Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Don't Feed The Worms At Dublin City Council!

Feeding The Worms at Dublin City Council Creates A Monopoly to Benefit Foreign Corporations.







Don't Feed The Worms At Dublin City Council!

Should you immediately switch your bin collection to Panda? If you do nothing are you supporting the worms promoting DCC's Waste-To-Toxins incinerator which will degrade health all across Dublin?

Should you immediately remove all your assets from Anglo-Irish Bank? This includes cash and pension plan investments. If you do nothing are you supporting the worms wrecking Sandymount Strand and Dublin Bay?

Should you immediately tell BIFFO and John Gormley not to use taxpayer assets to bail out Anglo-Irish Bank? If you do nothing the increased charges on Ireland's National Debt will exceed the supposed cost savings gouged from old people's medical cards. That's if BIFFO doesn't turn Ireland-Inc into Iceland-Under-IMF-Administration-Inc.

  • Who benefits from the apparently legal Directorship and Consulting Doors Revolving between DCC, DDDA, Covanta, Energy Answers, EPA-Ireland and Anglo-Irish Bank?
  • So far, DCC has spent in excess of €19,000,000 to promote a one-sided case benefiting foreign corporations in the Waste-To-Toxins business. Cynically, no money has been available to provide balanced public information. Who is working for the taxpayers in Dublin?

  • DCC's competitor Panda said the main reason the city council wants to re-monopolise the collection system is because DCC has entered into a contract to provide 320,000 tonnes of rubbish per year for the planned municipal waste incinerator at Poolbeg in Dublin.


Monopolists Planning Dublin Bay

_________________________________________________

Council accused over waste collection services

MARY CAROLAN, Last Updated: Tuesday, October 28, 2008, 19:09

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1028/breaking72.htm

A waste collection company has claimed before the High Court that Dublin City Council is seeking to “re-monopolise” the household collection service in the capital.

The claim was made by counsel for Nurendale Ltd, trading as Panda Waste Services, Rathdrinagh, Beauparc Business Park, Navan, Co Meath.

Panda is seeking a court order to overturn the Council’s decision altering the existing waste permit regime, under which some private collectors operate in the market, to one where collection is carried out by the local authority or a single collector appointed by the council.

Panda claims moves to alter the current regime is an abuse of the Dublin local councils’ dominant market position. The company is also seeking damages.

Opening the case, Martin Hayden SC, for the company said there was a deliberate decision by the city council to “re-monopolise” the waste collection market.

Up to 1996, all household waste in Dublin had been collected by directly employed local authority workers. After 1996, a licensing system was introduced allowing private firms to operate. A number of such operators, including Panda, got involved.

Mr Hayden said the main reason the city council wants to re-monopolise the collection system is because it has entered into a contract to provide 320,000 tonnes of rubbish per year for the planned municipal waste incinerator at Poolbeg in Dublin.

The company is asking the court to judicially review a decision by the council, on behalf of all of the city’s four local authorities, to vary the Dublin waste management plan. Panda claims the decision is essentially an attempt to prohibit the collection of waste by the private sector.

Mr Hayden said comments made in correspondence by assistant city council manager, Matt Twomey, showed that it was the intended there would be no private operators in the market.

The city council says that it is its intention that collection of household waste will be by a single operator, either the local authority, or as a result of a tendering process.

Panda Waste was set up in 1990 and employs 250 people. It has an annual turnover of around €50m and some 28,000 domestic customers in Dublin. In 2005, the company implemented a business plan in which it focused on the domestic waste collection market, particularly in Dublin. It competed in Dun Laoghaire, Fingal and South Dublin Council areas and bought the Smurfit Recycling plant in Ballymount.

The case before Mr Justice Liam McKechnie continues.

© 2008 irishtimes.com

Monday, October 27, 2008

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Planners 'Inappropriate Links' with Developers.

Dermot Desmond's Allegations

(Paraphrased - see full newspaper reports below)

  • local authority attempted to change the City Development Plan "by the back door".
  • "development in Dublin is developer-led ..."
  • Dublin City Council has facilitated developers by changing planning law (aka 'zoning').
  • Dublin City Council was trying to get around the development plan.
  • "evidence of inappropriate links between planning officials and developers emerged before An Bord Pleanala"
  • City Architect Jim Barrett was acting outside the development plan
____________________________________________

What bags? What Baggage Charges?
Does O'Leary Fly bags to The Isle of Man?
____________________________________________

Another Revolving Door

"A serious conflict of interest arose when Jim Barrett, recently retired City Architect, arrived to give evidence as part of Sean Dunne's project team. Jim Barrett had attended pre-application consultations with the developers,"
  • Jim Barrett, recently retired City Architect
  • Jim Barrett gave evidence as part of Developer's project team.
I'm With Permanent-TSB - I'm Not with Aggro-Irish Bankers. Honest.


