Residents reclaim Dartmouth Square

by Lumpen Fri Jun 09, 2006 19:45

Get real comrade. These "residents" are upper middle class and middle class. They dont want working class people like us in their square. As soon as they see the first shell suit they will call the cops.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Fri Jun 09, 2006 21:14

It doesn't matter if the area surrounding a green space is inhabited by middle Class
or Aliens. What matters is access and they are under threat in Dublin.
The lock put on the access to the space by a certain Mr Noel O Gara should have
been broken. Isn't it up to the people who steward their spaces on behalf of their community
to fight for the right to access it?

A Square, not so far from me has a trespass sign on it. it is owned by a
private school and provides rugby facilities to the fee-paying boys. It was subject
of a case in the high Court and all documentation retained. Strangely enough
a separate link to the very same athlone builder was discovered in the ownership of freehold space
in the houses around that Square.(as they say, a file has been made).

If you want to put allottments or child friendly spaces in a green space/communal area
then fuck it, you should.Fair play to residents of Dartmouth, but be careful who you sup
with. it'll be a battle, to retain the space for your kids to play in.

Check out Martin Kay on stewardship and landscape. he gave a good lecture on Citizenship
empowerment to the good people of Tara at Dalgan Park not too long ago.(THPG)

by Stevey Jones Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:32

So in this story, the landowner leased the land to the council who in turn allowed the locals to use it as a park. Then the landowner decided to sell up and the council wouldn't pay (even though the price was far below the market rate). So someone else bought it. Now the state will have to CPO the land to get it back at huge expense.

Conclusion: the council fucked up and should review their property portfolio.

Alternative conclusion: Property is theft - Viva la revolucion! Let's replace all private ownership with state officials like the don't-give-a-fuck council council officers who mislaid Dartmouth square and will never be punished.

by Megagirl Sat Jun 10, 2006 13:38

I`is a lovely day to play in a park.I live in town and the nearest park to me has been closed not by a private landowner but by the council FOR OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. A man called Smurfitt gave the park to the "people of Dublin" that includes me !
Also my favorite park on dame st. was shut over a year ago by the council and now they have built an office on it .I am very angry about this .
I say well done to all who try to keep parks open i dont care who owns them.

Kidz protest on Dame St last year at closing of park

by jambles - Dartmouth Community Sat Jun 10, 2006 17:58 28 Dartmouth Square

The Dartmouth Square work party was a huge success this morning, we had lots of neighbors who helped out with the clean up. Rubbish has been removed, the grass has been cut, the walkways brushed and the hedges have been clipped!
Thanks to everyone who helped out.

Dartmouth Square was managed by Dublin City Council, but it now seems that ownership has fallen into the hands of this unpleasant person, O'Gara. We, the residents, are taking back control of the park and have now agreed to keep the park in good shape until the CPO is processed by the Council. People of all 'class' are welcome to the park! And is visited by many people from around the area during the day! I am a renting resident on the square and enjoy the park as do other people from every social/cultural background!

It seems that this O'Gara person is in the business of buying up green spaces and trying to sell them back to the local residents for huge prices, if you live beside a green space, check out if the council have full ownership!

Dartmouth Residents Mow the Grass

by Ois Sat Jun 10, 2006 18:17

I presume Lumpen is taking the piss. Cos errr (s)he's posting under "Lumpen". But in case not...They dont want working class people like us in their square. As soon as they see the first shell suit they will call the cops. The working class has nothing to do with shell suits. And there are loads of working class people living in Ranelagh. The working class is defined by its relationship to capital, not by its fashion sense or by where it lives.

by fuddus Sun Jun 11, 2006 01:27

Fair play to any and all involved in keeping these green zones for the people and not the capitalists that have no time for community. We all need spaces like these for ourselves and our kids, not to mention to maintain the beauty of our cities and the precious supply of trees, particularly in the urban areas.

Keep up the good work!

by davidg - none Wed Jun 14, 2006 17:35

I'm writing this while sitting in Dartmouth Square (after finding the fourth of four gates not locked) , and I applaud the locals (of which I am one, I or my wife come here every day with the dog) for the initiative to keep the park accessible to everyone, especially the children. If there is anything I can do to lend a hand, would someone please let me know; I feel guilty enjoying the park--while the CPO goes through--while others are sweating to mow the lawn, clean up refuse, etc......

by So - private Tue Jun 20, 2006 16:14

To all concerned.

We know that Dartmouth Square is in a beautiful position, especially for the residents of the area. The fact is that the Park does not belong to the residents of Dartmouth Square. It belongs to some intelligent business man. The residents thought it belonged to them and the Council carried on as if It belongs to Dublin!

If the Council, as in many other scenarios don't do their job by checking details - gettting it right, who is to call this Mr O'Gara a nasty person. If he happened to be in a position to buy up this property then why shouldn't he? Surely the majority of people if in his position would do the same thing. I think he sounds like an intelligent person not some nasty person. The Council had plenty of opportunity to do so - why didn't they? Why didn't the Residents?

The Council continually make cock-ups. How many of us know exactly what it is like to deal with the Council - trying to get things done. They didn't have the foresight to purchase this land. This is not the first, second, third and on and on boob the Council has made - its all over the County and Country.

Nor do the residents of Dartmouth Square own the park either. Lets face it, people living in Dartmouth Square have enough funds for themselves, yet expected the Council to keep the Park up to scratch. Before castigating people, look at the big picture. Greed is a horrible thing!

Let the Council pay for their mistake(s). Its the Council at fault here not Mr O'Gara - we all know that but Darmouth residents need some sore of shield (one that is rusty and of no use).

Nes.

by liamohea Sat Jul 01, 2006 14:56

I agree with the comments of the latest person to post and if the city council screwed up by not buying the place, that is not mr o'gara's fault but theirs entirely.
In any case I understand the new owner intends to develop a badly needed underground car park on the space and retain a park at ground level. If that is done it will be of benefit to the residents and will be in keeping with the zoning. I cant park in the vicinity without great searching and there are days when the whole area is full to the teeth.
Dublin needs more car parks in strategic locations like this and as a Dubliner I cant see why we all should have to pay to provide a garden for the rich residents of the square when we all need the parking space so badly.
Anyway I never went into the place until recently and it is not in the same bracket as Stephens Green.
A private owner may be a much better developer than the city council.

by tom Sat Jul 01, 2006 15:09

We don't need more car parks in that area it's right beside the luas, several bus routes and a 10minute walk from the dart. More parks less car.

by Observer Mon Jul 03, 2006 09:56

This would not be the same property developer/businessman from Ballinahowen, Athlone - Noel O Gara, who has spent years claiming that his former partner is the 'real' Yorkshire ripper would it?

ed's note: Unrelated and unsubstantiated abuse edited out here

by Spinning Quickly Mon Jul 03, 2006 20:24

This is the same guy who claims that a former employee of his was the real Yorkshire Ripper. (I've no idea if they were involved in any other way, but some make that claim - it may just be winding up by someone sick of him.) He posts his claims repeatedly (some would say obsessively) on soc.culture.irish and other newsgroups (e.g. some uk.* newgroups).

