Skip to main content

Long Boat Quay: Fire Safety, Dublin City and Incompetence

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Long Boat Quay: Fire Safety, Dublin City and Incompetence

Long Boat Quay is an apartment block on Sir Rogerson’s Quay that was built in 2006 by now-bankrupt builder Bernard McNamara and the building is now in the news because Dublin City has informed the residents that the apartment owners would have to pay EUR 4mio to make the building fire-proof or they will get evicted.

This is not the first time something like that is happening. Priory Hall in North Dublin is currently costing Dublin City 27mio to refurbish it and the residents were evicted there as well.

But how can something like that happen? Why are plans not checked before planning permission is given or before the building is built? Why is a building not checked before people are moving in to make sure that the building meets the specs? If efficient checks were part of the process at the right time, it should never happen that a building is later found inadequate!

Reading articles about Long Boat Quay, you wonder if the situation is not a good bit more complicated than it appears at first: Allegedly Dublin Fire Brigade gave the Ok for the building in 2011, but then seemingly withdrew this Ok in 2013. Could that be? That would be shocking and suddenly a large part of the fault would be with the Dublin Fire Brigade or Dublin City.

It also seems that where suddenly there is such a hurry now, last year things were seen less critical: The Irish Examiner writes that “an internal Dublin Fire Brigade report recommended the serving of a fire notice on Longboat Quay in May of last year”. So more than a year nothing happened and the building was not seen as dangerous, but now it is so urgent that the residents need to move out by 01 November?

The Irish Examiner article lists some of the defects that the Dublin Fire Brigade found, but when an RTE programme had a consultant engineer visit the place, he listed completely different issues. The engineer said here that the building had been fitted with a fire detection and warning system designed to “suit a suburban semi-detached house, not an apartment in a complex in the centre of Dublin”. And that “most of the doors in each apartment looked fire-resistant but had no fire or smoke seals” and he was “particularly concerned” about the fact that there is no door between the kitchen and living areas.

RTE’s engineer obviously has different eyes or had a different focus than the Dublin Fire Brigade, but if the engineer RTE got is right, then I better quickly look for a tent or a bridge to sleep under, because the apartment I live in is then definitely not safe: One single smoke alarm per apartment; no automatic smoke vents in the public area; no fire seals at apartment doors and the door to the kitchen has never been closed. My eviction notice must be in the post! And what about apartments where kitchen and dining room are one?

Are there maybe different standards applied? Or are the experts checking these newer apartments the type of Health&Safety nuts that get palpitations when someone uses a bread knife or lights a candle with an OPEN FLAME. *shock horror*

There is incompetence somewhere, but can we be certain that we have identified the contributor with the highest incompetence yet?

Very odd!!

Dublin, Dublin City Council, , , , ,

Pedestrianisation the wrong way! and How Dublin City rigs surveys!

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Pedestrianisation the wrong way! and How Dublin City rigs surveys!

Dublin City asked us to help with some opinions about a Transport Study that suggests to dramatically change the City Centre traffic flow. The goal is to keep cars far away from the City Centre and to make the City more pedestrian friendly. To achieve that, parts of the Liffey Quays will be closed for traffic it the suggestions in the Study will be put in reality. In addition, big changes will happen to College Green, Westmoreland Street and D’Olier Street. I would like to say that they will pedestrianised, but that would be a lie because there are some odd things happening.

I drive a car and therefore have concerns when another one of the few Liffey crossings will be closed and the plan is to effectively close O’Connell Bridge, BUT I also cycle and I walk (and I use an Electric Unicycle…the coolest vehicle ever :-) ). So because of that, I am relatively open to positive changes. But if you read the study in detail you will see that we are not really told the full story.

