Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Urban/rural Ireland...where are we going?

245

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    So Dublin wants the tax base of Maynooth and Leixlip but doesn't want anything to do with the one off housing in between

    Sounds like cherrypicking to me ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    So what would you do with farms then, not the small holdings but the big ones the produce the food that is consumed in your so call GDA day in day out. ?

    Surely they could be see as a natural resources that are produced with the labour of those who live around them.

    Or would you now like to include the Golden Vale in your GDA
    As far as I'm aware, farming is a business whereby the farmer sells his produce. I don't see the point you're making.

    Most people living in rural one off houses do not work on the land and have at best tenuous link to farming. Farming is simply not s labour intensive as it was 100 years ago, so far fewer people are able to produce far more food for the same given acreage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    And that's even avoiding the elephant in the room re the state and state banks subsidising and facilitating those who chose to massively overpay for houses and flats in said city.
    Ah Liam, you're having a laugh if you think the only over-extended families are in Dublin or Cork. Check out that video of your man in Laois sending the Sherrif away: rural Laois. There are many people living in negative equity McMansions all over Ireland-don't kid yourself that it's purely an urban phenomenon!

    You're trying to bring in strawman arguments to the debate. The debate is simply this:
    Should urban Ireland continue to subsidise rural Ireland to the extent that it does? I say no, urban Ireland should start thinking more bout itself and its own unique set of challenges and should start electing politicians who can see that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Foghladh wrote: »
    And yet the irony is that the GDA is little better than one-off housing, albeit on a fairly massive scale. Take the London Greater Area as an example; Approx. 8 million people within an area of approx. 1600 square kilometres. Decent transport systems, a municipal goverment and a fairly contained grouping. The Greater Dublin Area has a population of approx 1.8 million people spread over about 7000 sq kilometres and 4 counties.
    You're making the argument for me. Densification is the way to go. You do know that the London Underground's predecessors built their (largely overground) Underground out over green fields to places like Surbiton and then built houses on the land along the lines.

    Dublin has plenty of space along existing railway lines to densify. The problem is that said rilwy lines have low capacity and don't bring people to the city centre, because Dublin can't build Metro North or DART Underground, because Dublin is not allowed to keep its own tax revenue.

    We could arbitrarily set the boundaries of an elected mayorship to the traditional county Dublin boundary-it's not really relevant to the debate exactly where the boundaries of a an elected Dublin mayoral region would lie. We can still debate the merits of such a thing without defining exactly where these boundaries would be. Greater London has few one off houses inside it's administrative area too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    murphaph wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    And that's even avoiding the elephant in the room re the state and state banks subsidising and facilitating those who chose to massively overpay for houses and flats in said city.
    Ah Liam, you're having a laugh if you think the only over-extended families are in Dublin or Cork. Check out that video of your man in Laois sending the Sherrif away: rural Laois. There are many people living in negative equity McMansions all over Ireland-don't kid yourself that it's purely an urban phenomenon!

    You're trying to bring in strawman arguments to the debate. The debate is simply this:
    Should urban Ireland continue to subsidise rural Ireland to the extent that it does? I say no, urban Ireland should start thinking more bout itself and its own unique set of challenges and should start electing politicians who can see that.

    Never claimed that the "only" ones were in Dublin, so yet again you're twisting a valid point into something else in order to dismiss it.

    It stands to reason that the most populated area with the most inflated house prices would have the most issues as a result of the price correction.

    You have repeatedly made up boundaries and all sorts and defined them to suit YOUR agenda. Leixlip and Maynooth are NOT part of cities.

    The debate has varied accordingly, depending on your twisting and turning.

    And as I said earlier, if you want to go from the current setup to a setup that doesn't involve me subsidising others, fair enough; but you refuse to accept that your arbitrary definitions mean I should have far more services and shouldn't be subsidising others lifestyle choices either.

    But you only want to do this in a way that suits you, and haven't genuinely thought of it as a policy or considered a fair implementatation.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    murphaph wrote: »
    Should urban Ireland continue to subsidise rural Ireland to the extent that it does? I say no, urban Ireland should start thinking more bout itself and its own unique set of challenges and should start electing politicians who can see that.
    So you want to decrease the quality of life for some people, in order to increase the quality of life of others, not exactly the mark of a fair and just society.
    A country, especially one the size of Ireland is a single unit, the parts of that unit that produce the most wealth are for the most part urbanised, with that wealth being transferred to all sections of society.
    You could view a country as a family, with one person generating the wealth and then using it to for the good of the whole family, instead of saying "I earned the money, so I will only spend it on myself".

    The question you are really asking is "Should Ireland distribute its wealth equally among all its citizens?".
    You call it subsidising, I call it the equitable distribution of wealth.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Interesting - so you are "allowing" Leixlip
    to benefit even though they're not urban ? You're not from there by any chance, or working in Intel ?

    Because - as I've clearly pointed out - Leixlip is far, far further from Dublin than I am from Limerick (about 20 times further) and yet you're happy to bend/break your rules for there to develop their sewerage scheme and bus routes but object to a comparable 2 mile scheme in the "Greater Limerick Area" of a far smaller radius.

    Essentially you're just making up rules as you go along to suit yourself.

    Comparing Limerick to Dublin is laughable. There are probably more people living in Dublin 15 than in Limerick. Must look again at the census figures.

    Limerick is a large town/small city. Dublin is a conurbation. That is why it is legitimate to talk about a Greater Dublin region but silly to talk about a Greater Limerick region.

    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Oh - one other point :



    I didn't single out single parents - I mentioned ALL children's allowances. You claim that I should pay for my lifestyle choices, and I stated that others should pay for theirs.

    Feel free not to answer, but do you have kids ? Is that not as much of a "lifestyle choice" as me deciding where I live ?

    Whether you do or not, do you not think people should foot the bill for that choice themselves ?


    There is a difference between living on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere and having kids and why the state should subsidise it.

    If someone has kids they are contributing to the future social capital of the country. Essentially, if you selfishly do not have kids because of the lifestyle costs, you are relying on others to have kids who will grow up to work in the country and pay the taxes that will cover your hospital stay when you are 70 and your state pension. As a result, it is legitimate for the state to subsidise kids.

