Quote:

Michael Foster
My heads soredoes anyone have a paracodal handy.Mick

Advantage of the forum is my inbox did not have to suffer



OceanFroggie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2012 09:49 by OceanFroggie.

Yes sorry about that folks answers can get long winded and I feel we are beginning to discuss the minutia.

Dave

Mick,

Sorry to hear about your head. Was it self inflicted? (ie did you insist on reading this thread again) If so there is a remedy, but you already know what that is. Don't you?



Noel,

Delighted for your inbox. Sure isn't life great?



Dave,

Thanks for ALL your responses to date. You don't need to apologise for the quantity that you post or the length of any such posts.

Regards

Kieran

Couldnt help myself-dont even know where Dunrovin is except near Athlone-but as the dead cats proverb goes I was curious as to what all the kerfuffle was about and read and read and read until my brain(small as it is)gave up and my eyes glazed over. Still it seems very relevent to some on here so keep chipping away and perhaps all will get the answers they want but i'm going for that paracodal now and a lie down.Mick

Michael,

Hope the head gets better soon. There is no doubt that this thread has generated quite a few "keystrokes".

On a serious note, This Dunrovin project is a huge step for our IWAI. All members should get themselves fully informed of all the pros & cons. Then they should make their own mind up and decide if they are for or against the proposal. Naturally, they should liase with their branch to let them know their view.

The branches will decide.

I am not advocating for or against Dunrovin. Its up to each member to form their own view.

This forum has provided some information that some of us were not aware of. I feel that to date, it's been a positive experience (This Thread on this Forum), even if some readers of this thread have made a point of having a go at me. But, that's OK.

Hope the Paracodal works.

Regards

Kieran



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2012 13:05 by Kieran Kearns.

Ahhh...minutia...A small, exact. or trivial detail.......

Is this not the ultimate purpose of debate...??

M(W&W)F

Quote:

Dave
As to costs I fail to see where you get 3/4 million. It's nothing like that

Quote:

Self
On the matter of costs, using the best figures quoted at the Council Meeting you get a cost of 420K over 10 years. It was also mentioned that returning the branch contributions would be looked at and while this is admittedly an inter Association cost, it is nonetheless, a cost on the project. This brings costs to 520K approx. The 5k per annum "empty" running costs are quite conservative in my opinion, and likely to be exceded, and money will have to be spent on the grounds, even to fund voluntary labour. Someones going to be paying for the petrol for the mower. There will also be as yet unbudgeted maintenance and decoration costs over the 10 year period and it is probable that some unforseen costs will arise during the period. Does the projected cost of 350K include furniture and fittings, for example...??

Trying to be objective

Do we need a physical HQ
Can we afford it - both initial capital costs and more importantly ongoing revenue - rates, maintenance, security, heat light etc
Ignoring the legacy, where is the best location on the island considering transport public and otherwise, security, proximity to members homes, etc?

Padhraic

Padhraic,

Welcome to the discussion.

If you are an IWAI member, you will be able to have a say.

The conversation is underway on a national basis, through the IWAI branch structure. Share your views with the other members in your branch, by attending your branch (if you are not already a regular). I was made very welcome when I started to attend branch meetings. There was open & honest discussion on a range of issues and the information exchange was very useful.

As the branches will ultimately have the final decision, it would be important for your branch representative at Council to be in a position to reflect the views of the members of the branch when it comes time to vote.

To all members of IWAI, this is your association. Stand up and be counted on this major project - one way or the other.

Regards

Kieran



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2012 15:11 by Kieran Kearns.

Hi Folks,

The following link is to an article in Inland Waterways news (Volume 25 No. 2 May 1998). the article is on page 5.

The article makes reference to the fact that:

"Cynthia had indicated that she hoped that Dunrovin might become a meeting place/clubhouse for the branch and that it might also become a place in which an archive of the association might be established".

[iwn.iwai.ie]

I know that we are living in different times, but I wonder if the current proposal was the knid of thing she had in mind? One thing is for sure - I don't know, as I did not know the lady.

I still say that it was a very generous gift for her to make to IWAI.

Regards

Kieran

yes it was, its true that she saw it originally as a branch idea, but in reality no branch could develop or do justice to the site within the types of money that is available. In reality all you then have is some sort of national project or sell it.

She probably envisaged using the house, but this was in the context of the time and the safety and usage guidelines of the day. ( and the relatively small membership numbers) Today it would be almost impossible to fulfill regulations using that dwelling. it would in effect force its demolition and replacement.

All these issues got extensive debate in Athlone with inputs from people that new Cynthia well. The overriding issues was the IWAI use it rather then sell it and therefor not do justice to the Rices.

Dave



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2012 01:30 by Dave McCabe.

Fair dues Dave. It was a "local to Athlone" initiave, I believe. Having said that, I have heard it said by non-Athlone members, that as far as Cynthia was concerned, Athlone WAS the IWAI.

