I don't see the attraction of Brooks; we've enough cowboys of our own.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the exact reason why 5 concerts weren't allowed. I don't care about the rights and wrongs. Just the actual reasons laid out by DCC. Have they been made public?
DCC linked on page 3 of this thread.
How did you conclude that 'unprecendented' = 'automatic refusal'? Mentioning 'unprecendent' in the response does not mean that 'unprecendent' = 'automatic refusal' - it simply points out that the fact that the event was unprecedented was one of the factors.Surely just because something is unprecedented doesn't automatically mean permission should be refused. It should lead to increased analysis but I fail to see why it is one of the grounds for refusal.
Planning is not a numbers game. It's not a case of 'I got more supporters than you got objections, so I win'. The planners listen to the objections, and listen to the supporters, and then make their decision. Any suggestion that it had become a numbers game would lead to mass X-Factor style voting campaigns to bump up the numbers on either side.DCC received 373 submissions on this application. This is a tiny percentage of the local area. It has since transpired that a large number of these submissions were fake and that other residents in the area wanted the concerts to go ahead for employment reasons. So 400,000 people buy tickets basically saying they want a concert to be put on. Less than 300 people complain about the concert being put on. Most local businesses would also be in favour. Hmmmmm. Again, I don't understand the precedent argument. Simply state that is a once off thing and in future, no events of this size will be granted permission.
As described above, the economic arguments have been overplayed. Should DCC really be trying to take all that money into Dublin, if that it taking large amounts of leisure spending out of Cork and Limerick? With the concerts not going ahead, surely most of the disposable money will be spent in Ireland anyway, with the same economic impact - in fact, maybe with a higher impact if people aren't paying stupid money to hotels and B&Bs.DCC have a responsibility to the whole of Dublin City. That's what they always say when it comes to building infratructure projects in areas that local's object to. Leaving aside Garth Brooks and Aiken, I fail to see how DCC can say it made the correct decision. Do the opinions of less than 300 people really outweigh the economic boost that Dublin would have enjoyed?
It's been quite a while since DCC built any waste disposal plant, and will probably be quite a while more before another one comes along.If so, then good luck to DCC with the next waste disposal plant they decide to build. [/B]
How did you conclude that 'unprecendented' = 'automatic refusal'? Mentioning 'unprecendent' in the response does not mean that 'unprecendent' = 'automatic refusal' - it simply points out that the fact that the event was unprecedented was one of the factors.
Planning is not a numbers game. It's not a case of 'I got more supporters than you got objections, so I win'. The planners listen to the objections, and listen to the supporters, and then make their decision. Any suggestion that it had become a numbers game would lead to mass X-Factor style voting campaigns to bump up the numbers on either side.
As described above, the economic arguments have been overplayed. Should DCC really be trying to take all that money into Dublin, if that it taking large amounts of leisure spending out of Cork and Limerick? With the concerts not going ahead, surely most of the disposable money will be spent in Ireland anyway, with the same economic impact - in fact, maybe with a higher impact if people aren't paying stupid money to hotels and B&Bs.
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.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.
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.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.
For someone who accuses others of misquoting, I think you might want to take the stone out of thine own eye first.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.
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.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......
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?