    If you decide to live on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere it is doing the opposite. In years to come, that ambulance to bring you to hospital will have to travel further, the road that only you and a few others share will have to be maintained, the broadband services upgrades will cost more etc. Arguably, the state should substantially subsidise and encourage urban living as there is a lower cost for the state to provide services in urban areas.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,932 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Godge wrote: »
    There is a difference between living on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere and having kids and why the state should subsidise it.

    If someone has kids they are contributing to the future social capital of the country. Essentially, if you selfishly do not have kids because of the lifestyle costs, you are relying on others to have kids who will grow up to work in the country and pay the taxes that will cover your hospital stay when you are 70 and your state pension. As a result, it is legitimate for the state to subsidise kids.

    If you decide to live on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere it is doing the opposite. In years to come, that ambulance to bring you to hospital will have to travel further, the road that only you and a few others share will have to be maintained, the broadband services upgrades will cost more etc. Arguably, the state should substantially subsidise and encourage urban living as there is a lower cost for the state to provide services in urban areas.

    Some of the urbanites here need to get out of the house a bit more.

    There are feck all people living at the top of mountains in reality.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Godge wrote: »
    Comparing Limerick to Dublin is laughable. There are probably more people living in Dublin 15 than in Limerick. Must look again at the census figures.

    Ah, so you guys are happy redefining "urban" to suit yourselves as well ? Nice one!
    Godge wrote: »
    Limerick is a large town/small city. Dublin is a conurbation.

    Firstly, Limerick is a city, so there's no need to embarrass yourself by throwing in the "large town" slur.

    And see the thread title ? It mentions Urban/rural. Nothing about "conurbations".

    My point was that I'm between two suburbs as the crow flies, not that I'm 40 miles out like Leixlip; even if we're talking RELATIVE distances, I'm more urban than about 40% of what murphman wants to arbitrarily include.
    Godge wrote: »
    There is a difference between living on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere and having kids and why the state should subsidise it.

    And what does that have to do with the topic or my reply ? Have you seen any mountains within 1 mile of Limerick ?
    Godge wrote: »
    If someone has kids they are contributing to the future social capital of the country. Essentially, if you selfishly do not have kids because of the lifestyle costs, you are relying on others to have kids who will grow up to work in the country and pay the taxes that will cover your hospital stay when you are 70 and your state pension. As a result, it is legitimate for the state to subsidise kids.

    Oh my good Jesus! Is this a serious politics board or is it After Hours ?
    Godge wrote: »
    If you decide to live on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere it is doing the opposite.

    I don't, so your point is farcical.
    Godge wrote: »
    In years to come, that ambulance to bring you to hospital will have to travel further, the road that only you and a few others share will have to be maintained, the broadband services upgrades will cost more etc. Arguably, the state should substantially subsidise and encourage urban living as there is a lower cost for the state to provide services in urban areas.

    There is a lower cost, which is why us rural-dwellers have paid extra for years for bins and electricity supply and our own transport, sewerage and water scheme / wells. "Roads that only you and a few others share" is a joke and you are simply being ridiculous; not only is the road required regardless to get milk from the 5 farms on this road to deliver them to you (with said trucks doing more damage and imposing more maintenance than all the cars put together) but I am paying road tax and I don't have the Luas & Dart as provided by the state to Dublin.

    If you want to make some coherent arguments, fire away, but the above post was a waste of bandwidth and frankly just an excuse to have pot-shots and sneer at people with different priorities to yourself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,475 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    All that just because some people don't agree with you ?

    thing is, people do agree with me. You are taking all this personally and trying to put a slur on Dublin by bringing up single mothers, car thieves, drug addicts, massively overpriced flats, the M50 and the privately owned Luas. You don't contribute anything to any of them and you are just bringing them up to get a rise out of people and to bring the debate off kilter.

    So, anecdotes and grudges aside, do you think that the cities should continue subsidising rural areas?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Foghladh


    murphaph wrote: »
    You're making the argument for me. Densification is the way to go. You do know that the London Underground's predecessors built their (largely overground) Underground out over green fields to places like Surbiton and then built houses on the land along the lines.


    And I assume you do know that Dublin has not followed the same example? Developing along transport links is not a new concept, that's why so many cities are built upon rivers. Dublin is unique in that it has built the dwellings first and is now in the position where it must try to facilitate a transport system around that. Given that the density of the development is so low and scattered over a huge area it's hard to see what type of transport system could be put in place to accomodate such a dispersed population at any sort of bearable cost.
    Such a transport project could never be paid for by means of a municipal tax regardless, given it's scale. Any metro or dart interconnector projects in Dublin would need exchequer funding and will take years to expand before they could be seen to service the wider Dublin community.

    Incidentally I'm not opposed to centralisation or urbanisation as you call it. I believe that urban areas should be able to levy taxes and spend them on urban needs. I've lived in London for years and am currently residing in Stockholm. Here all residents pay their income tax up to approx. 30000 euro to the municipal authority. Above that salary point you'll pay in increasing bands to the state tax. And everybody pays regardless of their starting salary, there is no low income exemption. However public transport works such as the tunnelbann etc are funded through central government and private investment. For your municipal tax here you'll be covered for everything from health services to road sweeping, although there is a further residential 'avgift' to cover water and waste etc. You'll even pay a burial tax.

    However the difference is that for all it's size Stockholm still only contains less than a quarter of the Swedish population. The population is spread into a number of urban centres with industrial centres and resources and their accompanying hinterlands. There is a distribution of taxes throughout and those areas that are less profitable will benefit from the proximity of the urban areas adjacent.
    London is similar in that it still contains only about 15% of Britains population. It is offset again by external, interlinked urban centres. The nature of these urban centres is that they impose an influence on the surrounding hinterlands and offset their cost. I have no experience of Germany but would imagine that it's something similar with well established cities like, Berlin, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt etc.

    Ireland is different however. It can be argued that we only have one, well established urban centre, that being Dublin. In essence the remainder of the country, being the size it is, is Dublins hinterland. Also a huge proportion of the resources of the state are situated in the capital. It's not so simple to pull up the drawbridge and let the outlying areas fend for themselves. In such a scenario you're essentially withdrawing 40% of the population and the resources that accompany them. The inevitable result would be a migration to increase the sprawl and to compound an already stressed situation.