I have no doubt that this has been extensively discussed by the Athlone Bch, problem is that none of the other 20 branches were there when it was being discussed. I'm sure you've been over most of the stuff thats being thrown up on here many times, but it is all new to us. Please remember that when we're asking questions that you've already dealt with countless times....!!

M(W&W)F

PS.....Still waiting on the "cost over 10 years though"...!!

Yes to many of the early founders that was the case. Understandable as that was where the early action took place.

Ive no problems answering the questions Mick, As I said I can't short-circuit the branches though.

re the costings, first as per the council requirements I have to get out the details to the branches, thats the first action. Then they need time and space to discuss it. It would seem somewhat daft if that debate happened here first. ( yes yes I know i know).

Dave

Thanks Dave,

I have'nt a problem waiting, once there's a reason.

M(W&W)F

Ps....I thought they (branches) were all there...???

I must say I'm reluctant to enter into this debate, which seems to be confined to a few contributors, and where any view that is contrary to support for the Dunrovin project seems to be almost heretical. I suspect that the absence of a broad debate, notwithstandind the 190 odd contributions, is probably due to the majority of us forumites who are members of IWAI just not being fully cognisant of what is being proposed.

As I understand it the IWAI (Athlone) has been bequeathed a shed, off the main track but apparently close to a pub, and a car park which is favoured by the local boy racers etc. Because the bequest suggested a meeting house, the IWAI proposes to develop this site as a national headquarters, and I understand a figure of up to €750k has been mentioned - this is probably an exaggerated figure given that it seems we'll be using the adjacent car park so not too clear what we're getting for our money.

It is our money! I think its been mentioned that IWAI / Branches are flush with money. Why is this? I'm not too clear how my annual contribution is used and if we've built up a surplus maybe the annual sub is too high?

I'm not involved in IWAI politics so don't know how often meetings are held or how much value can be squeezed from a national headquarters in a remote location. I suspect we can do it cheaper by using hotels etc , convenient to residence of members / officers, as at present. Does IWAI pay travel / subsistence?

The singular thing I cannot understand in relation to proposed waterside location of IWAI HQ is that there is no provision for berthing facilities. Lough Ree isn't exactly flush with mooring facilities and it seems a shame that we're not taking the initiative in this regard and providing generous members berthing?? I know this would be manna from heaven to the harbour hoggers amongst us but it can be managed and I'd be sceptical about reference to adjacent moorings which always seemed to be heavily used whenever I passed. I assume the fact there's a private marina just across from site hasn't been a consideration.

Come on, a national boating headquarters in a converted nissan hut, miles from anywhere, inconvenient to majority of members, likely to soak up our present and future funds, and notwithstanding that we're boating organisation, nowhere to tie up a boat - whats not to support?

Ciaran

SAndman, Thats a very mis-informed view

(a) Its not a "converted hut" that is being proposed. It is a modern all purpose building. The building has been extensively show cased in two IWNs and at last years AGM.

(b The area is where it is, its has its advantages and disadvantages, It has a large public carpak that we get the use of and an entrance from. Its close to Athlone, while still on the lake. and the co-location proposed with the RNLI will be of benefit as well.

(c) The boy racer thing is in the past , the carpark is now locked, out of hours, and local vigilance is higher. The RNLI are setting up in it on a temporary basis, so that will mean more activity. Westmeath Co. Co have invested 350,000 euros in this area and plan to do more, both local fishing and boating organization are setting up meeting places in the carpark under a new plan. The area will be in the future , if not already a hub for water based activity.

(d) The will envisaged "development", it was done at time on the basis of the time. The IWAI owns it and what is being prosed I believe is certainly in the spirit of the will.


(e) The cost is projected to be 350K, with a 5K annual running cost and depending on what proportion has to be financed would cost between about 6K-8K a year in interest, hence a 10 year figure on rough numbers is 350K + 110K, i.e. about 11K a year to service the overheads and finance ( of course should we be able to reduce the financing costs the interest will go down). where Mick got the 750K still mystifies me. The evidence is that in the current climate , we may be able to build for less.

(f) The decision was taken to not seek to develop moorings on a number of grounds
1. It would add hugely to the costs.
2. The site isn't big enough to add a significant number of moorings, hence the facility would be small anyway (4-6 boats)
3. The is a fine WI jetty 300 metres away, which is going to be extended
4. The IWAI is not engaged in commercial activity and we would have to police harbor hoggers etc
5. Foreshore development in Lough Ree is almost impossible under the new SPA rules. ( its virtually a National Park
6. The particular area is used by many water enthusiasts for different things, it would encroach on them

Of course that doesn't prevent future IWAIs deciding differently.

The existence of local marinas, most of whom let people overnight for free , is neither here nor there. You talk about "generous members berthing", do you mean we should enter the marina business. Thats a different decision all together and one I suspect that such an argument would pale Dunrovin into insignificance.

