Re: Re: Bye-bye more historic Dublin
Thanks for posting this, hutton. Agreed. O’Toole’s article on the Sheridan house makes for a nice eulogy, but it would have made a better protest song.
So the Record of Protected Structures: legally binding or just a polite suggestion? It seems easy enough, as we’ve all seen, to steamroll right over it. Why is this so?
It raises the question– on perhaps a grander scale– of what the role of public protest is over buildings and space, whether protected or unprotected. Why the formal fee to object? The implication that money buys influence is certainly in keeping with the way most of the world works, but it doesn’t make it right. Though on the bright side, it does make corruption easier to spot (we can all think of those infamous projects that lodge dozens of planning applications, hoping to make it completely cost-prohibitive to object). But really, why?
And in terms of forums (like newspapers, like this discussion board) that encourage the so-called free exchange of opinion, one has to wonder. Does whistle-blowing without the proper authority to enforce ever have an impact? If so, what are some of the success stories and more importantly, why do we think they worked? And whether an earlier O’Toole article would actually have had influence over the DCC’s decision– I’d like to think this is the case, however idealistic. It’s the least a writer can do in the world.