Dáil debates

Wednesday, 9 December 2009

Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2009: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Ruairi QuinnRuairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

I wish to put on record my view on what has happened. It is very easy at this point, because of the mistakes made in the property market, to criticise the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. The treatment of the former chief executive is something which must be revisited in due course. The membership of the board is ultimately decided by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. If there were cosy relationships and cross directorships, then it was for the Department, in the first instance, to take a view as to whether such appointments were appropriate. I am not aware that it intervened or expressed any such view at any point.

In regard to the Irish Glass Bottle site in south Dublin, the authority, with the support of the community council and others, acted in the best interest of that proposal. That it has now fallen in value is a reflection on the Irish property market as much as it is a reflection on the judgment of the officials, the executive and the board of the authority. I would say to my colleague, Deputy Costello, that the one consolation is the property will become the property of NAMA and will stay within the State sector.

This is the largest area for redevelopment in the city centre. When one looks at the way in which much of suburban Dublin has moved to the outskirts of Carlow, Kildare, Mullingar, etc., we should take a much more sanguine and long-term view on the possibility for rejuvenation and regeneration in the Poolbeg peninsula than the current travails of the property permit.

I will mention something that is not in the Bill proposed by the Fine Gael Party. I can see no difficulty with or objection to the Comptroller and Auditor General examining the accounts. The authority is a semi-State body that should be accountable to this Oireachtas in the course of its activities. I do not support the proposal that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority be integrated or merged with the dead hand of Dublin City Council.

The planning proposal for section 25 gave rise to the legal action referred to by Deputy Costello. The concept of a master plan going through a planning process which enabled people to see what was going to happen and provide some certainty for the planners and developers through section 25 was innovative. By and large, it has served the redevelopment of Dublin's docklands very well. To transfer the planning functions of the authority - or the entire authority - to Dublin City Council would be a disaster.

Comments

Galway Tent
Posted on 19 Jan 2010 4:10 pm (Report this comment)

Yes, once upon a time DDDA served a social need.

But, today DDDA needs to be totally dismantled and not cynically merged into equally challenged Dublin Council, massagers and inappropriate influencers of the Poolbeg Incinerator public process (unapproved high court judgement). Perhaps something new can be considered after five years - without NAMA inspired political interference in genuine investment. NAMA will simply use social housing to create FF photo-ops while Green-FF continues to line galway tent pockets.

Was and is Lochlann Quinn an investor at the IGB site controlled by DDDA?

Was Lochlann Quinn head of AIB when AIB 'sold' part of Sandymount Strand to Mr Caroll's Fabrizia company (ZOE Developments)? As preparation was the site conveniently labelled a 'AIB Sports Ground' to massage public opinion about the true intent? [Euro 2 Billion to Euro Billion bankruptcy apparently].

Is Mr McNamara's sister running a developer-dependent company whose partner in on DDDAs board? [Euro 1.5 Billion bankruptcy apparently].

Is NAMA a method to take cash from taxpayers to fund the bond-holders behind these capers? Is DDDA the catalylst for NAMA? Hopefully the DDDA/NAMA capers will cost the taxpayers no more than Euro 5 Billion.

Is the DDDA chairman the wife of a failed PD Leader? Did the voter-rejected PDs heavily promote building shoe-box flats at IGB, Fabrizia and elsewhere in Poolbeg - right on top of Seveso sights and the proposed waste-to-toxins incinerator? (Jan 2010: unregulated noise in a shoebox flat led directly to a murder).

Just two developers with speculations in Poolbeg have the taxpayer in a NAMA-hole for Euro 3.5 to Euro 4.5 Billion. Others have departed the country to Switzerland or Paris/London.

Log in or join to post a public comment.