170 objections to Lansdowne

Only 170….that all?………fuck them all ……..just build it.

I wouldn’t be so down about it this site was always going to attract a large number of objections and as always it is the points raised and not the quantum that dictate if the objections are grounded; the objection from the fisheries board could be solved by conditioning that a mini-boardwalk be built to protect the river as oppose to distrub it or close the linear park and I am sure that a number of conditions can be attched to mitigate some of the concerns raised by others.

I hope this stadium is built the alternative design wise is not attractive and I for one do not want to see the stadium go to edge city

Denouncer

You got that right.

I question how many of them are actual objections compared to observations

Spot on, jdivision. I think it was 170 submissions, many of which were form-letter type things in support of the development. But who cares about accuracy and detail when there are sweeping generalisations to be made?:rolleyes:

@The Denouncer wrote:

If I had my way I’d knock the stadium down and rebuild it in the Docks near the proposed Luas line with a 70,000 capacity

What is your suggestion, Denouncer, if not an objection to development on this site?
Coming from you it’s a brainwave, coming from a local resident it’s NIMBY whingeing? Gotta love the logic.

My point, Denouncer, was not concerning the relative merits of Lansdowne versus Docklands. It concerned the knee-jerk reactions of some people to standard planning procedure. You saw the figure of 170 submissions and made the entirely unsubstantiated leap from there to the presumption that all 170 were objections, were more than likely from locals and were presumably of the NIMBY variety. (Perhaps your reasoning was suggested or supported by the carefully laid out arguments for which Ireland on Sunday is justly celebrated?)
I don’t know if anyone else came up with your visionary solution, but I do know that it should have been examined in the course of preparing the EIS. That is simply good planning practice or, more precisely, that’s the law. Now I haven’t the time to get to DCC and check, but if you do please let me know what you discover.

On your other point of “Why are we always settling for NIMBY compromised visions for every bloody development in this country?”- can I take it that you’d rather we didn’t have any planning regulations at all in this country? And by extension no pollution control measures?
There’s a curious strain in debates such as these that reminds me of the rhetoric of the pro-choice and pro-life sides in the abortion circus. In planning terms I presume you’d see yourself as pro-development? And thus do you see the objectors as anti-development? I’d place myself in the camp of pro-planning, with the deliberate implication that I see you as anti-planning. Would this be a fair assessment?

And lastly, how would you feel if someone decided to build a combined meat rendering plant and 24-hour sawmill next door to your house?

If it were me I’d build it.

My point in mentioning the abortion debate was, as you would have gathered if you’d bothered to read my post closely, to highlight the use of specifically loaded phrases in the rhetoric of the arguments. It’s generally accepted that the so-called pro-choice side are not anti-life, but by titling themselves ‘pro-life’ the pro-lifers seek to imply that the pro-choicers are anti-life. Is it that hard to understand? Perhaps it is.

You say “Cities need to be developed, not left to rot in a stagnant state”.
Two things-
1) The alternative to unregulated development is not stagnation.
2) That cities need to be developed is not an a priori fact.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against development. Not at all. As I said earlier I’m pro-planning, which tacitly presumed that development is taking place, for without development there would be no need for planning.

I agree with you that in some cases there are objections that serve only to undermine the legitimacy of the objection and appeals process (well, you didn’t put it quite so eloquently, but I’m trying to concede thet you might have meant something along those lines), but I don’t think you can jump from such a position to saying that all objections are NIMBY in origin or outlook. However, the statistics from An Bord Pleanala regarding rates of granting don’t back up your assertion that all the newspapers carry is objections. Admittedly objections make for better news if you think like Ireland on Sunday does, but they’re not the whole story. Further, the receipt by a planning authority or the Board of an objection to a scheme does not automatically mean that they will look favourably on that objection. There are such things as ‘vexatious and frivolous’ objections to begin with, before we get to the matter of legitimate objectors. Planning authorities and ABP are under no obligation to side with these legitimate concerns, but they must take the concerns into account when evaluating the pros and cons. That’s how it works, in theory. Obviously there are cases you can cite where due process has failed or whatever, but the principle holds.

I can’t bring myself to address your list of grievances over the projects you mention, as each one was a different case and the circumstances were thus different too. On some I agree with you, on others I don’t. My concern is that you see them as all ‘of a piece’, and fail to see the key differences between each. But as I said before in relation to your first post, “who cares about accuracy and detail when there are sweeping generalisations to be made?”
(To address just one- my concerns over Thornton Hall are: a> its distance from the city, given that many of its occupants come from either Dublin families where public transport is their only option, or from outside Dublin, adding complications to the visiting process for people already travelling from beyond the pale; and b> the manner in which the land deal was executed. It’s got nothing to do with local fears. The fact that I’m on the same side as the people who are playing the ‘But what about our children!’ card does not negate the validity of my own concerns.)

Lastly, I’ve never objected to anything in my back yard in my life. I’ve objected to certain things alright, but not because I preceived that they diminished my living area.

PS For what it’s worth, it has been shown by research that covering your head with tin foil actually marginally increases your chances of attracting electromagnetic and other signals. You might like to try it while reading my posts.