He was also mentioned in Phoenix magazine recently - he has four companies, most of which aren't in the best of shape, yet he has time to buy up land in Dublin and relentlessly promote his conspiracy theories about the Ripper - mostly to raise his profile and promote his book - which seems to be self-published.

by Big Dave Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:34

I fully support and applaud the residents of Dartmouth Square for their efforts in a) keeping the park beautiful and b) fighting to retain it as an open space of enjoyment to all.

I am not a local resident. I live about a mile away although I work near Dartmouth Square and occasionally venture in to it at lunch time to munch a sandwich and read the paper. (and dispose of the wrappings properly afterwards, right kids?)

It is a beautiful piece of greenery in the middle of Dublin. We can't have too many of these. This is NOT just a matter for the residents. It's a matter for anybody who lives in, works in or just visits Dublin that beautiful natural surroundings should not be, by default, the playthings of a private owner to the exclusion of all others.

Dublin fares very badly in this regard compared with other cities. Even in London, one is rarely more than five minutes walk from a park or a 'common' where one can escape from the concrete jungle all around.

I am disappointed that there is not more anger about this among the general public. I am sure the residents of the square could drum up a huge amount of support from other people around the city if they sought it. Like with a simple website to solicit names for a petition or to publish information about protest meetings they might be holding etc

Just a thought.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Thu Jul 27, 2006 13:11

The Irish Times covered the detail of the process with regard to Noel O Gara in the last couple
of days.

Two Things:

Noel O Gara has an extensive leasehold interest in an area near Dartmouth Square.

The Plan for Rathmines/Ranelagh should be examined. It was updated to 'Urban Hub'
in recent years and a large number of houses have been de-listed, or down-graded in terms
of grant access and protection. (these are georgian/edwardian) the areas affected are on the Lower Rathmines road, and a lot in the vicinity of Catha Brugha barracks area.

Car -Parks are the fail-safe way of estblishing property-rights, making money ,whilst await re-zoningand right to develop. These little land-parcels are worth millions in terms of speculation.
This extends to the issue of the land interests around re-zoning centres, which included
areas like Cherrywood, Brennanstown Road(at carrickmines), the Camac Valley, and the areas
around proposed motorway sites such as the M3.

We are aware of how the speculators operate, given the varied tribunals of enquiry.

Other issues that feed into the speculators interests would include changes to the grants systems
in the corporation. The one-off housing bill which affects rural and scenic areas and the
ability of Dick Roche to grant Ikea -like planning permissions to big corporations. This usually accomplished without concommitent protections to at risk areas and lack of infrastructural nouse.

The denigration of An Taisce and the reduction of citizen rights in relation to judicial process
(envisaged in the Planning and Development Act, (S.I.B) are echoeing local level corruption on a national level.

by Dermot Lacey Thu Jul 27, 2006 13:17

Chris,

There is not a snowballs chance on earth that Councillors will vote to rezone Dartmouth Square and for the record on Indymedia let me point out that as far as I am aware there is not a single Dublin City Council decision by Councillors before any of the Tribunals.

by dunk Thu Jul 27, 2006 14:13 fuspey at yahoo dot co dot uk

related:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000734.html
attempts to create gardens in dublin and further community interaction
http://www.dolphinsbarngarden.org

rte news coverage of the park
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0726/ranelagh.html

is it open at present, if so what hours, perhaps it would be nice to have a little evening picnic there...........

by D Mon Sep 04, 2006 22:30

According to the RTE News, It seems that Mr O'Gara has opened the car park today.

by D'other Mon Sep 04, 2006 22:31

I'm just watching the 9 o'clock news and it seems that yer man O'Gara who now owns Dartmouth Square tried to open it as a car park today. He parked several cars on top of it and erected a sign out side of it advertising spaces for €10 a day. One elderly resident blocked the entrance with her car arguing she had council residential parking disc and could park anywhere around the square she wanted. He seems like a wormy little character and there was some suggestion that today was a stunt to increase the value of a likely compulsary purchase order.

http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5123

by ripper Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:59

He extracts money with menaces from old ladies. He is amoral and he is dangerous.

He knows the law backwards and he doesn't give a shit about green spaces.

if you want to tangle with him , to keep the square. its a fulltime occupation, publicity

and a council campaign. he wins through everytime- only problem for him is

that he has pissed enough people off to have them talk ans someone knows his

weak spot. PUBLICITY.

by Prole Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:14

The houses on the square are worth over €2 million each. This is hardly an issue for socialists to get involved in. If any working class people tried to use the square the residents would very likely call the cops. Do you really think that kids from Sean MacDermott Street or Ballymun would welcome to hold a picnic in this square?

I have nothing but contempt for O'Gara but its not my fight. Let the Bourgeois fight their own battles. There are much more important issues for socialists to get involved with.

Like the Dance School in Foley Street which locals were supposed to get access to. But they dont. Classes are reserved for children of the Bourgeois who can afford the high priced classes. Heres an example where a green area was taken by stealth from the working class people of Corporation Street & Sean MacDermott Street, a Dance School built on it, which the localc are now excluded from.

Fight for the rights of the Working Class not for the Ruling Class.

by ahem Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:25

cornering socialism into an us and them scenario, is what isolates it from community.
everyone is going to need socialism because capitalism has failed and the
bourgeois is strangled by its own need.

divide up your little soldiers and play with them all you like , but as long as there is
no unity of purpose amonst all irish people , it will fail through limitation and
theoretical structures based on copybook ideas of what a socialist is.

A bourgeois victim of consumerist capitalism has the same humanity as a
working class victim, you wear the same clothing-end of story. de-humanise
someone and you are as low as the people who kill because of'differentess'

robot.

by Prole Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:30

Priorities.

Should socialists prioritise getting involved with the problems of the Bourgeoise or the problems of the Working Class? There are plenty of Working Class issues to get involved with. When they are solved you can get involved with the problems of the Bourgeoise.

