Garth Brooks and Croke Park : Boss to intervene?

[armaghniac]

While many here wonder about McKenna's motives, few believe he is stupid. If he believe that 3 or 4 was the limit he could away with then he would have gone for that, or at least added a gap in between. It seems quite likely that he had a nod and a wink from some source.

[Myles Na G.]

This could end up in the European court of human rights yet.

On the basis that DCC is discriminating against Garth Brooks fans, who are being denied the right to cultural expression, namely the right to march down a road beating a big drum listen to an overweight American singing crap songs.

[orangeman]

Peter Aitken says he has lost €1m in the whole hanlen.

[thebigfella]

This could end up in the European court of human rights yet.

On the basis that DCC is discriminating against Garth Brooks fans, who are being denied the right to cultural expression, namely the right to march down a road beating a big drum listen to an overweight American singing crap songs.

Or if the DCC decision is overturned.

[armaghniac]

Most outdoor events which can have a significant impact on the local area (e.g. noise pollution, litter, traffic, surface damage) usually sees organisers, local authorities and local residents come to agreements and sometimes compromises over what is involved so that all involved are happy. If this breaks down though then it's up to whoever allows the event to go ahead to make the final call. The major problem with Croke Park is that it sits in a major residential area with limited public transport links, no large on-site car parking facilities and (AFAIK) no dedicated park & ride schemes. In terms of urban planning, that doesn't look great to me.

I don't believe that this kind of "greed" is part of the world we live in, rather it is part of the cute hoor seeking short-term get-rich-quick ideas that is prevalent in much of Irish society and of a similar mindset in other parts of the world (e.g. air quality in Bejing and historically in Los Angeles). But in most parts of Europe plans and developments are often made which see issues like what has been seen in this case happen not terribly often. For example Switzerland can be described as a very business friendly country but they don't let their environment get arse raped in attracting foreign investment, not to mention scoring highly in quality-of-life polls. A similar stance goes for Nordic countries who rank among the top countries in the world for ease of business even allowing for high income tax rates. As for me? Well I just don't consider myself the Gordon Gecko type as I don't think I'd ever be content with myself otherwise. I just see that unrestricted greed leads to an eventual 'tragedy of the commons'.

A few fair enough points here. But DCC and other public authorities do nothing to make these events have less impact. Croke Park has a railway at either end, but no train stops near there. If Brooks did have a concert there would be no special trains home afterwards to Belfast to Kilkenny, such as would exist in any properly run European city. There is nothing much done about park and ride and publicly owned facilities like schools are locked up that could provide some facilities at this and other events.

[RadioGAAGAA]

Everyone is at fault in one way or another.

- Brooks for being a fat bstart who sings sh!te songs.... and is greedy.
- GAA for trampling all over the residents - seriously, did they never think that effectively denying people unobstructed access to their houses 5 nights in a row was not going to be an issue? Climb down from your ivory towers and show a little respect please Duffy and McKenna.
- DCC for being inept in communicating what their intentions were / changing their intentions late on.
- TDs for getting involved in any capacity. They are largely corrupt, inept and serve no useful purpose.
- Aiken for being another greedy barsteward.
- Brooks fans for having no taste.



I mainly blame Duffy and McKenna. I expect Brooks and Aiken to be a greedy chunts, I expect the council and TDs to be inept. But, I didn't expect the GAA to walk all over their neighbours in search of a few extra €€€ that is not needed.





Kerry couldn't in '82, Kilkenny failed in 2010 and now Brooks in 2014 #5inarow.

[David McKeown]

My issue with the decision maker being unelected or appointed is that ultimately he seems unaccountable particularly given that no appeal is permissible against the merits of the decision.  Somehow that needs to change regardless of the decision made.

I also don't get the accusation against brooks of being greedy. Surely if he was being greedy he'd have done the three shows or the matinees and said to hell with the fans. At the time of booking anyone would have jumped at a chance to make more money from more concerts if they were led to believe there'd be no issue.

[pullhard]

Kerry couldn't in '82, Kilkenny failed in 2010 and now Brooks in 2014 #5inarow.

great line to quote!

[David McKeown]

My issue with the decision maker being unelected or appointed is that ultimately he seems unaccountable particularly given that no appeal is permissible against the merits of the decision.  Somehow that needs to change regardless of the decision made.

Not that much different to what is currently the case in the north (though there is an appeals system, the PAC), where the only politician with any real power in such matters is the Stormont Minister for Environment (though apparently the OFMDFM can also make overriding decisions). Local councillors only have a consultation role, like referring potentially refused applications back for further review. When the new councils come into force in April, these new councils will be responsible for drawing up local development plans so they will have more of a say in the development of their areas - but the day to day decision making on applications will still be made by civil servants using criteria set by the local council. The councillors themselves will still not be able to unilaterally overturn a decision. It's the best compromise IMO as it gives elected representatives accountability on planning without giving them too much to discriminate and get backhanders from. As for Keegan's accountability, surely if the councillors on the DCC felt that he was not fit for his job, they could dismiss him, no?

I also don't get the accusation against brooks of being greedy. Surely if he was being greedy he'd have done the three shows or the matinees and said to hell with the fans. At the time of booking anyone would have jumped at a chance to make more money from more concerts if they were led to believe there'd be no issue.