    I'd be more inclined to support more regional urban centres than ringfence the one huge thing that exists. The continued urbanisation of the Irish populace is a given. I just don't see that the existing Dublin model is the way to go nor should it be encouraged. Does anybody want to see the entire population of the country living in a bloc on the east coast with the remainder devoted to feeding the mass?

    We'd tip over into the Irish Sea for starters!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    All that just because some people don't agree with you ?

    thing is, people do agree with me.

    Some people do, some people don't.
    John_Rambo wrote: »
    You are taking all this personally and trying to put a slur on Dublin by bringing up single mothers, car thieves, drug addicts, massively overpriced flats, the M50 and the privately owned Luas.

    Are you suggesting that those don't exist ? It's not a slur. I also didn't single out "single mothers" (think they were referred to once and all other references were related to any person's lifestyle choices of having kids) and I didn't mention drug addicts at all. But hey, feel free to throw in whatever you want and pretend that I said it if it makes you feel better.

    I also didn't "slur Dublin"; I mentioned general issues with urban areas. I never suggested that the occasional joyriders or thieves that I referred to came 120 miles to commit crimes; so again, you're making stuff up.
    You don't contribute anything to any of them and you are just bringing them up to get a rise out of people and to bring the debate off kilter.

    What "debate" ? The OP has redefined everything referred to as they go along in order to make it seem reasonable. They want each area to contribute its own, but want the money from rural villages like Leixlip and want to tap the resources from other parts of the country. So until there's a coherent point there is no debate.
    So, anecdotes and grudges aside, do you think that the cities should continue subsidising rural areas?

    Answered already. As someone with the suburbs 1.5 miles away and who seems to fall under the OP's definition of urban, I would benefit if the resources were used to provide proper facilities within this area and not the more remote ends of the county, but I'm not that selfish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    I'm afraid Murphaph,that you are on a hiding to nothing here,because as everybody knows....
    Foghladh wrote: »
    Ireland is different however.

    Our only real problem these days is finding enough beneficiaries to support that difference.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,627 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Godge wrote: »

    If someone has kids they are contributing to the future social capital of the country. Essentially, if you selfishly do not have kids because of the lifestyle costs, you are relying on others to have kids who will grow up to work in the country and pay the taxes that will cover your hospital stay when you are 70 and your state pension. As a result, it is legitimate for the state to subsidise kids.


    How is making the choice not to have children in anyway selfish? Seriously, why do so many people in this country think that there is something wrong with not having children? I have no intention of having children yet when I mentioned this at a family dinner at christmas, I was laughed at by my rather condescending grandmother as if I had been a 9 year old child (I'm 25).

    I won't have kids because I question my right to bring someone into a world such as this. Further, I also do not believe that I can afford to raise a child properly and provide for it as I have no idea what my situation will be this time next year. If you think that's selfish, you ought to re-think you definition of the word.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    murphaph wrote: »
    ...
    I personally feel that urban Ireland is under represented, due to the minumum 3 seat constituency system. I think urbanites get a pretty raw deal in Ireland overall-comparitively very poor infrastructure compared to our urban European cousins and at the same time, expected to subsidise rural Ireland.
    So poor urban infrastructure has to do with people living in rural areas rather than bad planning and wastage of public money on ill conceived and badly managed projects ?
    murphaph wrote: »
    We have overcrowded schools using prefabs and schools with a dozen pupils in rural areas.
    Much hyperbole.
    But carry on anyway.
    murphaph wrote: »
    I wonder has there been a tendency for urbanites not to pressure their elected representatives for more infrastructure at the expense of fewer rural subsidies, simply because so many urbanites are still perhaps only one or two generations away from rural Ireland?
    You mean they have culchie relatives and are not as urbanly sophisticated as yourself ??
    murphaph wrote: »
    I wonder will this change with so many immigrant background Irish children having no links to rural Ireland, and predominantly living in the cities, never mind the ever growing distance between urbanites of irish origin and their rural ancestors.
    I would like to see income tax reduced nationally and the cities to levy their own taxes and spend them within the cities on desperately needed infrastructure. The rural dwellers should be free to form communes and do likewise. Those choosing to live in complete isolation should be free to pay for their own local roads.
    Feck sake complete isolation.
    If that is what Irish rural dwellers are in, I would hate to see what you label isolated areas in Canada, Australia or the like. :rolleyes:
    murphaph wrote: »
    There is a rumour over in the infrastructure forums that the DoE have instructed councils to draw up a list of tertiary local roads for formal abandonment. I believe ALL local tertiary and most local secondary roads should be formally abandoned and the responsibility for maintenance should be handed over to those who live along them. In urban areas this would obviously be more cost effective for the residents as they would have perhaps 10 metres of road per property to maintain, whereas on effectively private local tertiary roads, this could be many hundreds of metres of road per property.
    But who would make sure the roads were properly serviced so that you could go visit the rural areas, you know to show your urban friends and family the backward natives ?
    murphaph wrote: »
    I know many rural (and urban) dwellers on here have a polar opposite view to mine and that's fine, but can we at least try to discuss how we see things developing politically, rather than the correctness or otherwise of my or anyone else's position. If we start debating that, the thread will be quickly sidetracked.

    It would be nice to debate issues alright, but not with someone who has such a condescending attitude and mindset towards a section of the population who don't happen to live or hail from a certain area.
    murphaph wrote: »
    When I say "elected representatives" I'm not exclusively talking about the Dail.

    I would however disagree that an issue like a Dublin metro, serving an area of a million+ people could be categorised in the same way as a parish hall.

    Who made that comparison ?
    Be japers yer a great man for the ould exaggeration. :D
    Sorry slipped into rural dialect.
    murphaph wrote: »
    Do you at least agree that there should be more local taxation, so urban dwellers can determine what is done with their taxes, like here in Germany? Or do you believe in the centralised system at it exists in Ireland?

