Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which Barracks Should Close Next? (Part 2)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Egbeygia View Post
    So you are advocating inflating the price of badly needed social housing on an underutilised site that could otherwise be transferred for free? Or are you looking for an alternative facility where the AR can meet up, dress up and play soldier in the Bray area, despite re-orgs, Single Force Concept, etc.?
    What he is advocating is that the DF should get something for an asset is disposing of. It is irrelevant that is currently an under utilised asset in the DF. It has a value to somebody. If it is transferred to another department or agency then there should be a corresponding transfer of funds or assets from that agency.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bravo20 View Post
      What he is advocating is that the DF should get something for an asset is disposing of. It is irrelevant that is currently an under utilised asset in the DF. It has a value to somebody. If it is transferred to another department or agency then there should be a corresponding transfer of funds or assets from that agency.
      So one state agency should pay market value for a site to another state agency. So by that logic should the DoD in turn pay say Dublin Port for a dedicated naval berth, Shannon Airport Authority for Airside facilities, Coillte for an expansion to Kilworth, Kilbride etc, or is in only your preferred department that requires payment?

      Comment


      • So one state agency should pay market value for a site to another state agency. So by that logic should the DoD in turn pay say Dublin Port for a dedicated naval berth, Shannon Airport Authority for Airside facilities, Coillte for an expansion to Kilworth, Kilbride etc, or is in only your preferred department that requires payment?
        And why not ? Assets have value. If DOD wanted to expand into Coillte land you'd be damn sure money would change hands. That money could fund ARW allowance, RDF gratuity, you name it. Every single time the DOD disposes of land it does it for a song and someone else reaps the value - look at Griffith, Clancy, Beggars Bush , Colaiste Caoimhin, Ballincollig, Cavan .... too long a list.

        That zero-value accounting you're banging on about ? mugs game. State knows damn well if it pays DOD for land where the money is going.
        Last edited by trellheim; 23 February 2021, 20:43.
        "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

        "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
          And why not ? Assets have value. If DOD wanted to expand into Coillte land you'd be damn sure money would change hands. That money could fund ARW allowance, RDF gratuity, you name it. Every single time the DOD disposes of land it does it for a song and someone else reaps the value - look at Griffith, Clancy, Beggars Bush , Colaiste Caoimhin, Ballincollig, Cavan .... too long a list.

          That zero-value accounting you're banging on about ? mugs game. State knows damn well if it pays DOD for land where the money is going.
          Please tell me more about this "song" that DF lands were sold for?

          Is it the same €100 million song as this:

          https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-...-100m-1.310599

          Or are you instead proposing that DoD/DF get in the business of office/retail park/apartment development?

          I would hate for facts to get in the way of your argument, but sometimes people on here need to be called out. The current value (2021) of these sites was generated by the private investment and DoD got an appropriate price at the time for what are essentially just sites, same as any other, or even worse in that they came without planning permission and often with century-plus old buildings requiring retention and restoration.

          So again I ask, what is to be gained by charging the LDA, or any City/Council for DF lands surplus to requirements that could otherwise be transferred for free thus eliminating a massive element of Irish building costs?

          Comment


          • I would hate for facts to get in the way of your argument, but sometimes people on here need to be called out. The current value (2021) of these sites was generated by the private investment and DoD got an appropriate price at the time for what are essentially just sites, same as any other, or even worse in that they came without planning permission and often with century-plus old buildings requiring retention and restoration.

            So again I ask, what is to be gained by charging the LDA, or any City/Council for DF lands surplus to requirements that could otherwise be transferred for free thus eliminating a massive element of Irish building costs?
            Those sites were got for fk-all and are now worth several multiples. The DF needs the money. end of story. Selling rockbrae on the open market would raise badly needed money to fund the DF. Similar silly arguments like yours would justify CBB and McKee being disposed of for nothing. "transferred for free" .... as I said mugs game where only the DF loses. Are you a member of the DF perchance ?
            "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

            "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
              Those sites were got for fk-all and are now worth several multiples. The DF needs the money. end of story. Selling rockbrae on the open market would raise badly needed money to fund the DF. Similar silly arguments like yours would justify CBB and McKee being disposed of for nothing. "transferred for free" .... as I said mugs game where only the DF loses. Are you a member of the DF perchance ?
              While I'm not sure how relevant my service is to this debate, I can confirm that I am a commissioned member of the PDF, you know someone who the job for a living not a hobby or for likes on social media. While we're at it, are you a member of the PDF?

              And yes the DF needs money, but charging other state agencies inflated market values for assets that are of either declining utility or none at all, hardly makes more sense that getting an increased budget contribution from central government.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
                Those sites were got for fk-all and are now worth several multiples.
                But you do know that is not true no matter how many times you say it. Take Clancy Barracks as a simple example, it's current value is as a result of the private money invested in the 700+ apartments constructed on site, latterly by Kennedy Wilson. That's how investment generally works. It's current value has absolutely nothing to with any action of the DoD or DF. Unless of course you think the DF should be building apartments for sale?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
                  And why not ? Assets have value. If DOD wanted to expand into Coillte land you'd be damn sure money would change hands. That money could fund ARW allowance, RDF gratuity, you name it. Every single time the DOD disposes of land it does it for a song and someone else reaps the value - look at Griffith, Clancy, Beggars Bush , Colaiste Caoimhin, Ballincollig, Cavan .... too long a list.

