Ask A Broadsheet Reader


Banner in Dublin 6 warning of a ‘Treeless Desert’ due to ongoing council felling measures

Richard Talbot writes:

Spotted on Terenure Road East. Spare me from the D6 NIMBYS and their outlandish claims!

To what authority should I report this banner to?


Previously: Don’t It Always Seem To Go


40 thoughts on “Ask A Broadsheet Reader

  1. postmanpat

    Just because Richard Talbot is cool with no trees on his street doesn’t mean everyone else is.

          1. postmanpat

            Lame…. anyway , neither ‘nimby’ or ‘yimby’ applies in this case . More trees make the travel route more pleasurable for everyone passing through ,not just the people who live there. Why any private individual would have a problem with anyone else trying to save mature trees is beyond me.

  2. Jdawgs

    If this gets on your goat that much just get a bloody ladder and cut it down. Power to the people and all. Or on the next lampposts put up your own banner.

      1. Jdawgs

        Yeh, that’s along the lines of what I was thinking. And maybe a picture of him on the banner.

        1. postmanpat

          Ha!! He’s apparently an Ad-man! Which explains his lack of a soul. I think he’s more offended by the save the trees message being advertised for free and without a permit more than anything else . What a tool!!! Richard Talbot: the Irish Don Draper. Oh this is priceless!!!!!

  3. Batty Brennan

    The banner police.

    By the way, I’ve reported your question to the grammar police.

  4. Ian-O

    Richard doesn’t come across as a person to invite to dinner.

    Seems a tad boring, irritable and snowflaky.


    1. millie st murderlark

      I bet the thoughts of odd socks gives him hives.

      Or rumpled throw pillows.

      1. Ian-O

        I wear odd socks all the time to work. But as they are all the same colour, length and style, nobody will ever know!

        Except me. My perverse secret! (In my mid forties so my dark secrets are kind of dull these days, now my 20’s were positively disgraceful….)

        1. Ian-O

          Well then allow me to introduce you to my new method*, the ‘every sock looks the exact same’ method that keeps that OCD at bay.

          I just have a morass of dark blue socks in a drawer (separate to my Leo-esque socks which I wear for those times I try to convince people I’m a real boy/mammal by having zaaaany stripes, designs and what not hugging my feet and lower legs)

          *This post is free, further posts will need you to sign up to my blog and subscribe at a low-low cost.

  5. Termagant

    If you want trees in your back yard:
    plant trees in your back yard
    that’s not your back yard, that’s a road, it’s for cars

    1. Ian-O

      Maybe but there are a lot benefits to lining roads with trees (so long as you don’t hit one though!). I accept in older areas built when cars were either quite rare or even before they were invented it can be difficult but there really are a lot of good arguments to increase the amount of trees within cities and especially along busy roads.

      And no, I’m not a tree hugger, as an ex smoker I have a new found love for my lungs.

    2. lolly

      the plan on the proposed route (currently being re-designed following a very angry response in the first round consultation) is to remove trees in a number of front yards that are near the road. the proposal will remove walls, parts of gardens and some trees to widen the road. Some lovely old ones at the Presbyterian church in Rathgar might go for example. It really will change the character of the city and not just in rich areas, they will be ripping up parts of Crumlin also. And all to save a couple of minutes on the commute into town. doesn’t seem like a good cost/benefit ratio to most of us that live in or commute through the area.

  6. Jim

    How many of these protests are actually about the trees, really? A bit of honesty might go further.

    1. class wario

      Bang on. Easier to pull at the heart strings with tales of children having their favourite tree uprooted before their eyes and to grab the coattails of the recent Green momentum unfortunately.

      1. postmanpat

        Except for the fact that it’s an apolitical banner, so your conspiracy theory is completely unfounded. You know,… some people just like trees…. it’s really that simple.

        1. edalicious

          This is all to do with BusConnects, Pat. The people that are putting up banners like the above live on major roads near the city that will be widened for BusConnects, to improve the bus service and therefore to encourage people to take public transport rather than taking the car.

          While everyone would rather keep the trees, if you transfer enough people from single- occupancy private cars onto public transport or “active” transport, it’ll do more for improving the air quality in the city than the trees would.