    Yep the Germans do a nice line in arrogance and demanding others to bend over.
    murphaph wrote: »
    I'm sure Ireland has seen a rural car thief or drug addict in its time. I'm talking exclusively about communal settlements, so if you live in a one off dwelling, off the mains water supply etc. then I am not referring to you as urban. In the context of the Greater Dublin Region, I would be counting the likes of Leixlip and Maynooth, but not one off houses between the two.

    Convenient you mention two areas with lots of high value industry/educational establishments and along a major motorway.
    Why not mention Bray, Greystones, Roundwood, Blessington ?

    I think you would be wiser including the above because you will not have any drinking water without them. :rolleyes:
    murphaph wrote: »
    You chose NOT to live in close proximity to your fellow man for your own reasons. You cannot and presumably do not expect bus services and mains sewage systems to be run out to your self inflicted isolation.

    Fecking hell I didn't know Liam was a hermit. :eek:
    murphaph wrote: »
    Do you think Dublin should be entitled to see its tax revenue being spent to a greater degree in Dublin?

    See what I said about drinking water above ?
    You keep your taxes and we keep the water.
    Oh and gas and electricity.
    See who gives in first.

    BTW I thought this was about urban versus rural, not Dublin versus the rest ?
    :(

    murphaph wrote: »
    Leixlip would be free to be inside or outside the mayoral region or course, a plebiscite could easily decide that.

    That's nice of ya.
    murphaph wrote: »
    Leixlip would likely benefit from being "inside the Pale" as it would likely see improvements to it's public transport links with the city and West Dublin industrial areas.

    Rural taxpayers don't pay a red cent towards urban lifestyle single parents (not that they don't also exist in rural Ireland) because rural taxpayers don't cover the costs of the social transfers in rural counties. The difference is made up by the likes of Dublin and Cork taxpayers, who cover the entire cost of all social welfare payments within those urban areas, and THEN cover the shortfall in rural counties.

    Cork has been premoted I see.
    They will be happy. :rolleyes:

    Jeeze no wonder so many rural people think that there are a certain brand of Dubs when we see such postings as visible on here.

    This state is made up of 26 counties, some would like it to be the 32 counties on this island, it is not made up of Greater Dublin with a subsistent 24.5/30.5 counties.

    There are swings and roundabouts, there is meant to be give and take.

    If we all chose to adopt your attitude then what is to stop people in South County Dublin from complaining their taxes are going to subsidise residents of Finglas, Crumlin, Sean McDermott St., etc ?
    What is stopping residents of South Dublin from demanding their taxes are not used to provide public transport systems to Dublin's northside since after all they will probably take a taxi to the airport or a car to Ikea on the few occassions they venture north side.

    If we follow your ideal route then indeed in the future your electricity, water and gas costs will be astronomical because the culchies that you chose to punish for daring to live outside the Pale (your words earlier) will be the ones in control of such resources.

    Whether you like it or not, Ireland does not equal Dublin.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    jmayo wrote:
    So poor urban infrastructure has to do with people living in rural areas rather than bad planning and wastage of public money on ill conceived and badly managed projects ?

    If by that you mean projects such as the Western Rail Corridor, then yes, that's certainly part of it.
    wrote:
    Much hyperbole.
    But carry on anyway.

    Absolutely not. It is not uncommon to see small primary schools in rural areas which consist of a small building (possibly adjacent to or connected to a church), with less than, we'll be generous, a couple dozen children in attendance. Do you think having such small schools is (a) good for the taxpayer, (b) good for the education of the children? Meanwhile the school PPP bundles have been subjected to numerous delays.
    You mean they have culchie relatives and are not as urbanly sophisticated as yourself ??

    Why is there a need for this emotional indignation? It's perfectly legitimate to suggest that urban dwellers are not as proactive in calling for urban infrastructure here, as in other cities in other countries, for this reason.
    If we all chose to adopt your attitude then what is to stop people in South County Dublin from complaining their taxes are going to subsidise residents of Finglas, Crumlin, Sean McDermott St., etc ?

    If we follow your ideal route then indeed in the future your electricity, water and gas costs will be astronomical because the culchies that you chose to punish for daring to live outside the Pale (your words earlier) will be the ones in control of such resources.

    Well he never suggested that social transfers stopped, only that we debate the amount and whether local taxation would give cities (and towns or communes) more power to respond better to the needs of urban communities. Indeed jmayo we already have a situation in which people complain about taxes being spent up the road, where the job of politicians is to grab as much money as possible for their neck of the woods, where people feel entitled to this service, that service etc. and where any investment in Dublin is seen by a section of our society as detrimental to everyone else.

    What exactly is wrong with taking a cold, hard look at where the money is coming from and where it is being spent? And what is wrong with the idea of giving urban areas better mechanisms with which to respond to the needs of their citizens? Look at the battles between Cork County and Cork City councils for an excellent example of the current dysfunction at local level.

    Dublin might not be Ireland, but let's not kid ourselves, the country as a whole is more dependent on it doing well than the other way around. We have to take emotional sentiment out of this.
    So what would you do with farms then, not the small holdings but the big ones the produce the food that is consumed in your so call GDA day in day out. ?

    Surely they could be see as a natural resources that are produced with the labour of those who live around them.

    Or would you now like to include the Golden Vale in your GDA

    Farms aren't a natural resource. That would be like saying an office building is a natural resource. I don't see why this is being brought into the debate anyway. I can easily just counter argue that if farmers in the golden vale elected to "hold onto" their food in some form of protest against Dublin and/or Cork, many of them would lose a substantial chunk of the very customer base that allows them to keep going and quickly find themselves out of business.

    How that is relevant to where and how taxes are spent however, I do not know.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    I have no dog in this fight but I have one point
    BluntGuy wrote:
    Do you think having such small schools is (a) good for the taxpayer, (b) good for the education of the children?

    Small schools can be really good for young children.

    The best education system in the world is Finland and they have many small schools.

    There are advantages and disadvantages to large and small schools, from an educational perspective. It is not possible to state that one type will definitely provide a better education.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    jmayo wrote:
    So poor urban infrastructure has to do with people living in rural areas rather than bad planning and wastage of public money on ill conceived and badly managed projects ?

    If by that you mean projects such as the Western Rail Corridor, then yes, that's certainly part of it.
    wrote:
    Much hyperbole.
    But carry on anyway.