                  That zero-value accounting you're banging on about ? mugs game. State knows damn well if it pays DOD for land where the money is going.
                  The difficulty handing over an unused portion of Tralee Barracks to the DoJ for construction of a new courthouse is a prime example of this.
                  German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                  German 2: Private? I am a general!
                  German 1: That is the bad news.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Egbeygia View Post
                    While I'm not sure how relevant my service is to this debate, I can confirm that I am a commissioned member of the PDF, you know someone who the job for a living not a hobby or for likes on social media. While we're at it, are you a member of the PDF?

                    And yes the DF needs money, but charging other state agencies inflated market values for assets that are of either declining utility or none at all, hardly makes more sense that getting an increased budget contribution from central government.
                    Remember that the money from barracks sales was supposed to be ring fenced for reinvestment in the DF

                    Remember that other Departments that did decentralisation are currently still paying for unused offices

                    Where land is transferred the DF should receive something in return, ideally the market value, if not the CPO rate or why not for example land elsewhere.

                    I’m sure Wicklow Co Council have some land that could be useful in the Glen or Kilbride areas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Egbeygia View Post
                      But you do know that is not true no matter how many times you say it. Take Clancy Barracks as a simple example, it's current value is as a result of the private money invested in the 700+ apartments constructed on site, latterly by Kennedy Wilson. That's how investment generally works. It's current value has absolutely nothing to with any action of the DoD or DF. Unless of course you think the DF should be building apartments for sale?
                      You might be missing the point. When the Brits left , almost a hundred years ago, they left us a country wide range of Military structures, training grounds and lands. All lands and buildings plus the grounds they stand on have value, not least to the sitting tenant. The condition of barracks is largely due to National choices taking advantage of traditional Military deference to Authority. As time lapsed many in Corporate and political circles saw the chance of major added value by repurposing "Surplus" lands and barracks. So, over years Military assets were spirited away, troops were moved, facilities disappeared, and somebody got rich or expanding their ownerships of scarce valuable lands. As an example, all the Naval/Military playing fields in Cork Harbour near Black Prince pier were absorbed by CHC.
                      When Clancy was given away, the Quid Pro Quo, was to provide a similar resource elsewhere. The income from Clancy must be in the order of a million Euro p.m. The problem with paring back Military resources is that downsizing becomes the norm every time Governments put it on the autopsy table.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Egbeygia View Post
                        But you do know that is not true no matter how many times you say it. Take Clancy Barracks as a simple example, it's current value is as a result of the private money invested in the 700+ apartments constructed on site, latterly by Kennedy Wilson. That's how investment generally works. It's current value has absolutely nothing to with any action of the DoD or DF. Unless of course you think the DF should be building apartments for sale?
                        Best of luck buying one of the derelict sites in Dublin to build a house on. You may think it's worth f-all until you develop it, but the market says otherwise. And you can take that from me, someone who is here for the likes, but who's profession currently involves dealing with the value of numerous sites worth f-all. Tell it to the Bank.

                        Even if you only watched the movie "The Field" and didn't go to the trouble of reading the book by J.B Keane, you would know that every property has value, far in excess of it's appearance. Property is an asset. The Govt property portfolio are assets. Like all assets, you can choose to keep them for yourself, or sell them for their value.
                        If we give a plot of land worth nothing to us to another govt department, for no notional fee or exchange, and that department decides later on to sell it to a civilian developer for a large sum, are you saying we lost nothing?
                        Because my friend that is not how things work in the real world.
                        German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                        German 2: Private? I am a general!
                        German 1: That is the bad news.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Egbeygia View Post
                          While I'm not sure how relevant my service is to this debate, I can confirm that I am a commissioned member of the PDF, you know someone who the job for a living not a hobby or for likes on social media. While we're at it, are you a member of the PDF?
                          That's a big chip you are hauling there. Brown shoes or black?
                          Mod: Play the ball not the man
                          Last edited by Bravo20; 24 February 2021, 16:14.
                          German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                          German 2: Private? I am a general!
                          German 1: That is the bad news.

                          Comment


                          • My point in trying to make is that many of these facilities were not given away as people continue to claim. The Clancy Barracks example being the most obvious one. It was sold for €25.4million in 2003 by the DoD, Ballincollig the same year for €41million. Both sales were to private investors. So my point remains, should the state be competing with private investors on the open market with much deeper pockets to buy land from itself when it could be transferred for nothing for the common good? Yes of course the DF should look for something in return, land, investment etc, but it is the fault of DFHQ and/or DoD for not stipulating that in the contract for disposal.

                            Comment


                            • While we're at it, are you a member of the PDF?
                              Commissioned officer of the RDF, since you ask. I didn't ask if you were PDF or RDF, Commissioned or enlisted.
                              "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                              "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
                                Commissioned officer of the RDF, since you ask. I didn't ask if you were PDF or RDF, Commissioned or enlisted.
                                So another hobby-warrior who knows best for the DF.
                                Mod: You too need to play the ball not the man
                                Last edited by Bravo20; 24 February 2021, 16:16.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X