Most of us think that pedestrianisation is good, but how would you feel if in peak hours Taxi drivers or buses are still allowed to drive through a pedestrianised area. Doesn’t make sense, right? The idea of pedestrianising an area is that walking people will NOT have to worry about non walking parties. That’s the reason why we don’t even allow a very slow bicycle to cycle through Grafton Street, But Dublin City doesn’t want to give you that. Noo, they say that Taxis and buses still need to drive through College Green. That doesn’t sound cool.And would it not makes sense then to at least let bicycles also use the area where buses and taxis are still allowed to endanger pedestrians?

I think it should be an ALL or nothing! I am in favour of pedestrianisation but only if that keeps all non-walking “traffic” out.

Dublin City then gave us an opportunity to submit our opinion about this study, well at least that’s what the claimed, but if you did reply then there was not a single question about the actual plans of closing parts of the quays, or only partially pedestrianising College Green instead the consultation questionnaire was rigged by asking questions that most would answer in a way Dublin City wants it.

Here are a few of the questions:

  • Do you think that reducing ‘through traffic’ will improve the amenity value of Dublin’s city centre?
  • Do you support the principle of giving commuters more transport choices when they decide to come to Dublin City Centre?
  • Are you in favour of high quality pedestrian facilities in the city centre?
  • Are you in favour of high quality cycle facilities in the city centre?

There were 10 questions all together. Not one really explained or asked about any details. There was no question that said “Do you think that closing the South Quays and the North Quays for traffic is the appropriate way to reduce traffic in the City Centre?” Instead only wishy washy questions like the four listed above were asked. Would anybody say NO to them? I doubt it.

Dublin City you rigged the questionnaire to get the answers that you wanted to get! Very disappointing!

Dublin, Traffic,

Ireland, a (catholic) banana republic?

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Ireland, a (catholic) banana republic?

Let me start with a disclaimer: I am catholic and I do go to church. I am very much what strict catholics call an “a la card” catholic. I choose some elements for me and ignore others. And most importantly I am a strong proponent of tolerant acceptance of all religions and other believes and of complete separation of religious and state matters. But at the same time I am German and that means that rules are needed and these rules should be clear and non-quibbleable (I made that non-existing word up…so much about sticking to strict rules, right? ;-) )

With that in mind, imagine my shock and abhorrence when I read on Friday on the RTE News website (www.rte.ie/news/vote2015/2015/0522/7030), that bibles were provided to Polling Stations in cases “where a presiding officer asks a voter with no identification to swear an oath”!

WHAT???

So, you find a polling card that is not yours and for which you clearly have no identification and you will be allowed to vote just by putting your hand on a book and declaring that you are that person?? I so hope that I got that wrong!?

Because if I didn’t get it wrong, I should leave my passport at home next time I travel and ask for a bible at Dublin airport.

What Banana republic do we live in where a) you are allowed to vote without and identification, b) where a religious book and a few words count more than a formal, state issued document and c) where the Department of Environment explains that as if it was the most normal thing in the world.

To buy a phone and get services from a company, I need an ID and also a proof of address. To vote in a constitution changing referendum, I just need a book and a promise. *shaking head*

What if I am a Trekkie? Will then a Star Trek DVD replace the book? Or as Rastafarian? Just bring the Holy Piby?

It gets better!! It seems there is a bit of a preference for catholicism, because if you are not religious you can just “make an affirmation” says the Department of Environment, you don’t even need a book! I should try that next time I am at a traffic checkpoint: “I can positively affirm that my name is Enda Kenny…and that I will pay that speeding ticket when you send it to me.”

Looks like a Banana Republic to me!!!

Elections, Irish, Justice, Odd, Politics, Society, , , ,

Marriage Equality Referendum – I changed my opinion!

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Marriage Equality Referendum – I changed my opinion!

Just a few more days and I’d say both sides are by now happy when the whole process is over. But it ain’t over yet and I am not allowed to vote on it so I will blatantly use this platform to tell you what my opinion is about this whole issue. And it might surprise you to hear that I changed my opinion some months back!