    Absolutely not. It is not uncommon to see small primary schools in rural areas which consist of a small building (possibly adjacent to or connected to a church), with less than, we'll be generous, a couple dozen children in attendance. Do you think having such small schools is (a) good for the taxpayer, (b) good for the education of the children? Meanwhile the school PPP bundles have been subjected to numerous delays.
    You mean they have culchie relatives and are not as urbanly sophisticated as yourself ??

    Why is there a need for this emotional indignation? It's perfectly legitimate to suggest that urban dwellers are not as proactive in calling for urban infrastructure here, as in other cities in other countries, for this reason.
    If we all chose to adopt your attitude then what is to stop people in South County Dublin from complaining their taxes are going to subsidise residents of Finglas, Crumlin, Sean McDermott St., etc ?

    If we follow your ideal route then indeed in the future your electricity, water and gas costs will be astronomical because the culchies that you chose to punish for daring to live outside the Pale (your words earlier) will be the ones in control of such resources.

    Well he never suggested that social transfers stopped, only that we debate the amount and whether local taxation would give cities (and towns or communes) more power to respond better to the needs of urban communities. Indeed jmayo we already have a situation in which people complain about taxes being spent up the road, where the job of politicians is to grab as much money as possible for their neck of the woods, where people feel entitled to this service, that service etc. and where any investment in Dublin is seen by a section of our society as detrimental to everyone else.

    What exactly is wrong with taking a cold, hard look at where the money is coming from and where it is being spent? And what is wrong with the idea of giving urban areas better mechanisms with which to respond to the needs of their citizens? Look at the battles between Cork County and Cork City councils for an excellent example of the current dysfunction at local level.

    Dublin might not be Ireland, but let's not kid ourselves, the country as a whole is more dependent on it doing well than the other way around. We have to take emotional sentiment out of this.
    So what would you do with farms then, not the small holdings but the big ones the produce the food that is consumed in your so call GDA day in day out. ?

    Surely they could be see as a natural resources that are produced with the labour of those who live around them.

    Or would you now like to include the Golden Vale in your GDA

    Farms aren't a natural resource. That would be like saying an office building is a natural resource. I don't see why this is being brought into the debate anyway. I can easily just counter argue that if farmers in the golden vale elected to "hold onto" their food in some form of protest against Dublin and/or Cork, many of them would lose a substantial chunk of the very customer base that allows them to keep going and quickly find themselves out of business.

    How that is relevant to where and how taxes are spent however, I do not know.

    This is precisely the point - there are mutually beneficial arrangements all over the place, including the fact that some of my taxes go to pay for childrens allowance and the fact that my living in a rural area meant that "supply & demand" didn't push urban houses even higher; likewise there are benefits in the other direction, such as urban folk paying for produce (although most of the actual profit goes to the likes of Tesco and Dunnes) and going some way to ensure that the road which serves the 5 farms is still "alive" and required.

    If there were a LOGICAL discussion on the topic it may have some merit, but that hasn't happened in this thread where Maynooth and Leixlip are viewed as "urban" while Limerick was dismissed as a "large town", just because those dubious stances suited the OP's preference.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    #15 wrote: »
    Small schools can be really good for young children.

    The best education system in the world is Finland and they have many small schools.

    There are advantages and disadvantages to large and small schools, from an educational perspective. It is not possible to state that one type will definitely provide a better education.

    I agree with your latter point, it's not always clear-cut what the optimum size of school is. However I am talking about schools which would have ~30-60 pupils. Even in Finland with its noted excellence in smaller class sizes at primary and secondary level, the average primary school size is in the order of thrice that.

    It's not possible to definitively suggest the best size for a school like you say, but in my opinion, and in my experience, the range of activities, books, classes teachers etc. a school of such a small size can offer is greatly limited. I don't think it is cost-effective either. Indeed some small schools are so small to the extent that class time is shared between two "classes" of different ages, where often one "class" simply sits in silence reading while a "lesson" is given to the other "class", and sometimes material is simply repeated the following year. This doesn't strike me as a good educational experience.

    To be clear however, I think our education system faces much greater challenges than the size of (an admittedly declining) number of very small schools in rural parts of Ireland. Indeed the argument could be made we could support schools of the average Finnish size and quality, with more resources and more teachers if we started looking at the generosity of teacher's salaries, the quality of education teachers themselves are expected to have received and the role of the Catholic Church. However, that would almost certainly be dragging this off topic so I'll say no more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    If by that you mean projects such as the Western Rail Corridor, then yes, that's certainly part of it.

    Yes the Western Rail corridor is a bad idea since it might only be of use to a few people and is thus a waste of money.

    But what about the Luas or Dublin Port tunnel or the M50.
    When I first went to Dublin the M50 ended at Tallaght.
    It was plainly evident at that stage that it should be three lanes.
    Why not redraft the plans, renegogiate the contracts and make the M50 from Tallaght to Sandyford a three lane from the start ?
    No they went ahead and build a two lane road to Sandyford and then went back and redeveloped the whole thing into a three lane road.
    Wouldn't it have been forward thinking and a bit of what we in the country call "cop on" to have built it right in the first place.
    Look at the issue of the toll bridge.
    How long did that take to sort out?

    The Dublin Port tunnel was not made large enough to future proof for larger trucks.
    Shure we can come along in 30 years time and dig it up again.

    The Luas should have been in operation in the same timescale as the comparable system in Montpellier.
    Of course that is partially down to our archaic planning system.
    Either way, as the Scandanavian visitors couldn't believe, it should be joined rather than two lines that do not even connect.

    What were the cost overruns on these projects ?
    Holy cr** one could have built another line for what was wasted on them.

    All of those decisions were made because of poor politics, poor management and poor planning, not because people live in the countryside as intimated by a previous poster.

    And as someone that is mod of the forums you are, you surely have to agree on those points.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Absolutely not. It is not uncommon to see small primary schools in rural areas which consist of a small building (possibly adjacent to or connected to a church), with less than, we'll be generous, a couple dozen children in attendance. Do you think having such small schools is (a) good for the taxpayer, (b) good for the education of the children? Meanwhile the school PPP bundles have been subjected to numerous delays.