__________________
Desmond accuses Dublin's planners of 'inappropriate links' with the city's developers
By Cormac Murphy,
Thursday October 23 2008

One of the country's leading businessmen has written a scathing letter to Dublin's city manager slamming "inappropriate links" between council planners and developers.

And tycoon Dermot Desmond referred in his letter to meetings between city planners and developer Sean Dunne over the latter's skyscraper proposal for Ballsbridge.

Mr Desmond also criticised what he termed a five-year effort by Dublin City Council "to set the stage for intensive development" in the Dublin 4 suburb.

This "concerted" bid included proposals for landmark buildings, new apartment guidelines and a paper on high-rise development.

And he told the capital's top council official, John Tierney, that the local authority attempted to change the City Development Plan "by the back door" to facilitate builders.

Addressed to Mr Tierney, the letter was also sent to Environment Minister John Gormley and Dublin city councillors.

High-rise

One such councillor, Tom Stafford (Fianna Fail), told the Herald he agreed with much of what Mr Desmond said, in particular that the council is intent on following a high-rise policy.

Mr Desmond wrote: "I am on record, on a number of occasions, expressing my concern that development in Dublin is developer-led instead of being determined on proper planning and design principles."

He said "we now have real evidence that this is the case" following the recent Bord Pleanala hearings into Mr Dunne's plan for the Jurys/ Berkeley Court site and developer Ray Grehan's proposal for an adjacent piece of land.

"The sequence of events which unfolded demonstrated how Dublin City Council has facilitated the desire of developers to change the zoning, density and height guidelines applicable to Ballsbridge sites purchased for record amounts," Mr Desmond stated.

He added: "Arising from the An Bord Pleanala hearings, we now have copies of minutes of pre-application consultations between the developers and Dublin City Council.

"Clear markers were given at such meetings that parts of the proposed developments did not fall within the development plan. So the developers should have been asked to drastically reduce and alter their schemes.

"However, the worrying aspect is that planning officials at Dublin City Council were instead looking at other policy initiatives which would get around the development plan and facilitate development of the kind proposed for this triangle site in Ballsbridge."

He told the city manager "all of these pre-application consultations and the drafting of favourable policy papers ... took place on your watch".

Mr Desmond said "evidence of inappropriate links between planning officials and developers emerged before An Bord Pleanala".

"A serious conflict of interest arose when Jim Barrett, recently retired City Architect, arrived to give evidence as part of Sean Dunne's project team. Jim Barrett had attended pre-application consultations with the developers," he wrote.

A spokeswoman for the council said Mr Tierney would not be commenting as he is on leave and has not seen the letter.

- Cormac Murphy

_____________________

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/shockwaves-of-desmond-letter-start-council-row-1511444.html

He said that at the oral hearing it transpired Mr Dunne's architect "had brought models of a 32-storey tower, 37-storey tower and 40-storey tower to a meeting at Dublin City Council".

"Jim Barrett, city architect, suggested that the 37-storey was more 'elegant'," Mr Desmond said. He then "apparently made further suggestions concerning appropriate heights for other buildings which were ultimately reflected in the planning application".

Mr Desmond added: "While ultimately the planning authority refused permission for the 37-storey tower, it is clear that Jim Barrett was acting outside the development plan when even considering such tall buildings."

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Medical Cards & Incineration

Who Needs a Medical Card When They Will Be Killed Prematurely?

The planned Dublin Bay Incinerator at Poolbeg will cause up to 300 premature deaths per year (1). Perhaps that means an extra three thousand sick people per year.

Boston, not Berlin.

With 3,000 extra sick people why not sneak in Not-Universal American style health care! That adds to GNP, will increase growth, and will pull The Galway Tent out of the recession.

The Bush controlled US Environmental Protection Agency values Human Resources at about $7.22 million(2). So let's get rid of health care for old people, they have no economic value apart from their life-time savings.


_______________
  1. Passively confirmed by Dick Roach (Dail Ref: 12568/07). http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2008/04/incineration-amsterdam-example-300.html

  2. "By reducing the value of human life, which is really a devious way of cooking the books, the perceived benefits of cleaning up the air seem less," said Frank O'Donnell of the District-based group Clean Air Watch. http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2008/07/cosmic-markdown-epa-says-life-is-worth.html

  3. A small incinerator in rural Tippereary was stopped by Bord Pleanala after lawyers for John Magnier’s Coolmore group had argued that the facility would be prejudicial to animal health.

