But why just because something is unprecedented is it a factor in refusing something? Just because something hasn't happened before isn't a reason for explaining why it can't happen. It's simply a fact. It's not a reason.
No-one has said that '
just because something is unprecendented' that it is a factor in refusing it. It's not the unprecedented bit on its own. It's the unprecendented bit as part of an overall picture.
Is it really that unusual? It's not an unusual question at all, in any situation to ask 'Have we done this kind of thing before?'. It doesn't mean that we refuse it because we haven't done it before, but it does mean that scrutinise it a bit more carefully.
Why do you continuously misquote people in this thread? Where did I say it was purely a numbers game? It was DCC themselves that stated that they took the over 300 submissions into account when making their decision. They mentioned the number, not me. I simply pointed out if they wanted to go down the numbers game, there is another side to the equation. It has since transpired that a large percentage of these submissions were fake. On that basis alone, DCC based part of their decision on flawed information. We don't know what weight DCC gave to these submissions when making their decision but less than 300 objections is not a lot considering DCC were talking about 'unacceptable disruption to their lives'. It is pretty obvious that the majority of residents in the local area didn't consider the disruption to be so unacceptable that they lodged an objection.
Please don't misquote me. I didn't say that you said that it was purely a numbers game. I simply said that it's not purely a numbers game. You brought up the question of 400,000 ticket buyers vs 300 objectors. It's a meaningless comparison.
Your conclusion that "the majority of residents in the local area didn't consider the disruption to be so unacceptable that they lodged an objection" is not sound. There could be many, many reasons for someone not to object. Maybe their literacy is poor, or their English language skills or poor. Maybe they've no idea how planning processes work. Maybe they were intimidated by others in their community one way or other. Who knows. You've opted for a single explanation for their reasons for not objecting, which has no basis in fact.
I'm not an expert in planning, but as I understand it, the question of fraudulent objections would be a moot issue, for the purposes of the planning decision (though indeed it should be investigated by Gardai). It's not a question of how many people object. It's a question of what reasons for objections are given. I'd guess that it is fairly unlikely that the fraudulent objections brought new information on the table, so they really wouldn't have impacted the decision either way.
Sorry but that is a completely ridiculous argument. DCC should refuse five concerts because of the economic damage they would cause Limerick and Cork? So on that basis, all large sporting events and concerts that have the potential to attract people into Dublin should be banned because they are causing economic damage to the provincial areas. I am going down to Galway Arts Festival for a week from Dubin. Should Galway County Council have refused the license for that because Galway is getting money I could be spending somewhere else.
DCC have a responsibility to Dublin and the businesses that pay rates in Dublin. They are not responsible for Irish GDP figures.
For someone who accuses others of misquoting, I think you might want to take the stone out of thine own eye first.
I didn't say that "DCC should refuse five concerts because of the economic damage they would cause Limerick and Cork". I said that the economic arguments for approving extra concerts were overplayed, because it is largely just moving spending around within Ireland, rather than bringing fresh money into Ireland. As other posters have pointed out, in fact, it might well be taking more money out of Ireland (in Garth's back pocket and in the pockets of his overseas crew) than it brought in.
Anyway, I don't really care either way but I probably would if I was a Dublin rates payer as it looks like a very poor decison based on the explanations they gave for reaching it. You are obviously very passionate about the subject and disagree so there you go. I am moving on with my life anyway......
Actually, I don't care that much about Garth at all. What I do care about is the knee-jerk reaction of how the Government or the Council screwed. Thankfully, there hasn't been much knee-jerking here on AAM.