    Actually how many schools exist nowadays where you have a couple of dozen children.
    As something the mods on this fourm are quick to demand, can you back up those statements ?
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Why is there a need for this emotional indignation? It's perfectly legitimate to suggest that urban dwellers are not as proactive in calling for urban infrastructure here, as in other cities in other countries, for this reason.

    But is that the fault of people living outside the urban areas, as the previous poster appears to actually believe ?
    Basically the poster is blaming people because of their ancestry.
    If the poster had said that about a race, a relgious group or sex they would done for being xenophobic, racist, etc.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Well he never suggested that social transfers stopped, only that we debate the amount and whether local taxation would give cities (and towns or communes) more power to respond better to the needs of urban communities.

    Indeed jmayo we already have a situation in which people complain about taxes being spent up the road, where the job of politicians is to grab as much money as possible for their neck of the woods, where people feel entitled to this service, that service etc. and where any investment in Dublin is seen by a section of our society as detrimental to everyone else.

    Yes it is human nature, well in most of the world anyway and particularly Ireland, to want something for yourself or your own area.
    But I don't think anyone has taken it to the extreme viewpoint as prefaced here in this thread.

    Most reasonable people realistically know we have to support certain things, certain areas and get on as one country.
    That is why most sane people know that Dublin should get an area rail transport system and Castlebar should not.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    What exactly is wrong with taking a cold, hard look at where the money is coming from and where it is being spent? And what is wrong with the idea of giving urban areas better mechanisms with which to respond to the needs of their citizens? Look at the battles between Cork County and Cork City councils for an excellent example of the current dysfunction at local level.

    Don't get me started on the whole local councils cr**. :mad:
    I have no problem with local taxation, as in the old form of rates, being used locally.
    But what some posters around here are saying is we will affectively reestablish the pale.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Dublin might not be Ireland, but let's not kid ourselves, the country as a whole is more dependent on it doing well than the other way around. We have to take emotional sentiment out of this.

    But that point leads us to the whole problem with the way the country has been developed.
    We are lopsided.
    Instead of having a few major urban areas we have one big one.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I agree with your latter point, it's not always clear-cut what the optimum size of school is. However I am talking about schools which would have ~30-60 pupils. Even in Finland with its noted excellence in smaller class sizes at primary and secondary level, the average primary school size is in the order of thrice that.

    Yes, that is true. But about 30% of their schools are 3/4 teacher schools. That's a significant percentage.

    I agree that we will be taking the thread way off topic if we continue down this route! I was just making a brief point, that's all :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    jmayo wrote: »
    Yes the Western Rail corridor is a bad idea since it might only be of use to a few people and is thus a waste of money.

    What's even worse is that the ~€100 million could have done so much more in that region, the success of the greenways project in boosting tourism and revitalising local areas is a testament to that.

    However the basis on which that project was campaigned for by groups such as WOT was so-called "balanced regional development". Many of the arguments were "Dublin has _____", or "Look at the cost of the DART, sure look you're getting a great deal lads" without rational appraisal. It was just "we want a railway because Dublin has one".
    All of those decisions were made because of poor politics, poor management and poor planning, not because people live in the countryside as intimated by a previous poster.

    And as someone that is mod of the forums you are, you surely have to agree on those points.

    I agree on all of the examples you raised. The M50 widening is costing us 1 billion, the Luas BXD, 300 million, the original Luas overrun costs greatly, the Dublin Port tunnel... expenses that really did not have to be incurred. Indeed, the reason the lines aren't joined lies more with vested interests in South Dublin that the PDs were pandering to, than trying to appease a more rural-orientated electorate.

    However, a large part of the reason, in general ,that these projects were built half-heartedly, the reason Dublin has a broken rail network with key projects like Metro North and DART Undeground in the toilet, is that the government tends to pay lip service to the urban specific demands. At no point over the last decade has the government looked like it was seriously committed to delivering the "Metro North" for example. A project of such size and expense, could never be debated on its benefits at a national level because to many people it simply reinforced the "Dublin gets everything" narrative - which is obviously electorally damaging.

    Therefore it can be argued that the needs of cities, in particular Dublin, are not being adequately responded to, because the politicians see the electorate as a whole as being more rurally-orientated, and that by placing more emphasis on the needs and wants of rural areas they are more likely to win votes. The lack of local taxation facilitates this. Because all the money slushes about in a central fund from which all is paid for, you could argue it is almost inevitable people will feel hard done by when they see other places getting more services than them, when they see themselves paying the same amount into the same pot, regardless of whether the facts of the matter give merit to this view or not.
    Actually how many schools exist nowadays where you have a couple of dozen children.
    As something the mods on this fourm are quick to demand, can you back up those statements ?

    I linked a graph showing the number of teachers per school from which a reasonable inference can be made about the number of small schools. We can reasonably state that a school with 1-2 teachers is typically not going to have more than 30-60 pupils, when factoring in the other data on class sizes. Further explanation of that graph along with other statistics is available here:

    http://www.education.ie/admin/servlet/blobservlet/des_educ_trends_chapter04.htm#hd04_09

    I did state that the number of these schools was declining and the graph clearly shows this. But in 2006 there were 521 schools with only two teachers which is hardly a small number. As stated before though this isn't the biggest problem facing our education system, and I don't want to drag this thread off on a tangent.
    But is that the fault of people living outside the urban areas, as the previous poster appears to actually believe ?
    Basically the poster is blaming people because of their ancestry.
    If the poster had said that about a race, a relgious group or sex they would done for being xenophobic, racist, etc.

    To be fair I think he was simply stating that because urbanisation (or suburbanisation or whatever term you wish to use) is a relatively new phenomenon here, people might still have an emotional attachment to the countryside, or a mindset that neuters to an extent their desire to push for urban improvements.

    As to whose fault it is the cities have insufficient infrastructure, it's the fault of many people. It's the fault of people with a sense of entitlement who feed into a parochial system of politics, and the fault of politicians for not breaking from that cycle. It's the fault of city authorities with their atrocious planning policies which encourage outward sprawl rather than as another poster articulated earlier in the thread, making the city centre more dense. ABP contribute to this by turning down numerous proposals with heights above their preferences, leaving us polluted with ugly mid-sized 6 storey rubbish. The problem of city needs not being responded to adequately isn't something on which I'd blame one single group. There are many reasons.
    But that point leads us to the whole problem with the way the country has been developed.
    We are lopsided.
    Instead of having a few major urban areas we have one big one.