But if you are a real socialist then you would believe at that stage there wouldn't be any Bourgeoise left. Or maybe you want a society where there will still be Sean MacDermott Streets?

by Prole Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:40

if it is upbringing in a working class area-yes.
education in a state school -yes
activism for equality-yes.
belief in humanity and education of bourgeois in equality in a claseless society-yes.
Feminism-yes.

the question of allignment-no.

why? - because fundamental structures/committees of the socialist parties in Ireland
are male-dominated and divorced from the reality of activism.

some people are activist socialist. ie their socialism is grounded profoundly in using
their abilities to make positive changes and there is theoretical socialism, which is
grounded in schooling, belief and systems.

there is room for both-but back to dartmouth square.

a bully of old women, a venture capitalist and someone who twists the law
is taking away a PUBLIC green space. so we have a picnic-invite kids
from sean mc dermott street-where my father grew up...
but socialism has to recognise the humanity of all peoples or it is elitist and wounded
by its own specific peevs.

by Prole Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:44

Real clever guy above. Uses my name to abuse me.

I couldn't care less about old Bourgeois women in Upper Class areas. I care as much about her as she cares about working class kids. She probably doesnt know they exist.

Support the struggles that are relevant to ordinary people. To hell with the ruling class. The people of Ballymun and SEan MacDermott Street need your help.

by Martin Lennon Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:49

Over fifteen years ago now, I worked as a Motorcycle dispatch rider in Dublin. I always felt that most Dublin people considered ' couriers as gurriers ' and would not want them hanging around anywhere near their homes. This was not the case with the residents of Dartmouth square. Occasionally, while working as a dispatch rider in Dublin, I took a break in and around Dartmouth square and I never got so much as a bad look from any of the residents. I even recall daily friendly acknowledgements from several older residents coming and going from their homes on the square. I think it is very bad to consider these people as upper class, I for one have respect for any person how has worked hard to become educated to the level of some of the residents might be ( from what I understand money does not buy a bachelor's degree, Phd, post-doctoral etc. etc. in this Ireland, hard work does ) and if at the end of all that work a person is able to purchase a beautiful €2m Georgian home, more power to them I say. Anyway I greatly appreciated being able to completely relax in the area without having to worry about the next car that was going to pull out in front of me or when the controller would start shouting at me to start work again.. I am not from the area, but I think it is ridiculous that the developer thinks that Dublin needs more car parks, come on! I think his comments are more like an attempt to pull the wool over Dublin's eyes. Come on O'Gara, does Dublin really need more car parking space or are you just trying to come across on the side of the ' Dublin rate payers ', when really all you want to do is profit from you initial investment. I think that the Council should pay the man for the park and get rid of him, get him out of the picture all together. Sadly I now live in Sweden and I am unable to offer my support to the residents of Dartmouth square in person, but any of you that may read this post, please know that you have my virtual support! The next time I return to Dublin, I hope Dartmouth square will be open, because it will be one of the places I will be brining my Swedish partner and our two Children for a picnic. Go n'éirí an t-ádh leat.

by dean - free thinker Tue Sep 05, 2006 13:16

that wants to use it. The council should immediately forward a bill to the "owner" asking for the costs of staff, material, security, repairs and purchases relating to the park. This over nine years should amount to a couple of million. Then the Council should vote to NEVER consider granting planning permission for this site (it must currently be zoned a recreational area) or for it to be rezoned. Then, and only then, it should consider buying the park from the "owner" at a price that is in line with land that cannot be developed for housing.

The (abuse removed -ed) that claim that socialists should only be interested in working class areas usually don't even live in them. A loss of a community resource is a defeat in Ranelagh or Rialto

by polpolpol Tue Sep 05, 2006 13:33

At the end of the day people he owns the land. Now if you residents had that amount of land as your back garden and one who broke the lock to get in , you would have them shot. He owns the land its as simple as that. so what if your not happy. I bet if you had of known you could of bought the land for €8000 there'd be a block of apartments there right now.............SUCKERS!!! get over it. i'm delighted and i hope it devalues every house in that area!!!!

by SB Tue Sep 05, 2006 13:45

I am reading and hearing on the news all about this situation..

The facts are simple and clear, so why is everyone complicating things as usual

The simple truth is that Mr O'Gara acquired this land honestly - he did not shoot someone, steal from someone, etc., he bought this land from another person and that's it. Why is everyone making a huge deal out of it?

The reality is that the Council (as with many other cases) did not do their job correctly okay! They are the organisation who should be copping the flak - their lack of attention to detail, not doing their job (which we as the public pay wages to them to do).

The fact that O'Gara bought this land at the price he paid, I really think people are begrudging him, I am 150% certain that there are many other people out there that would have done the same thing if they had the chance - BE HONEST. We all know we begrudge one another and this has always been the way on this little island!

Honestly, the truth is he can do what he likes with his land - what is our judicial system about that if a person buys land, a house, etc., the Government can just take it away if they decide? How would you feel if your land, home was threatened to be taken from you? Would you let the Government take your home from you if the legal documentation had not been dealth with by your legal advisor correctly?

Honestly, it is time to face reality and I personally think that the fact that Mr O'Gara has acquired this land, why treat him with such outgrage and discourtesy - surely we should acknowlege his intelligence, business sense and how he has thrown light on how the Council has let us down - makes me wonder what else the Council let slip, how they get away with their charges for Waste charges, parking and so forth.

I notice nasty and jealous comments from people stating the Mr O'Gara's friends are the only ones who are in agreeance with my sentiments, you all know that is absolute bull - wake up Ireland!!!!

I also think that it is absolute weakness of people to be searching for flaws in this man's business dealings, it is none of our business really is it. The hard fact is that he acquired this land upfront and legally - so why is everyone giving him the hard time - what about the gang of louts who are supposed to be putting our country into a safe space. You can be sure that many of our policitians are spending our hard earned cash , come on - this isn't brought to light is it (we get the odd report don't we). At least this O'Gara guy is fighting his spot - good on him!

I think this man should be dealt with fairly and not bullied which I feel is the same old approach of the Government and media in this Country - closed shop!

Y/sincerely
SB

by pat c Tue Sep 05, 2006 13:48

"Honestly, the truth is he can do what he likes with his land - what is our judicial system about that if a person buys land, a house, etc., the Government can just take it away if they decide?"

No he cannot do what he likes with "his" land. There is such a thing as planning laws. They apply to cowboy developers as well as you and me. O'Gara bought this land for €10k, he is now trying to get millions from the State. It doesnt wash. Only gangsters would support O'Gara.

by ahem Tue Sep 05, 2006 13:54

word is O Gara owns the frehold on lands in a lot of squares in the dublin 6 area. He approaches
sellers/buyers twenty-four hours before auction, stops the auction and demands cash reparations in exchange for the freehold.
It made him ver wealthy.
Rumours abound:- one says he is the front man for a british company and is only
making commission on his little sales, cos the money is going to London.