I grew up in a village in Germany and all people around where I grew up were white, so I never experienced “tolerance” or “equality” in that respect. I had no clue what g ay people are, but there was one thing in my village that I was very aware of. That elephant in the room was RELIGION! There were Catholic people and Protestant people in our village. And there was a catholic choir and a protestant choir and catholic farmers would sell land only to other catholic farmers and the same on the protestant side. There was no discrimination in the form of bad behaviour towards each other, but people had their preferences and lived by them, so the boundaries were clearly defined. Odd you think? And I thought so too!

The separation NEVER made sense to me despite the fact that my catholic parents also clearly lived by these unwritten rules. My mother separated from a boyfriend because in their opinion there was no chance that they could get married because he was Protestant!! Imagine! And that wasn’t in the stone ages, that was in the early 60s.

Now where am I going with that? There are a number of aspects to it. First of all, to most of us this religion based separation sounds totally crazy to us nowadays because we have moved on and the second aspect: From early on I realised that arbitrary boundaries don’t make sense. But I also learned why people are soooo much against tolerance and equality: They are afraid!! Afraid that there world would be turned upside down, that they might be told do do something they don’t want to do. That they might have to change.

Interestingly and importantly though, this referendum does not require anybody to change!! No straight man (or woman) will ever be forced to marry another straight man or woman! So people relax! No need to start panicking when you think about two women or two men loving and caring about each other!

And in my opinion that is what this referendum is about: Allowing two people who feel strongly for each other to be there for each other in ALL aspects.

This referendum will NOT change how people might or might not behave in their bedroom (or elsewhere), it will not force anybody to do anything against their will AND it will have no impact on adoptions or surrogacy. So forget that straight away.

Vote YES and allow these two people to love each other if they want or just care for each other into high age and in all aspects.

In the intro I said that I changed my opinion, so what is that all about?

I was never against Marriage Equality, but I have to admit that I don’t like the term “marriage” for a civil union of two people and initially I was of the opinion that the Civil Partnership was already there, so why do we need a Marriage Equality Referendum?! But then I found here www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/mythbusters.html that currently there are 160 differences between the rights of two people who are married vs the rights of two people in a civil partnership. That was the decider. Either you have full rights or you don’t.

I still would prefer if we changed some significant aspects of the marriage procedures, but that’s not really relevant for this referendum: All marriages should take place in a registry office and then afterwards people can opt to get married in a church if they want. The church should not be allowed to stand in for the state, instead the two procedures should bee totally separated. But as I said, that is not really relevant in this referendum. Mind you, I hope the catholic church will refuse to do the civil marriage part after the referendum!

So, if I was allowed to vote, I would vote YES! If you are allowed to vote, please vote for me!!!

Elections, General, Society, , , ,

Marriage Equality: United we are strong? …or maybe not!

Written by Joerg Steegmueller
Marriage Equality: United we are strong? …or maybe not!

When I drove through Dublin during the week, I was wondering why some of the lamp posts had five different Marriage Equality Referendum posters on them. There was one from Fine Gael, Fine Fail, Labour, Sinn Fein all asking for a YES vote and then there was one poster asking for a NO vote from an unidentifiable (print too small) organisation. The Yes Equality posters were only added a few days later.

Going through all the events in Dublin I came across quite a number of fundraising events for the Yes Equality campaign, but the four parties that also ask for a YES vote didn’t ask for money.

These two things together made me wonder why the Yes side doesn’t work together!? I would expect (and hope) that the Yes side will achieve a landslide victory in this referendum and considering the extremely rare scenario that ALL relevant political parties and a huge proportion of the non-politically organised population are of the same opinion we really can expect that outcome, but would it not have been EVEN stronger if the YES side had come together, had left their differences aside and would have presented a block of support for the referendum?

In a football team it helps if the 11 players work together while trying to achieve a win. Imagine if all 11 tried to play their own game without helping and co-operating with their team members!? The match could still be won, but it would be a lot riskier than if they all helped each other.

Sure, I can think of a number of reasons why all players in this competition did want to get (and claim) the goal for themselves, but is the common goal of winning the match not much bigger and more important than getting individual goals?

Society, ,
 
Malcare WordPress Security