    A large part that is caused by the joke that is the national spatial strategy. Rather than funnelling appropriate sized investment into select regional centres, we have a complete free for all situation where whoever shouts loudest wins. This system is laughably labelled "balanced regional development". How is Galway meant to become a competitive city when the funds are spread so thinly. You have to pick areas you are going to concentrate investment. Someone will complain that's unfair, but unless you do that we're going to go nowhere. Ireland is a small country and every city except Dublin is small in an international context, we have to plan being cognisant of that reality.

    If there is to be a counterweight to Dublin, it will have to be Cork, and regional funds will have to be concentrated on that city, as well as Galway and Limerick. The same arguments about rural/urban will crop up there.

    @Liam, I think it was "Godge" who referred to Limerick as a "mid-sized town" or such. I don't think it was meant to be disparaging, simply that if you even look across to the UK, there are many towns of similar size to Limerick. Very few of them would have received €600 million tunnels either, along with the M7/M20 motorway upgrades. Indeed, even now work is being carried out upgrading the M7/N24 junction, and improvements to the University if I'm not mistaken are either in planning or being carried out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    What's even worse is that the ~€100 million could have done so much more in that region, the success of the greenways project in boosting tourism and revitalising local areas is a testament to that.

    However the basis on which that project was campaigned for by groups such as WOT was so-called "balanced regional development". Many of the arguments were "Dublin has _____", or "Look at the cost of the DART, sure look you're getting a great deal lads" without rational appraisal. It was just "we want a railway because Dublin has one".



    I agree on all of the examples you raised. The M50 widening is costing us 1 billion, the Luas BXD, 300 million, the original Luas overrun costs greatly, the Dublin Port tunnel... expenses that really did not have to be incurred. Indeed, the reason the lines aren't joined lies more with vested interests in South Dublin that the PDs were pandering to, than trying to appease a more rural-orientated electorate.

    However, a large part of the reason, in general ,that these projects were built half-heartedly, the reason Dublin has a broken rail network with key projects like Metro North and DART Undeground in the toilet, is that the government tends to pay lip service to the urban specific demands. At no point over the last decade has the government looked like it was seriously committed to delivering the "Metro North" for example. A project of such size and expense, could never be debated on its benefits at a national level because to many people it simply reinforced the "Dublin gets everything" narrative - which is obviously electorally damaging.

    Therefore it can be argued that the needs of cities, in particular Dublin, are not being adequately responded to, because the politicians see the electorate as a whole as being more rurally-orientated, and that by placing more emphasis on the needs and wants of rural areas they are more likely to win votes. The lack of local taxation facilitates this. Because all the money slushes about in a central fund from which all is paid for, you could argue it is almost inevitable people will feel hard done by when they see other places getting more services than them, when they see themselves paying the same amount into the same pot, regardless of whether the facts of the matter give merit to this view or not.



    I linked a graph showing the number of teachers per school from which a reasonable inference can be made about the number of small schools. We can reasonably state that a school with 1-2 teachers is typically not going to have more than 30-60 pupils, when factoring in the other data on class sizes. Further explanation of that graph along with other statistics is available here:

    http://www.education.ie/admin/servlet/blobservlet/des_educ_trends_chapter04.htm#hd04_09

    I did state that the number of these schools was declining and the graph clearly shows this. But in 2006 there were 521 schools with only two teachers which is hardly a small number. As stated before though this isn't the biggest problem facing our education system, and I don't want to drag this thread off on a tangent.



    To be fair I think he was simply stating that because urbanisation (or suburbanisation or whatever term you wish to use) is a relatively new phenomenon here, people might still have an emotional attachment to the countryside, or a mindset that neuters to an extent their desire to push for urban improvements.

    As to whose fault it is the cities have insufficient infrastructure, it's the fault of many people. It's the fault of people with a sense of entitlement who feed into a parochial system of politics, and the fault of politicians for not breaking from that cycle. It's the fault of city authorities with their atrocious planning policies which encourage outward sprawl rather than as another poster articulated earlier in the thread, making the city centre more dense. ABP contribute to this by turning down numerous proposals with heights above their preferences, leaving us polluted with ugly mid-sized 6 storey rubbish. The problem of city needs not being responded to adequately isn't something on which I'd blame one single group. There are many reasons.



    A large part that is caused by the joke that is the national spatial strategy. Rather than funnelling appropriate sized investment into select regional centres, we have a complete free for all situation where whoever shouts loudest wins. This system is laughably labelled "balanced regional development". How is Galway meant to become a competitive city when the funds are spread so thinly. You have to pick areas you are going to concentrate investment. Someone will complain that's unfair, but unless you do that we're going to go nowhere. Ireland is a small country and every city except Dublin is small in an international context, we have to plan being cognisant of that reality.

    If there is to be a counterweight to Dublin, it will have to be Cork, and regional funds will have to be concentrated on that city, as well as Galway and Limerick. The same arguments about rural/urban will crop up there.

    @Liam, I think it was "Godge" who referred to Limerick as a "mid-sized town" or such. I don't think it was meant to be disparaging, simply that if you even look across to the UK, there are many towns of similar size to Limerick. Very few of them would have received €600 million tunnels either, along with the M7/M20 motorway upgrades. Indeed, even now work is being carried out upgrading the M7/N24 junction, and improvements to the University if I'm not mistaken are either in planning or being carried out.

    A lot of good points that I agree with, but don't have the time to debate at the moment.

    Nice to see you are having a measured logical debate on this matter, rather than saying it is ALL THE FAULT OF THEM LOT and thus to some of us coming across as someone looking down their nose at "culchies".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    This might not be a bad idea

    With the rest of the country being "so poor" our roads would fall to pieces in no time without the hugely benevolent people of Dublin paying "their subsidies" to maintain them

    This means that the Dubs will then be much less likely to come down the country as their flashy BMW's and Mercs won't appreciate the 3 foot deep potholes that would ensue. They might actually stay inside the pale where they belong

    Every cloud...