One sure thing is. the wealth of whomever owns the land is huge and O gara
is a sleaze.

by SB Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:22

I am well aware that WE ALL have to apply for Planning Permission!
What i am saying is that realistically O'Gara has acquired this land upfront and legally - that's why the Council, the resident of Dartmouth Sq are stuffed!

Also what I am saying is that you may regard O'Gara as a gangster, I really am not interested in his other business dealings as they would not affect this situation okay. That the fact that he has acquired the land through buying from the original owner well that's straight enough isn't it?!

There are real gangsters out there who are getting away with ripping us off every day (and they're doing this illegally) okay.

SB

by Darragh Tue Sep 05, 2006 16:44

Partially in agreement with the previous begrudge article, I would believe that the landowners past and present have dealt fairly and honestly in their exchanges of this property.
With regard to the actions taken since the latest purchase ie. the locking of the park and its recent use or attempted use as a car park, I think this is rather unfortunate but very clever on his part.
He is within his right to do this and you the general public and local residents have played right into his hands.
You have raised the profile of this place, drawn the park to the attention on the media the local authority the government and the greater population creating an enormous an justified fuss.
This will work to the advantage of the landowner because you have esculated it's value by astronomical proportions and now the local outhority will be left with no option but to pay whatever Mr Landowner demands, through the CPO process.

So keep up the good work but remember you are lining his pockets in the process.

by jambles - Dartmouth Square Tue Sep 05, 2006 16:45 jambles at eircom dot net Dartmouth Square

Continuing on the O'Gara saga, he has now painted double yellow lines on the main road.

Please come along on Saturday & also forward this on, we will have music and comedy in the Square!. . .

Public Party in Dartmouth Square - Sat 9th Sept 2006

by polpolpol Tue Sep 05, 2006 17:54

how did he buy this land so cheap?

by Queen Jane Wed Sep 06, 2006 01:29

"This will work to the advantage of the landowner because you have esculated it's value by astronomical proportions and now the local outhority will be left with no option but to pay whatever Mr Landowner demands, through the CPO process.

So keep up the good work but remember you are lining his pockets in the process."

These are ill-informed and ridiculous statements. What are the options - allow him to park cars on a green space? The park is in Ranelagh; the land is already worth a lot of money. What the residents do will make little difference to that.

The question is, how did he manage to purchase it for eight grand in the first place? Would somebody please clarify this? I am not involved in this campaign, but when I saw this gombeen man on the news tonight I felt ill at the thought that someone could purchase what should be public land at a tiny fraction of the market price and abuse the residents like this. Someone somewhere has to be accountable for this occurrence. The whole thing wouldn't happen in a Flann O'Brien novel, it's that surreal. Civic responsibility is more important than some cute hoor's 'constitutional right' (his words) to line his pockets. The people protesting are being responsible.

The CPO process, by the way, does NOT mean that the local authority will have to pay whatever he demands - in fact, quite the opposite. Inform yourself before you making such rash statements.

by nerraw Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:10

The land is his, residents anger should be directed to the county council who made a balls of the deal. O'Gara offered the land to the council as did the previous owner. The council didn't show any interest.

As indymedia guidelines state, play the ball not the player. What interests O'Gara may have isn't irrelevant to this discussion.

by Mary, Ranelagh Wed Sep 06, 2006 13:07

I would like to express my grave concern for a rally being held on Saturday at this park - I do hope children and the elderly will not be involved.

Someone else had posted a note regarding this yesterday and I am in total agreeance with same. It is a business dispute between a businessman and the Council and I think it is not a good idea to be advertising a fun day out with music, etc.

by marie, Rathmines Wed Sep 06, 2006 13:37

not sleazy little business men.

and if they want to play-let 'em play.

btw:- do you drive a big car?

Children's inheritance=breathing spaces in cities

by Mary, Ranelagh Wed Sep 06, 2006 15:33

I dont really get what you are on about

;;;; im expressing my concern that children would be amongst a crowd rallying/protesting/whatever on Saturday at this park. Surely you wouldn't agree with them being present at an angry meeting!!

by pat c Wed Sep 06, 2006 15:40

Whos holding an angry meeting? This will be a peaceful gathering. The only possibility of violence occurring would be if O'Gara and his hired thugs were to attack the gathering.

Do you have information which suggests that the residents and their supporters are going to be attacked on Saturday? If so then you should pass the details on to the Gardai.

by Mary, Ranelagh Wed Sep 06, 2006 16:46

Honestly, this is hugely out of porportion -
I am a retired person living in Ranelagh all of my life.
I think that any protest is angry (right or wrong) and I feel it a very negative suggestion for the suggestion of a gathering "family type day" to be held within a protest -
I have watched the news and it seems like an angry situation to me, not the type of disagreement I would expect a day in the park would be about.

Anyhow, I think you should allow people their own opinion - there is no need for you to be so rude

by pat c Wed Sep 06, 2006 16:52

"Anyhow, I think you should allow people their own opinion - there is no need for you to be so rude"

I certainly did not intend to be rude and going over my comment again I cant see any rude comments in it. Perhaps you would point out the parts you consider to be rude.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. But is it an informed opinion? Why do you think there will be violence on Saturday?

My opinion is that if any violence occurs on Satirday then it will come from O'Gara and his stooges. They are the only ones to use violence so far . A complaint has been made to the Gardai regarding this. The assault was witnessed by John Gormley TD and Cllr Chris Andrews.

by marie, Rathmines Wed Sep 06, 2006 17:47

bringing your kids to a park that is threatened by someone who does not believe in
Irish children having rights to fresh air in a city laced with SUV fumes is not a protest
in the nature in which you interpret it- Mary , Ranelagh.