  4. Ringsend Death Risk is 20-80 Times Higher With Incinerator.

http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2008/05/ringsend-death-risk-already-10-20-times.html


___________________


Health Hazards From Chemicals Are Not Known

_________________________


Incinerator Will Increase Deaths By
Twenty To Eighty Times.

______________________________________

Environment Minister Passively Confirms 300 Deaths Per Year.
_________________________________________________________

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Ask Your Dentist

WE WOULD RECOMMEND INCINERATORS AND CIGARETTES.
[OUR EXPERT HAS BEEN PAID TO SAY THIS].



The Waste-To-Toxins industry has learned from The Tobacco Industry's best available lies.

Was data presented by Dublin City Council at the Oral Hearings just curious? Was it the whole truth?

Does anyone believe the data contained any Big Lies?

Are there any amazing parallels between DCC's presentations and Big Tobacco's presentation depicted below?

Try substituting x Incineration x for Nicotine, and x Dangerous x for x Addictive x in the testimony below. (Source: http://whyquit.com/whyquit/LinksAAddiction.html).

HONEST WASTE-TO-TOXINS PROMOTORSI believe that incineration is not dangerous.

1994 Congressional Oral Testimony

Video of April 14, 1994 testimony of seven tobacco company executives before Congress testifying that they believe that nicotine is not addictive

"I believe that nicotine is not addictive."

Click the image above to watch the April 14, 1994 testimony, under oath, of seven tobacco company chief executive officers (CEOs) before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy & Commerce,Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.

Congressman Wyden: "Let me ask you first, and I'd like to just go down the row, whether each of you believes that nicotine is not addictive. I've heard virtually all of you touch on it--yes or no, do you believe nicotine is not addictive?"

"I believe that nicotine is not addictive, yes". Philip Morris CEO (Chief Executive Officer) William I. Campbell
Congressman Wyden: "Mr. Johnston ..."
"Uh, Congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definition of addiction. There is no intoxication--" R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company CEO James Johnston
Congressman Wyden: We'll take that as a no. And again, time is short, if you can just, I think each of you believe nicotine is not addictive, I'd just like to have this for the record.

"I don't believe that nicotine or our products are addictive." U.S. Tobacco Company CEO Joseph Taddeo
"I believe that nicotine is not addictive." Lorillard Tobacco Company CEO Andrew Tisch
"I believe that nicotine is not addictive." Ligget Group CEO Edward Horrigan
"I believe that nicotine is not addictive." Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company CEO Thomas Sandefur"
And I too believe that nicotine is not addictive."
American Tobacco Company CEO Donald Johnston.


I believe that my pension is safe.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Poolbeg Incinerator Finances Built On House Of Cards

Independent.ie

Legal action threatens Poolbeg incinerator plan

By Paul Melia
Monday October 06 2008

A LANDMARK court case could result in the controversial Poolbeg incinerator being shelved.

Private waste collectors Greenstar and Panda are to ask the High Court to stop Dublin City Council limiting their activities in the city, and if successful it could throw the whole financial model for the waste-to-energy plant into doubt.

The council wants to tender out household waste collection routes in the city, saying that the current free-for-all is not working and is causing pollution because of the large number of bin trucks operating.

It proposes to allow companies to compete against each other to win household collection contracts, giving city bosses control of the waste stream.

This is essential because the council has entered into a 'put and pay' arrangement with the company which will operate the incinerator.

The agreement guarantees that a set amount of waste is sent for thermal treatment every year, or the council must pay a financial penalty.

However, two of the country's biggest private operators have sought a judicial review of the new regulations, which will be held in the High Court at the end of the month.

If they win the case, the council cannot guarantee a waste stream, and the whole financial model justifying the 600,000 tonne a year plant will be thrown into doubt.

"All of the infrastructure is based on owning the waste stream," one industry source said yesterday. "Everything stems from ownership of the waste.

"Poolbeg is fraught with difficulty. It's built on a house of cards and if one falls, the whole thing comes tumbling down. Dublin City Council must own and direct the waste."

Dublin City Council were not immediately available for comment, but Greenstar said that while incineration had a role in waste disposal, there was "no flexibility" in the system.

"Incineration has a role as an end of life disposal facility," spokesman Jerry Dempsey said.

"The Poolbeg one is too big and in the wrong place. Why lock into a system that offers no flexibility for the next 30 years?" he said.

The incinerator, which is opposed by Environment Minister John Gormley, was granted planning permission last November.

- Paul Melia