on their ground for objection. However is a regular 'crank' one day has solid grounds for objecting to something it will be taken into consideration.

you have a way with wording obvious statements.... i cant decipher this one

First Up · 08-07-2014 10:10AM

awec wrote: »

This argument is boring. Of course this concert is something they should be looking at right now.

It affects almost half a million people, which is almost the equivalent of the population of Dublin City. The figures (in terms of finance) are pretty huge.

Whether or not you like Garth Brooks there's no point pretending it's not a fairly major issue right now.

I agree. I wouldn't cross the street to hear Brooks but there is a lot of business and a lot of work to be had and it behooves all concerned to use their brains and imaginations. Pedantic statements about decisions being irrevocable are not helpful.

Red Nissan · 08-07-2014 10:12AM

ekimiam wrote: »

numbers have a factor. ie; if there were no complaints that would be a factor in a decision

Absolutely. If there were no objections if would simply be a point of law and all other criteria being met. As all other criteria was met [obviously as all the concerts were to be the same] then the objections took a weight.

Now if some of those objection were not legitimate, then the weighting is not either so there is a get out clause without reversing any decision as it was or could have been and invalid decision based on invalid evidence as presented for evaluation.

ThisRegard · 08-07-2014 10:12AM

ekimiam wrote: »

you have a way with wording obvious statements.... i cant decipher this one

It's pretty straightforward in fairness.

OldGoat · 08-07-2014 10:17AM

First Up wrote: »

I agree. I wouldn't cross the street to hear Brooks but there is a lot of business and a lot of work to be had and it behooves all concerned to use their brains and imaginations. Pedantic statements about decisions being irrevocable are not helpful.

Allowing money "business and jobs" to take precedent over the rights of people and the law of the land is both wrong and morally repugnant.

Larbre34 · 08-07-2014 10:18AM

First Up wrote: »

I agree. I wouldn't cross the street to hear Brooks but there is a lot of business and a lot of work to be had and it behooves all concerned to use their brains and imaginations. Pedantic statements about decisions being irrevocable are not helpful.

Its not pedantry, the decision is irrevocable, its a legal order and the Act does not provide for it to be changed. Imagine you were granted a divorce for instance, and somebody decided to make you married again the next day by revoking a decision. It can be appealed to the Court by any party to it.

Sure, there is potential economic benefit to be had, but if Croke Park had stuck to the spirit of their agreement, the notion of these concerts would never have arisen and hence the benefits not missed. Besides which, they are getting 3 shows, if the almighty one gets down off his high horse and plays them. Other than that, the businesses wont miss what they never had.

First Up · 08-07-2014 10:19AM

OldGoat wrote: »

Allowing money "business and jobs" to take precedent over the rights of people and the law of the land is both wrong and morally repugnant.

I'm talking about a compromise acceptable to all.

ekimiam · 08-07-2014 10:19AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's pretty straightforward in fairness.

no your edit helped.

but you are convoluting things.
obviously the crank will have a good point once in a while, and as i said, and i think we both agree, all worthy complaints will be counted, and the number noted.

I think you see the process as very black and white , and i dont think thats the case.

im saying it would be interesting to see if DCC have a paper trail, if they are factoring in whos a crank/regular objector and how many of them are valid ect;
because if not , the process is not up to scratch

VinLieger · 08-07-2014 10:19AM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Besides which, they are getting 3 shows.

Not if the residents can help it with this new injunction now filed

Red Nissan · 08-07-2014 10:21AM

OldGoat wrote: »

Allowing money "business and jobs" to take precedent over the rights of people and the law of the land is both wrong and morally repugnant.

Could not agree more as a base point.

However, the claims and counter claims and amount of confusion over various factions supposedly representing 'residents' has cast a critical eye on those who are actually disaffected.

It's seemingly narrowing to a plot to obstruct.

Croke Park residents to seek concert injuctions.....your opinions?

Comments