Nobody can claim ownership of diminshed free green spaces, they belong to
the kids that have to inherit the mess that people like you give to your kids
and grandkids. (hope you sleep at night)

by attacking people who want their kids to run and play in a natural environment
you are playing the game of the man who would like to make it a car-park.

be as sniffy as you want, but some people bring their kids into parks so they can breathe
green air. your interpretation of that is suspect and provocative.

btw: most cases of childhood asthma would be alleivated by an increase in shared
green spaces-as if you gave a fuck-

by Graham Fri Sep 08, 2006 23:18

(One line of BB chat removed -ed) it really is an issue between Noel O'Gara and Dublin City Council. DCC tormented the previous owner, Darley, over handing over 8,500 punts and Darley just sold it on to Noel O'Gara to save him the hastle. The fact that he knew Mr O'Gara had been victimised by the Council in the past might have been a factor in that he'd have the motivation to get justice. The people that work in the council are a crowd of clowns, whatever about the elected councilors. If I bought a house and refused to pay for it, I wouldn't claim it's my house by some 'moral' right. The council were supposed to give Darley the incredibly reduced and good spirited price of 8,500 punts for the park, they refused, they wanted it for nothing. Now Mr O'Gara owns it and it's not for sale, I believe the council messed up big time their oportunity and it's everyone that should blame them not it's now rightful owner. Dartmouth Square residents cop on and stop trying to add this to the list of moral issues that exist in Ireland at the mo. This is property law, fair and square.

by Ghost Rider Mon Sep 11, 2006 16:11

So the park used to belong to Darley. In that case, where did he/they get it...?

This reminds me of the old story about the hippy living in a caravan in a forest. One day the hippy hears a knock on his door. He opens it to find a man in a wax jacket. The hippy invites the man into his caravan. "How can I help you?" he asks. "This is my land," the man in the wax jacket says. "You'll have to take your caravan somewhere else."

"Where did you get the land?" asks the hippy. "I inherited it from my father," says the other man. "And where did he get it?" asks the hippy. "From his father," says the other man. "And where did he get the land?" continues the hippy. "From his father," says the other man.

This continues until the hippy finally asks "So where did your great-great-great-great grandfather get this piece of land?" The other man replies proudly: "He fought for it."

"Care to step outside?" says the hippy.

The point is that land never just belongs to anyone; it is acquired, sometimes through violence, sometimes through inheritance, sometimes through purchase and sometimes in ways that the law is not even capable of addressing.

Stating that the issue of the ownership of Dartmouth Square it is not the concern of the locals is simple-minded in the extreme. It is also a cop-out from the difficult questions raised by this issue, questions that go to the very heart of the kind of society we have built.

by Graham Mon Sep 11, 2006 17:40

Fair enough Ghost Rider, I did make the assumption that we were recognising legal property rights here. At some stage in this country we put the wars of the past behind us and recognised people's title to property even if in History it was bestowed by some favour of a foreign King or even earlier by some Viking, Chieftan etc. If we hadn't recognised some sort of ownership then the trade couldn't have progressed.
Ideally and presumably in the After Life, property law won't exist and we'll all live as one. But if Darley's ownership of the park to sell it is put into question then the same right to buy for all the houses in that area will be put into question. They were all seperate units of the original scheme after all.

by Big Dave Mon Sep 11, 2006 19:01

Of course it's Mr O'Gara's property. But what use is it to him?

It's been used by the public (not just the residents) for years. It is zoned as an amenity. He can't use it as a car park or build on it. There is huge local opposition (it should be city wide if not country wide opposition but hey you can't have everything) He won't get it rezoned as Councillor Lacey pointed out so what has he bought?

A piece of open space that he can, presumably, lock up and prevent all access to, although there may be a legal case for traditional access rights. Or he can hope to sell it back to the Council for a reasonable sum.

Make it 10k.That will give him about 25 per cent profit return. (assuming 8k was the real buying price). Not bad for a few month's work annoying everybody.

It would appear this O'Gara chap, as well as being a conspiracy theorist, likes to buy up Ground Rents and then frighten the owners of leasehold properties on the sites he owns. A Google Search of Noel O'Gara and Ground Rent throws up some interesting and disturbing stories.

Next to Gombeen Man in the dictionary it should say 'See Noel O'Gara'

by number 6 - legalise freedom campaign Mon Sep 11, 2006 20:58

The Residents of Dartmouth Square should not pass on their begrudery to theiir Children.History stops with us.If O'Grada bought this Land fair and square, then he owns it. Unlike the illusion that when People who pay large sums of borrowed money from Banks for Houses that they 'own' them. The Banks own them.
Anyway, if I broke a lock off your Garden Gate you would call the Po-lice and bring me to the PEOPLE'S Court to seek Justice.
I also notice the ever diligent type Photograph where a Resident scurries in feverish persuit to 'claim' the Park for himself and maybe fellow Residents?
I would'ent last pissin time if I did that in your Garden. Well, would I?

Everybody wants to do WORK all of a sudden on the Place. Most of you would sleep on the Floor if Work was in the Bed. Ask yourselves an Honest Question. WHY?
Are your Gardens not BIG enough? Is the Canal too FAR away for a walk? No. Not at all.
You just WANT it because you think you can take it. Why did none of the Residents not go and offer some Money for it? Was ten grand too much?

As regards CPO'S. Well, only a few People ever encounter cpo's in their Lives.How would you like your House cpo'd? I am sure most of you in Dartmouth Sq. are unfamiliar with them. They are nasty things.Because the Council are nasty People. Many People over the Years have never been paid having been evicted from their Homes by your friendly Council's Legal Department Law Agent - who may then give it to a Developer friend to make millions . Why dont the lot of you campaign for something real for a change....YOUR RIGHTS...OUR RIGHTS? Campaign for your rights that are openly denied to you in open Court. Stop thinking of how to get something for nothing - just like the crooked Councils,Courts , Political Parties , Medical and Legal Mafia and Bank Mafia etc.do.
Why not familiarise yourselves with the contents of today's High Court Hearing , where O'Gara was ussued with a 'Caretaker's Order ' on his own Land. This could be you tomorrow. If the Council wants YOUR House they will take it .Make no mistake about it. I am not advocating that He or anyone should be given a Green light to do whatever one wants on their Land , there are Planning Laws to be adhered to, but he (o grada) most likely requested an Art.40 in Court and was fobbed off with the Caretaker's Order he received.
This could be you or me tomorrow.

by timmy Tue Sep 12, 2006 13:09

The naivety here is OVERWHELMING and, yes, hilarious. e.g.

"The houses on the square are worth over €2 million each. This is hardly an issue for socialists to get involved in. If any working class people tried to use the square the residents would very likely call the cops. Do you really think that kids from Sean MacDermott Street or Ballymun would welcome to hold a picnic in this square?"

Nothing to see here, this is OLD NEWS.

