TD Cuffe, Green Party.
"it [DDDA] makes it complex and impenetrable to the ordinary member of the public."
Is this the full truth?
Section-25 planning is specifically designed to exclude the public from involvement in sustainable planning.
DDDA may be viewed as an early-warning as to how the Euro 99 Billion NAMA gamble will be managed. The parallels are curiously strong.
According to public presentations made in Sandymount by members of the SIG (members of public in Special Interest Group at DDDA for consulting by DDDA with public) the DDDA keeps relevant information secret and not just from the general public, but also from the SIG. The DDDA appears to have a policy of frustrating requests for information.
Additionally, the conflicts of interest appear to extend beyond Anglo-Irish. These real and present conflicts are not just narrowly financial conflicts. During their almost-secret roadshow DDDA officials denied any conflicts of interest at DDDA (June 2008. Now in Dec-2009 DDDA has admitted to just the more obvious DDDA conflicts of interest (using the managed-news cover of the current wall-to-wall coverage of the Child Abuse Report).
Ex: Business partner of the sister of an IGB speculator/developer sits on DDDA board. (The sister+partner operate an architecture company, the first 5 letters of which are unfortunately 'graft'.).
Ex-2: ARUP is paid by DDDA to consult on toxic pollution at DDDA. Without pollution clearance by EPA the IGB could not be developed. Arup also has staff members(s) inside DDDA's structure. A former professional from EPA officially stated/submitted to DDDA that the IGB site is polluted, in contrast to ARUP's view. No doubt ARUP is a perfectly professional organisation - but especially with DDDAs record it is perceptions which matter.
Ex-3: In 2004 the Green Party stated the "EPA is totally compromised" [Boyle].
EPA's independent Boards contains a former industry employee (Burke of Indaver). An ex-EPA Director has worked to promote the Poolbeg Incinerator and the failed West Dublin Incinerator.
Ex-4: Councillors may or may not influence social housing allocations in return for votes. Councillors sit on DDDAs governance structure. DDDA decides social housing allocations. Recently the psuedo-bankrupt DDDA spent 10.9 million Euro to buy flats from a company in the two to three Caroll group bankruptcy. This is a classic Tamanny Hall potential conflict.
Galway Tent
Posted on 4 Dec 2009 4:58 pm
TD Cuffe, Green Party.
"it [DDDA] makes it complex and impenetrable to the ordinary member of the public."
Is this the full truth?
Section-25 planning is specifically designed to exclude the public from involvement in sustainable planning.
DDDA may be viewed as an early-warning as to how the Euro 99 Billion NAMA gamble will be managed. The parallels are curiously strong.
According to public presentations made in Sandymount by members of the SIG (members of public in Special Interest Group at DDDA for consulting by DDDA with public) the DDDA keeps relevant information secret and not just from the general public, but also from the SIG. The DDDA appears to have a policy of frustrating requests for information.
Additionally, the conflicts of interest appear to extend beyond Anglo-Irish. These real and present conflicts are not just narrowly financial conflicts. During their almost-secret roadshow DDDA officials denied any conflicts of interest at DDDA (June 2008. Now in Dec-2009 DDDA has admitted to just the more obvious DDDA conflicts of interest (using the managed-news cover of the current wall-to-wall coverage of the Child Abuse Report).
Ex: Business partner of the sister of an IGB speculator/developer sits on DDDA board. (The sister+partner operate an architecture company, the first 5 letters of which are unfortunately 'graft'.).
Ex-2: ARUP is paid by DDDA to consult on toxic pollution at DDDA. Without pollution clearance by EPA the IGB could not be developed. Arup also has staff members(s) inside DDDA's structure. A former professional from EPA officially stated/submitted to DDDA that the IGB site is polluted, in contrast to ARUP's view. No doubt ARUP is a perfectly professional organisation - but especially with DDDAs record it is perceptions which matter.
Ex-3: In 2004 the Green Party stated the "EPA is totally compromised" [Boyle].
EPA's independent Boards contains a former industry employee (Burke of Indaver). An ex-EPA Director has worked to promote the Poolbeg Incinerator and the failed West Dublin Incinerator.
Ex-4: Councillors may or may not influence social housing allocations in return for votes. Councillors sit on DDDAs governance structure. DDDA decides social housing allocations. Recently the psuedo-bankrupt DDDA spent 10.9 million Euro to buy flats from a company in the two to three Caroll group bankruptcy. This is a classic Tamanny Hall potential conflict.