          They’ve used an apparently apolitical banner to make it seem unreasonable, as your are doing, not to support them, when in reality, it’s all about them trying not to lose property value at the expense of adding hours to the commutes of everyone outside the inner suburbs, while at the same time steering conversation away from any mention of commute times.

        2. class wario

          it not having a party or poltiical slogan front and centre does not make it apolitical. you appear very excitable in these comments, perhaps you should have a quick sit down under one of these trees.

      1. eoin

        A tree-lined road or avenue plays far better when the estate agent is selling your home than having to admit you’re right outside an extra lane of 24-hour buses and cars. You could easily be talking about €100,000 in terms of value shaved off your home by felling the trees and creating another lane of traffic, and in some parts of Dublin, it might be a multiple of that.

        1. postmanpat

          Cool. Chop them all down so. Lets stick it to those rich people , sure, the air quality will be worse for tens of thousands of people for decades. But just to see the shocked look on a few scores of snooty rich faces is compensation enough. Besides, we need to shave 2 minutes off our travel times to get into our office drone city jobs that have been obsolete for the last ten years but we stick our head in the sand and pretend they are still needed even though the internet for the last ten years has been 1000x faster than is needed for office work , decentralized and 90% admin work can be done remotely from home, because the powers that be cant have that truth become mainstream…..yet. So we have to keep the illusion of Metropolis alive until the money people can hedge against it and get a soft landing.

          1. Notumbo

            If you care about air quality, you’ll want less people in cars and more people on public transport. That’s what the road widening is all about

          2. postmanpat

            The trees will be chopped down and people will still use their cars. This is a construction project to “create” a few jobs for a while. (corporate profits) Just wait and see. Government contracts , sub contractors trickling down to sub-sub sub contractors . and check back here next year . Broadsheet will be filled with articles about jobbridge type scandals where youngfellas get paid half min wage to shift gravel around in a wheelbarrow because its “good work experience” The suits will make out like bandits . hop into their cars and drive off into the sunset. This road widening is not needed, we already have busses . people have always had the option of the bus, but would rather cycle or drive. because the bus sucks , even if it makes good time which it doesn’t (and wont even with these new roads and even if it did) a €4 a bus trip one way? . eh no thanks. Ill stick to my bike thanks. driving cars is cheaper than the bus, cycling is free. This project will cost the tax payer a fortune and go 4X over budget, the end result will have zero impact on traffic and the roads will be stripped of trees for no reason. and where does that extra bus diesel emissions go? Also the traffic disruption while the project is ongoing? any gains (if any) in commute times will be offset for years by the traffic delays caused by the construction. Its all about builders,… builders builders, that’s what this project is really all about. everything else is bullshit.

  7. Kingfisher

    I like trees. And I like bicycles. But I don’t much like cars.
    Why don’t we get rid of lots of cars and make lanes for the bikes and the buses.
    Then we can plant more trees, put in benches and ad hoc playgrounds, have stalls on the street selling food and fresh vegetables and fruit, start talking to each other again.

  8. WM

    The influence and connections wielded by wealthy folks in D6 (and other wealthy inner suburbs) is selfishly directed towards maximising their property values and tranquillity of their “communities” at the expense of areas that are further from town. Seems like a few contributors here might be in this bracket and nerves have been touched given the personal attacks in the comments.

    This postcode is rife with serial NIMBY objectors to any development, and this includes the candidates that recently ran in the local elections. Witness the residents’ campaign that successfully opposed the closure of Dunville Avenue to facilitate the proposed Metro to Beechwood. This has now been revised to terminate at Charlemont, with another residents’ campaign there now advocating for pushback to terminate at Stephens Green – same postcode, same arguments, same entitled mentality. Opposition to BusConnects is even stronger as it involves actual loss of gardens/trees, and they have the added benefit of the imagery of “treeless desert” hyperbole to inject emotion into the campaign for the lay observer.

  9. SOQ

    To what authority should I report this banner to? ..

    The same one which leaves people idling diesel in cars for hours on Pearse Street.

    A gorgeous well lit bridge which was never fit for purpose.

    A bit like Leo et al.

Comments are closed.