"...it is somewhat curious that this decisive power of
the professional secondhand dealers in ideas should not yet be more generally
recognized. The political development of the Western World during the last hundred
years furnishes the clearest demonstration. Socialism has never and nowhere been at
first a working-class movement. It is by no means an obvious remedy for the obvious
evil which the interests of that class will necessarily demand. It is a construction of
theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long
time only the intellectuals were familiar." - Hayek, 1949

Eh, which party has the richest supporters? Oh yeah, the GREENS. And which has the second richest? Oh yeah, LABOUR. And what about all you people around here? If you're all so terribly oppressed, how come you've got so much time to read up on Marxist theory? How come you've got all the time in the world to riot and demonstrate? Not much evidence of poverty there. And by the way, the genuinely underprivileged people I meet couldn't give a shit about your theories, they just want a decent job or a home, not a socialist revolution. But let's get to the point. What makes THIS particular story just so frickin hilarious?

It's the logical, almost poetic justice involved. Socialism getting used on behalf of the rich in the most clear-cut way imaginable. Instead of facilities which could be used by all-comers from around Dublin, Dartmouth Square remains a free garden for the super-wealthy, one which they don't have to pay for. Here's a lesson in capitalism: if the millionaires weren't being dickheaded about this, they'd have teamed up and bought Dartmouth square off the developer themselves and this would not have been a political problem. Instead they used socialism to get it at public expense. But people are SURPRISED.

Everyone can see that when a person like John Gormley throws a hissy fit over what's happening in Dartmouth square, he's doing it for the millionaires (and their kids) who elected him into power. Ok, that's his job. It's the same when the Labour Party fights for "public servants" earning 3 or 4 times the average industrial wage. That's their objective function. But let's not pretend otherwise.

So who does socialism REALLY represent today? We've all been brought up to believe that it's the "wurker" (although I don't believe it). But let's talk about TODAY. We've got: cool college students and their lecturers, we've got millionaires who want free gardens at public expense, we've got big farmers living off subsidies, we've got an army of civil servants and public sector workers earning way more than they could in the private sector, we've got teachers, we've got nurses and doctors and consultants and all the rest who work in State monopolies, we've got middle-class anarchists still studying for their leaving cert, we've got OAPs getting free bus rides and so many other perks, we've got musicians and artists getting state grants, we've got the GAA, RTÉ, and all the others who feed from the State, we've got the Church with its massive State payout from the abuse scandal (over a billion?), we've got atheists who are generally far too sophisticated to believe in the free market, we've got ... (ad infinitum)

Yea, EVERYONE loves socialism in some way or another, and that's what they get, although they still argue about it. You socialist revolutionaries out there don't realise it, but you are carrying the banner for the STATUS QUO. You are the the perfect, logical consequence of a culture which worhips State power. There is no courage involved. So have fun with this Dartmouth story. I just wonder if you'd ever have the REAL GUTS needed to stand up for a genuinely "alternative" point of view. Somehow I doubt it.

by Spinning Quickly Tue Sep 12, 2006 19:19

O'Gara was the subject of a small piece in _Phoenix_ a few issues ago - he owns several companies, they don't seem to be doing very well.

by Ghost Rider Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:54

Graham,

Thanks for the reply but I think you're missing my point. I wasn't arguing from the point of view of a "prelapsarian" age in which property laws didn't exist and "might is right", nor was I suggesting property laws were inherently wrong. My point was that the ownership status of property - whether public or private - is not always a black-and-white matter.

Your point about the ownership status of the houses in the square is therefore irrelevant. In this case we are not talking about a house, but a green area between houses which, up until recently, was used collectively (and not even exclusively by residents of the square). Thus, it is arguable that - whatever the legal status of its ownership - there was some level of de facto public ownership.

Of course, the law may not recognise this, but that is neither here nor there. As most people will admit, the law is not always arbiter of the good so much as the merely lawful. In other words, what's legitimate is not always what's right.

I don't know what the legal outcome of this situation will be but I sincerely hope it reflects what is right. We can worry about modifying the law later, if it is deemed necessary.

by Liz Wed Sep 27, 2006 04:14

Have been following this saga for a couple of weeks now - and can only conclude that we are in real trouble in this country. A greedy business man buys up a parcel of land that is designated for public use - and yes, he manages to do it under the eyes of the very people who are charged with protecting the rights of the citizen - and nobody seems to wonder how he managed to do that? How did he manage to buy this land for 8,000 euros? Who is his inside mole in the City Council? He is demanding 175 miillion from you and me - the taxpayers - and many of the contributors to this site think this is a good thing- one in they eye for the rich people of Dartmouth Square. For the record - I live on Dartmouth Square - I have lived here for thirty years. I bought my house when it was a derelict shell. I have spent thirty years putting it back together. I am a teacher. I earn a teacher's salary. Mr. O'Gara is a chartered accountant. Which of us do you think is thewealthier? So think before you start throwing around ridiculous assumptions about wealth. And again for the record, I come from Meath Street. I am neither a Green nor a Labour supporter. Does that now qualify me to speak?

by Paul Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:38

The Dublin Corporation , and remember , that is what it is , now under the guise of a friendly Council have never protected any citizen's property in this City.
They have robbed People's Property for decades to give to their developer pals.
Look at the Carlton/Moore Street racket. Architect Paul Clinton owns the entire area and submitted Plans to develop only to be cpo'd by d.c.c. and his ENTIRE site GIVEN to someone else.

People would want to wake up to what is doin down out there.
If D,C,C, wants YOUR House they will cpo it and take it. There is not a thing you can do about it , unless , like O'Gara you challenge the Constitutionallity of cpo's in your Supreme Court. O'Gara is doin that for everyone in the Country..
OGara owns Dartmouth Sq., not the residents. Now the d.c.c. want it.
Do you know why they want it? Anyone ever ask?

Imagine your house cpo'd after 30 years of hard work put into it. I think you would see the real d.c.c. emerge.

by Rory Galin Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:45

Deadly, Liz. Me and my girlfriend recently moved into a flat on Leeson Street - not far from Dartmouth Square. We love it there and haven't yet been run out of the park by residents offended by our Tallaght accents. So please, Sirs, you guys in charge of the Sean McDermott Street Real Dubliner Club, despite our new posh address, and considering our humble origins, may we join your club>

by Ernst Udet 7th - Jasta 11 Wed Sep 27, 2006 23:20

I smell the old slaggers here. Get a grip you morans and take your foot of the social devide gas pedal. Houses in and around Dartmouth Sq may be worth millions and some residents may be zillionsaires but perhaps many purchased their homes years ago, well before the property boom and are now elderly people who would like to see out the rest of their lives in peace. Many may not be able to travel far and so this park may provide an essential service to them. The thicks who denounce and begrudge the possibly wealthy residents of Darthmouth Sq here seem to have no such problem with the wealthy and cute hoor O Gara. I am confused Is it one law for the wealthy and another for the other wealthy or are the thicks trying to send a coded message. Is O Gara a saint buying up these little parks for the folk from the working class areas. I know I can smell the old slaggers here its the same pong I got when they took over the Irish Anti War Movement and drove most of the members away replacing them with activists. He hasen't been seen near the American Embassy has he as that could indicate a plan to turn Dartmouth Sq into a covert airdrome for the US military.