Quote:

Come on, a national boating headquarters in a converted nissan hut, miles from anywhere, inconvenient to majority of members, likely to soak up our present and future funds, and notwithstanding that we're boating organisation, nowhere to tie up a boat - whats not to support?

Thats an entirely erroneous statement, based on mis-thruths,lack of knowledge and just plain wrong. Dunrovin as a development may have its issues , like all projects , its a compromise. But lets stick to the fact s of the project being proposed, as to inconvenient, The shannon is where the largest concentration of members are, that is without debate. in excess of 60% of the members are in the shannon branches. Im not sure where else you could pick, where such numbers would be anywhere near the same.


The membership being reduced, wouldn't deal with all the reserves anyway and all it would do is impoverish future activity.

Quote:

'm not involved in IWAI politics so don't know how often meetings are held or how much value can be squeezed from a national headquarters in a remote location. I suspect we can
do it cheaper by using hotels etc , convenient to residence of members / officers, as at present. Does IWAI pay travel / subsistence?

Its clearly designed to me more then just a place to park bums on seats. Ive laid out the benefits of the scheme. but theres a lot more to it that that. A HQ/Home would in my view benefit the IWAI, providing future member with a professional resource that furthers the aims of the Association.

please stick to the facts and if theres confusion or mis-information then ask. But pejorative language ("converted hut") doesn't add much to the debate.


Your primary view seems to be that we should build a marina ( for who, as currently there is spare space in several marinas in Lough Ree). I couldn't disagree more with your view.

Dave



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2012 12:10 by Dave McCabe.

Ciaran (Sandman),

Welcome to the discussion.

I would encourage you to link in with your branch (if you are not already in regular contact with them) for the purposes of getting the updates on all things IWAI.

If your branch don't have the answers to your questions, ask them to get the information for you.

Your opinion is just as important as that of any other member. You deserve to be in full possession of all the facts before you make "an informed" decision as to whether you are for or against the proposal.

Dave McCabe has been on this channel on a number of occasions responding to queries & comments, but he is right - the correct channel for the exchange of information is through the IWAI branch network/structure.

Unfortunately, I feel that this IWAI structure has let the Dunrovin project down, to date, as the information has not got out to all IWAI members in a timely fashion. Inland Waterways News operates in arrears (just like any paper media). That said, it is a great publication.

The bulk of my information, regarding the Dunrovin project, has been gleaned on this "Un-Official Channel", as Dave McCabe tells us. That tells it's own story.

Regards

Kieran

Quote:

The bulk of my information, regarding the Dunrovin project, has been gleaned on this "Un-Official Channel", as Dave McCabe tells us. That tells it's own story.

Yes thats true, that is the status of the forum. But the information I am providing is word for word what is being said to the branches. Its hardly gleamed. At this stage , due to the time lags, readers here are far more advanced in knowledge then the average branch.

its unfortunate, but its the way we are set up. perhaps I might change my signature to read
Dave
Member Dunrovin Development Committee
Executive Member IWAI

hows that



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2012 13:23 by Dave McCabe.

Hi Dave,

Don't change your signature. It would be too long if you were to add all your titles (Just Kidding)

You have answered most questions that were asked here, but not all.

On 7th April, I asked if there was a plan "B", just in case the current proposal does not proceed. I don't think I got a reply to that one. Is there a plan "B"?

In other words, is there a choice of options?

Regards

Kieran

Quote:

On 7th April, I asked if there was a plan "B", just in case the current proposal does not proceed. I don't think I got a reply to that one. Is there a plan "B"?

do you mean for the site or the HQ

lets me answer my own question

(a) If its primarily a design/location rejection then theres no plan B. Maybe we could resurrect the Carrick idea, but that plan has lots of issues too. ( and is currently only a vague notion)

(b) If is no to dunrovin, what do you do with the site, at this stage nobody knows, there no plan B. ( its taken us too long to do a plan A!!). I feel the site would be left for another 10 years until somebody else in another might be brave enough to try again with something.


So I suppose the answer is no there isn't a plan B, It would just get dropped ( which is generally what happens in the IWAI). and the current protagonists would move along, so to speak ( or just grow older)

As to options, I suppose it boils down to what sort of feedback we get if the idea fails to garner sufficient financial support. Its a length of string issue. It will for others I fell to take up that cudgel.


Dave



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2012 16:42 by Dave McCabe.

Whatever about the pros and cons of the Dunrovin project (and I'm basically in favour of it) one thing I would be dead set against is berthing facilities being associated with the project. With the best will in the world this would be assimilated by an 'in crowd'. It's just the way these things work out.

Quick question to Dave - I wonder if renting a commercial premises in some dingy office park has been considered? That is, if it's just a head-quarters that's needed. But, of course, I appreciate it's more than just that.