Analysis: This week was the calm between storms at the Floodtribunal, between the opening revelations and next week's long-awaitedappearance by Frank Dunlop. Paul Cullen reports
And so battle is joined. In a week, Frank Dunlop is scheduled to enter the witness box of the tribunal, but already his foes are launching pre-emptive strikes.
The ironic aspect of Cllr Liam Cosgrave's attack on the former government press secretary yesterday is that it was delivered in the same manner and language you'd expect of Mr Dunlop - unexpectedly and full of soundbites.
His references to the "trousering" of money by Mr Dunlop could have been written by a tabloid journalist or even the "public relations guru" he once considered "a gentleman and a friend". And, like so many PR salvoes delivered in the tribunal hall over recent years, it appeared in time for the one o'clock news.
But friendship betrayed knows no limits to its wrath, and Mr Cosgrave did not stint in the opprobrium he rained down on the man who, after all, bankrolled his election campaigns for most of the 1990s. Mr Dunlop, described by Mr Cosgrave's lawyers last week as "a self-confessed perjurer", is this week "dishonest", "greedy" and "a corrupting influence". Goodness knows what will be said about Mr Dunlop next week.
Mr Dunlop made substantial payments to the former Fine Gael TD during the 1990s. Mr Cosgrave supported the 1992 motion to rezone the Paisley Park lands at Carrickmines and seconded a motion that resulted in part of the same land being rezoned in 1997/98.
The tribunal's job is to establish whether there is any connection between these two facts. It has a statement from Mr Dunlop, saying the payments were connected to council votes, and a statement from Mr Cosgrave, denying a link. It read out both of these statements last week and plans to call both men to give evidence in due course.
Yesterday's intervention by the normally taciturn politician can only be seen as a stunt, therefore. Of course, Cllr Cosgrave could try his luck in the courts, but that course of action hasn't proved particularly fruitful for others.
The facts do suggest a certain naivety on Mr Cosgrave's part, if nothing else - the saying about there being "no such thing as a free lunch" comes to mind.
What with a separate representation being made yesterday by the family of former Fine Gael councillor Tom Hand, Fianna Fáil must be delighted that so much of the attention is being focused on allegedly wayward members of the rival party.
By comparison with these jousts, the real business of the tribunal is going on relatively unnoticed. Tribunal lawyers are leading former and present county council officials through a lengthy series of maps, minutes and motions that will form the bedrock of the evidence to be heard during the coming months.
This is the "turgid and detailed" stuff we were warned about. It is largely uncontroversial, which makes you wonder why it couldn't have been presented as an agreed statement to all the parties concerned, thereby saving the witnesses, the lawyers and the taxpayer the expense involved. Several factors are emerging from this examination of maps, minutes and motions. First, the line proposed for the South-Eastern motorway through Carrickmines is of central importance. Several different routes were proposed, adopted and rejected; each one had massive significance for the value of the land affected.
In general terms, lands which ended up south of the road, rising toward the Dublin mountains, would have to wait longer for rezoning, if they were rezoned at all, while the more northerly lands were likely to be fast-tracked for industrial or residential rezoning. Another factor which affected the Jackson Way lands, in particular, was whether the motorway passed through a particular property, thereby separating it into two parts.
This raised questions of compensation and access.
The behaviour of councillors is also attracting the interest of tribunal lawyers. Many rezoning decisions were heavily influenced by councillors from outside the immediate area. In addition, councillors showed themselves remarkably reluctant to speak in favour of rezonings, unless they were signatories to the motion.
Another key factor being considered by tribunal teams is the extent to which different representations for rezoning by landowners in the Carrickmines Valley were complementary or conflicting. Monarch Properties' holding at Cherrywood was the largest property under examination, and Jackson Way certainly seems to believe its ambitions were stifled by the rival claims down the road at Cherrywood.
In contrast, Jackson Way worked closely with neighbouring landowners Brian O'Halloran, Austin Darragh and Gerard Kilcoyne to get both their lands rezoned. Jackson Way claims it merely "piggybacked" on its neighbours' successful application for a rezoning in 1997.
The remarkable thing is that it appears that Mr Dunlop was working for so many of the main landowners making representations in the Carrickmines Valley at this time.