Ernst.

by Gretchen Fri Sep 29, 2006 16:25 Houston, Texas

As an American tourist who just returned from a wonderful trip to Ireland I want to say that I heard/read about the Dartmouth Sq debacle and went to see what it was all about. I cannot believe the City of Dublin would even consider destroying this beautiful family partk. I'm sure people from other countries would agree with me that you would be mad to make the same mistakes we have made in recent years..............exchanging a treasured lifestyle for a concrete carpark or any other similar atrocity. Beware Ireland, what we are could be you..............then we can check off Ireland from our travels in search of reminders and enjoyment of the gentility of the past.

by Rory G. Wed Oct 04, 2006 00:54

Hi Good Buddies! Have you seen the latest photo of your poster boy, O'Gara, in Monday's Indo - looking all smug with his chest puffed out in front of his stately pile in Athlone? Would leave the poor old residents in Dartmouth Square in the halfpenny place. And what about that fleet of vehicles in front of his mansion? Now we know why he needs Dartmouth Park. Can't have all that steel and chrome destroying his lovely view of the green, green fields of home!

by Martin Lennon Tue Oct 10, 2006 15:05 Stockholm, Sweden

The council are not planning to destroy the park, a businessman named Noel O'Gara was planning to turn the park into a pay-in public carpark, but the High Court has restrained him and his company from parking more than two cars on it at any time ( see todays Ino for more www.unison.ie ). I think his plan was to rebuild the park into an underground carpark and also some other facilities ( like a creche and some kind of green area at ground level, I'm sure a good Irish architect would have created something really nice, but this would have destroyed part of the character of the area ). One of his arguments has been that the people of Dublin need more carparking spaces, which doesn't make sense to me in a city that is already suffering from traffic congestion! At the moment it doesn't look like he is going to achieve his goal and it looks like the Council will get a CPO for the land. In the hands of the Council the park will remain unchanged, maybe some small changes, I am not sure, perhaps someone in the area could post opinions about the future of the park ( post O'Gara ), I would be very interested to read more about that. In my opinion the park represents the character of South Dublin City, this area along the Grand Canal reflects images of past and present Ireland to me. If I were to walk from lower Mount street along the Canal, all the way to Ranelagh I could just imagine the newly formed State's 1920s cobblestone streets around the Pepper Canister church right through to 1970's Dartmouth Square and Mount Pleasant Avenue area with Humber and Morris cars parked here and there. My Grandmother once lived on Mount Pleasant Avenue, I remember a small shop on the avenue with big old fashioned gars of Sweets in the window, I think that shop remained unchanged even in the mid 1990s, is that shop still there? What was the name of that shop? Many of the people who live in the area were originally from the country, and some worked hard in the Government, the City, RTE or UCD. My Grandmother, for example came from Laois and worked in the City, she was gas, a bit of a snob, but she worked very hard all her life. As I said in an earlier post, to say these people are " upper class " beause they are educated and have worked hard to get where they are, is totally rediculous and I would prefer not to read anymore socialist rubbish claiming that the " upper class " are this or that, the park is for everyone/anyone. These are great parts of Dublin for me, with memories and images I hold dear to my heart and I hope it will remain that way for many years to come. Anyway to turn Dartmouth square park into an undergraound carpark would be as stupid as tearing down St Stephen’s Church, Mount Street Crescent and turning it into a petrol station.

by NUMBER 6 - Legalise freedom campaign Tue Oct 10, 2006 15:17

Semantics always work. It keeps us all preoccupied away from the REAL iSSUE.

HOW CAN D.C.C. OR ANY OTHER ORGANISATION SUCCEED IN OBTAINING AN INJUNCTION ON A PROPERTY THAT BELONGS TO ANOTHER PERSON.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD!

It could be 'your' House next. THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE. PERIOD.

by Martin Lennon Tue Oct 10, 2006 17:03 Stockholm, Sweden

To quote Article 43 of BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN:

1. 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

2. 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

No6, can you point out what section of the Constitution of Ireland on property rights ( Article 43 ) covers O'Gara's intended use of the land in Dartmouth Square? I read section 2.2 as: the State can prohibit the rights in outlined section 1.1 and 1.2 of Article 43, for the common good. In this case the common good being the use of the park as a public amenity. Noel O'Gara plans to redevelop the land for use as private enterprise. I am not a law expert, but I do believe in the constitution of Ireland and as an ordinary citizen I don't see how Dublin City Council are damaging the constitutional rights of Noel O'Gara in this case. Keep in mind that he will profit from this also.

Personally I can't see dcc taking my property ever, there are 2 reasons; 1 I currently live outside the state and 2 if I were buying property in Dublin I would not be intending to redevelop it for private enterprise. So an analogy... if I were to buy a Martelo tower in Sandymount and attempt turn it into a ' Motorcycle wall of death show ' the State should have every right to stop me form starting such a venture, this would be inappropriate use of the Martelo tower, just as an underground carpark is inappropriate use of Dartmouth Square public park.

by number 6 - legalise freedom campaign Tue Oct 10, 2006 21:01

It is Okay to 'profit.'
It has not been deemed a crime , yet .

Over the Decades ,throughout Dublin in paticular People's Homes have been CPO'd by the Dublin ......CORPORATION. IT ,STILL REMAINS A corporation under the guise of a nice COUNCIL.

People were systematically evicted from THEIR Homes and Business Premise to facilitate Develpoers with envelopes full of cash. Fair enough , not all was the case .There were some Projects for the 'common good' ,as is Constitutional.

One situation that a total affront to the Constitution is the Carlton Site in Dublin.
The real owner and Deed holder is Paul Clinton , yet HIS Property is in the hands of a Private Developer called Jerry O'Reilly who has gutted this Property in O'Connell Street in the centre of Dublin.
O'Reilly was 'GIVEN' Paul Clinton's Property by the Legal Department Heads in D.C.C. ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN SENIOR Politicians ,
who will eventually be named. All IT takes , is the press of a button. That's already to rock and roll as we speak.

In Come in the Courts in the equasion.