I suppose it reminds of something like this...

http://youtu.be/90HhZ-pyC2Y

As for the issue of putting on more concerts after the initial two then three sold out, you would have to had your head buried in the sand if some major issues were not foreseen. Obviously assumptions as to the licensing of the gigs before any firm decision was made, it seems to me that the old Celtic Tiger nod & wink just didn't work this time. Some would say about time this was tackled, just a shame about the event which has been affected because of it. It's a mess in the short term, but I reckon things will be better beyond it as such things will now need to be better co-ordinated from both ends.

I wouldn't have thought he could be dismissed for unpopular decision making not with current employment regulations .  The issue of appeals I raised is separate to the issue of the decision makers accountability to a degree. I'm saying when you don't have any avenue of appeal on the merits of a decision then that decision maker has to be in someway accountable to someone. If you have any appeals process that becomes less of an issue. I'm not saying such an appeal need lie to elected representatives particularly if they are unqualified.

On a related note I'm struggling to see why an uncontested JR is needed. Surely if there is sufficient merit to a JR a full emergency hearing could take place. If there is not I would be surprised if the court would accede to an unmeritorious application for political expediency.

[bcarrier]

I am guessing that Aiken hasn't taken out an injunction because the planning process doesn't allow it. Maybe someone with a legal background can answer that one.

About 20 pages ago I expressed a view that this isn't a planning issue. There seems to be some hybrid structure where the permanent 3 day rights are granted under planning " licence " but the special licences are the DCC managers gift ( or not in this case ). The special licence procedure doesn't seem fit for purpose.

[muppet]

I am guessing that Aiken hasn't taken out an injunction because the planning process doesn't allow it. Maybe someone with a legal background can answer that one.

About 20 pages ago I expressed a view that this isn't a planning issue. There seems to be some hybrid structure where the permanent 3 day rights are granted under planning " licence " but the special licences are the DCC managers gift ( or not in this case ). The special licence procedure doesn't seem fit for purpose.

So presumably one can't take out an injunction to try to force a licence to be issued? That makes some sense, I think.

[bcarrier]

I think Croke park would need to make a planning application to increase number of days from 3 to whatever. This would then be subject to appeals processes within planning system. The special licenses seem to be handed out like a pub applying for an exemption !


Meanwhile http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/commercial-property/property-investors-turn-to-spain-as-nama-looks-to-wind-up-1.1867513

[LeoMc]

My issue with the decision maker being unelected or appointed is that ultimately he seems unaccountable particularly given that no appeal is permissible against the merits of the decision.  Somehow that needs to change regardless of the decision made.

Not that much different to what is currently the case in the north (though there is an appeals system, the PAC), where the only politician with any real power in such matters is the Stormont Minister for Environment (though apparently the OFMDFM can also make overriding decisions). Local councillors only have a consultation role, like referring potentially refused applications back for further review. When the new councils come into force in April, these new councils will be responsible for drawing up local development plans so they will have more of a say in the development of their areas - but the day to day decision making on applications will still be made by civil servants using criteria set by the local council. The councillors themselves will still not be able to unilaterally overturn a decision. It's the best compromise IMO as it gives elected representatives accountability on planning without giving them too much to discriminate and get backhanders from. As for Keegan's accountability, surely if the councillors on the DCC felt that he was not fit for his job, they could dismiss him, no?

I also don't get the accusation against brooks of being greedy. Surely if he was being greedy he'd have done the three shows or the matinees and said to hell with the fans. At the time of booking anyone would have jumped at a chance to make more money from more concerts if they were led to believe there'd be no issue.

I suppose it reminds of something like this...

http://youtu.be/90HhZ-pyC2Y

As for the issue of putting on more concerts after the initial two then three sold out, you would have to had your head buried in the sand if some major issues were not foreseen. Obviously assumptions as to the licensing of the gigs before any firm decision was made, it seems to me that the old Celtic Tiger nod & wink just didn't work this time. Some would say about time this was tackled, just a shame about the event which has been affected because of it. It's a mess in the short term, but I reckon things will be better beyond it as such things will now need to be better co-ordinated from both ends.

I wouldn't have thought he could be dismissed for unpopular decision making not with current employment regulations .  The issue of appeals I raised is separate to the issue of the decision makers accountability to a degree. I'm saying when you don't have any avenue of appeal on the merits of a decision then that decision maker has to be in someway accountable to someone. If you have any appeals process that becomes less of an issue. I'm not saying such an appeal need lie to elected representatives particularly if they are unqualified.

On a related note I'm struggling to see why an uncontested JR is needed. Surely if there is sufficient merit to a JR a full emergency hearing could take place. If there is not I would be surprised if the court would accede to an unmeritorious application for political expediency.

I would assume a JR could only reverse the decision if it were legally or technically incorrect. If the decision was not legally or technically incorrect the JR would have to find for DCC. Therefore the only way the JR could find against the DCC would be if they did not defend themselves, granting the appellant a technical "walk over"

[Aaron Boone]

That's a wrap. A final wrap.

No 11th hour deal.

[Maguire01]

Kerry couldn't in '82, Kilkenny failed in 2010 and now Brooks in 2014 #5inarow.

great line to quote!

And only about 3 weeks after everyone else was saying it.