The Courts are the most silent Gangsters in this Debacle.
The High Court ruled yesterday as your familiar with.
There is not a thing ANYONE can do if O'Gara allows the Constituted Travelling Community into Dartmouth. Even the local Constituted Residents mentioned that they would have ne problem if People from , Clondalkin or the like ventured into eh , 'their' Park.

O'Gara's Property has been CPO'd , not for the reason People believe. People are occupied with semantics on the issue. They fail to see the ramifications on the fact that D.C.C. has obtained a Court Order to prevent ANYTHING from happening on another Person's Land. Thats the issue. Not whether O'Gara can build what he likes. He can't anyway. There are already Planning Laws in existence to say he can't. So there is and never any need for any Resident to worry about an Office Block or Car Park getting the go ahead. This is a very clever way to stir up People's emotions and cause a blindness to what is really happening. We all must remember that a violation to any Person's right or Law is a violation to Yours and mine. This is the real point in the equasion. Not semantics.

by Martin Lennon Wed Oct 11, 2006 00:12 Stockholm, Sweden.

I researched the CPO with google and though I feel it is going off on a tangent regarding Dartmouth Square, I would still like to make additional comments on the topic. I think that your opinion of the CPO is a inaccurate, according to the CPO steps outlined in the link below, residents/home owners/land owners will be compensated to the current market rate of the property or land in question. Also pointed out in the booklet is the councils need for CPO powers - " The reason a scheme allowing for the compulsory acquisition of lands exists is to allow public infrastructure projects to proceed for the greater and common good ". This is acceptable and is in existance in other European countries ( for example Britain ). In the Carlton Cinema case, the council made the decision on the CPO because they felt that Paul Clinton and the Carlton Group hadn't the experience or finance to " advance the project ". I am not sure of the current status of this case, but if political corruption is involved, no doubt we'll have a tribunal that will uncover the truth in the end. Perhaps if you have information pertaining to this aledged corruption you will be a tribunal witness! I can't say that my life would be so gloomy if I were served with a CPO for a property I may own, if you have been properly compensated all you can do is move on. What do we do if our home or business was destroyed by rain floods? Wave your fist a God or pull ourselves tohether and move on! I think you have made a reasonable point, but I don't agree. Is society meant to hold off development because it is not constitutional to ask a citizen to give up property in the name of social development, even after due process and the person has been fully compensated to the current market rate of the property? If that was the case Dublin city would never progress or develop and there would still be skinny streets and tenaments throughout the city. As I said earlier, I would be interested to see what happens after the CPO goes through, if the council hire private developers to build a Dartmouth Square creche and underground carpark the I'm sure I'll read a post from you saying " I TOLD YOU SO! "

by number 6 - legalise freedon campaign. Wed Oct 11, 2006 00:57

I'm not interested in scoring browny points at any time /anywhere with ,'I told you so' etc.

The issue is still being occluded.

As regards waving a fist to God...well I personally don't equate the D.C.C. with GOD although they act as such.

No Tribunal will ever get to the truth.

If getting to the truth was an intention , we would not have Tribunals , but open Courts where Corrupt civil servants are tried with the full rigors of the Law and jailed.

Truth , stands by itself.

Instead we have Tribunals that have cost the same People who were ripped off to shell out over one Billion euros since their inception.

That is a euro every second of your life for 33 Years. Tribunals are a racket for the already wealthy wigged Mafia.

If anyone believes otherwise , they are niave or pretend to be.

As regards the information on the gangasters /Politicians, well , the powder will be kept dry , for now.

BCNU

by dunlaoire resident Mon Mar 05, 2007 19:13

Dublin council are happy to turn Dublin Parks and Squares into car parks where there is no obvious owner or where they own the square themselves.They have done this already in Clarinda Park in Dunlaoire and Eden park Dunlaoire. The precedent is already there so the same could happen in Dartmouth square-Good luck to Mr O Gara.
The situation reflects the inconsistancy ,lack of transparency and professionalism in Irish planning matters

by A Real Socialist Tue May 15, 2007 12:44

I recently discovered that the late Luke Kelly, Dubliner, lived on Dartmouth Square from the 1960s until his death - and members of his family (and his wife, Deirdre O'Connell of Focus Theatre) still live in the same house. And that "middle-class old biddy" referred to in some of these blogs, the one who tried to block the car park, is one of the relatives. Middle-class capitalists? I don't think so. Real social activists? Yes. Most of the early students of Focus Theatre - in the 70s and 80s - came from the norh inner- city ( like Johnny Murphy and Tim McDonald) and studied free. So before you start throwing around groundless generalisations - find out the facts. Local people are trying to retain the park for public use - not as a private park for residents. If you really want social justice - don't alienate the very people who are working for it.

by Adrian Kavanagh - Ex Resident of Dartmouth Sq Tue Apr 08, 2008 03:53 taskavanagh at gmail dot com

I lived in Darthmouth Square from the late 40's to the early 60's. As a young fellow, I with many of my pals, used to climb over the gate at the eastern end and spend a great time chasing about the place. It was in those years, through school terms, used by the girls of Loretto College, as a sports ground for their Hockey games and other outdoor activities, much to our innocent delight. We thought it was actually owned by the college. Is this not so?

During the holidays it had a horse and donkey roaming about - presumable to keep the grass down - unlike today, where it appears that the locals have to go in amd lawn mow it.

They were great days and I am saddned to think that a once lovely space could fall into such a state as to be the punch bag between so many people. It's numan nature of course. Ah! Give us the old days.

by CMR Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:51

Thanks for the article! I just have to point something out that seriously pains me: SERIOUS EDITING WAS LACKING HERE!!!

There was no space between some of the words (infraction number 1) and to make matters worse, RESIDENTS was replaced by RESIDENCE (Infraction number2).

PLEASE check these things before publishing so that we can have a more enjoyable reading experience and so that you are respected as opposed to mocked and not taken seriously.

Thank you.

by Banquo's ghost Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:52

In his contribution above A Real Socialist rightly reminds us that Luke Kelly resided at Dartmouth Square, but the syntax might give the impression that his wife, actress Deirdre O'Connell still resides there. Sadly this dedicated Stanislavsky-method actress and producer passed away in 2001 aged 61. I saw her and colleagues performing at Focus Theatre several times and admired their dedication. Her sister, Geraldine O'Connell Cusack, wrote an interesting autobiography containing a lot of information about this Irish American family and special information about the career of Deirdre, whose contribution to Irish theatre deserves wider recognition. Read: O'Connell Cusack, Geraldine, Children of the Far-flung, The Liffey Press (Oct 2003)

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deirdre_O%27Connell

Good luck to all you grass cutters at Dartmouth Square. All big spaces in Dublin should be open to the general public.