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    jmayo wrote: »
    A lot of good points that I agree with, but don't have the time to debate at the moment.

    Nice to see you are having a measured logical debate on this matter, rather than saying it is ALL THE FAULT OF THEM LOT and thus to some of us coming across as someone looking down their nose at "culchies".
    I think you're the first person on the thread to mention "culchies". Can I bring "Jackeens" into it as well?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    @Liam, I think it was "Godge" who referred to Limerick as a "mid-sized town" or such. I don't think it was meant to be disparaging,

    Disparaging / factually incorrect or whatever; it was pathetic and showed that facts were not going to be part of the debate.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Very few of them would have received €600 million tunnels either, along with the M7/M20 motorway upgrades.

    You do realise that you are contradicting yourself ? On the one hand you're acknowledging that Limerick should - along with Galway - get proper investment, and in the next you're saying the above.


    Indeed, even now work is being carried out upgrading the M7/N24 junction, and improvements to the University if I'm not mistaken are either in planning or being carried out.

    "work" (which will things worse) is being done on the N24 junction because it was planned arseways in the first place due to the lack of necessary funds.

    If you want to compare a half-assed and ill-advised installation of traffic lights with the provision of a new lane for the M50, then go right ahead.

    And should I point out that that "urban" junction is further from the city centre than I am ? Are you classing it as urban ?

    Finally, the actual new M7 ring road that that junction spans was only required due to the usual disastrous urban planning; the old ring road was inexplicably ruined by disastrous planning permission given to retail parks which made the road unfit for purpose.

    And yet some of you would have us answerable to the idiots that reclassify such green belts and ring roads (after, of course, their cronies buy them at "agricultural land" prices)

    I wouldn't trust them with my surroundings in a million years!

    Let me ask you this - how many people in urban areas do you know that will be able to help save the environment by parking near enough to their own dwelling to plug in their electric car ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,475 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    As someone with the suburbs 1.5 miles away and who seems to fall under the OP's definition of urban, I would benefit if the resources were used to provide proper facilities within this area and not the more remote ends of the county, but I'm not that selfish.

    Fair enough and I agree, if you want to live outside the infrastructure, you're gonna have to pay for it. And... it looks like it's going to be through the nose for some unfortunates. I already know two people regretting decisions made during the boom, large houses, loads of rooms and bathrooms (weirdly), bills are rising, household tax looming (probably set to increase per sq metre) fuel costs soaring etc... Exactly the stuff discussed in other threads.
    Tipp Man wrote: »
    They might actually stay inside the pale where they belong

    Not gonna happen tipp man, I have seen parts of Tipp you don't know exist! ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    As someone with the suburbs 1.5 miles away and who seems to fall under the OP's definition of urban, I would benefit if the resources were used to provide proper facilities within this area and not the more remote ends of the county, but I'm not that selfish.

    Fair enough and I agree, if you want to live outside the infrastructure, you're gonna have to pay for it.

    I'm not sure what you're agreeing with; at no stage did I suggest that people should pay extra. People in rural areas have already paid for a lot of their own services (septic tanks, water supply) and pay extra for their fuel, bins, electricity, etc; we also don't obviously have the option of foregoing a car because there is no public transport, meaning that the increased costs of fuel and road tax and NCT are not optional luxuries as they would be in a city.

    Indeed, while DART and Luas could be viewed as successes, the fact that the M50 was upgraded in preference to providing additional facilities means that the urban utopia of public transport isn't even in the minds of most of those who can avail of it, let alone anyone else.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    You do realise that you are contradicting yourself ? On the one hand you're acknowledging that Limerick should - along with Galway - get proper investment, and in the next you're saying the above.

    I absolutely am not. That Limerick has received far more in funds than an average similar sized town/city in the UK, does not in any way contradict the point that resources should be focussed on building up Cork, and to a lesser extent Galway and Limerick as urban centres. Cork's urban infrastructure in particular has been chronically under-invested in. Galway's necessary bypass project has not been built. The N17 has not been sorted out and unless PPP funds are found for the motorway, this will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

    Crucially what's lacking in all three is a coherent policy and implementation of building up those urban areas. Indeed we have the opposite happening in Limerick, with the City and County councils set to be merged. We can see in Cork, that the city population is declining with most of the growth in suburban areas. The docklands project in Cork offers a rare example of intelligent thinking and vision but lack of funding has sadly put that on halt and the parts which can be progressed have been subject to arguments between the councils.

    My example of Limerick getting more than the average UK town of a similar size, was to discredit the "Dublin gets everything" notion. There are many towns which have also received far more than they might be expected to receive in the UK. It may have been better to talk about, for example Tullamore, so as not to confuse the issue, but as your location states Limerick, I felt that more appropriate.

    It doesn't contradict any of my points, indeed the fact that it has received those funds and is still not performing to its potential showcases exactly my point that we are not serious about developing our urban areas. Limerick got much of those funds not because the politicians there were serious about developing Limerick as a city, but because they won votes. The evidence is clear: the city centre of Limerick is in many parts a joke. The bus system is a joke. Urban planning as you allude to in your next point, is a joke.
    If you want to compare a half-assed and I'll-advised installation of traffic lights with the provision of a new lane for the M50, then go right ahead.

    Was I comparing it? :confused:
    And should I point out that that "urban" junction is further from the city centre than I am ? Are you classing it as urban ?

    It's largely for the benefit of "urban Limerick" as it enables access to and from the city. But I think you're being a bit pedantic on this point Liam.
    Finally, the actual new M7 ring road that that junction spans was only required due to the usual disastrous urban planning; the old ring road was inexplicably ruined by disastrous planning permission given to retail parks which made the road unfit for purpose.

    Indeed, I'm hardly going to disagree with you. For similar reasons, for example, the Clonmel bypass will need to be bypassed again. But you're actually supporting my point, we are not serious about developing our urban areas properly. Sprawl, not developing public transport
    Let me ask you this - how many people in urban areas do you know that will be able to help save the environment by parking near enough to their own dwelling to plug in their electric car ?

    I actually don't understand what you're asking here, nor do I see how it's relevant. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    BluntGuy wrote: »

    I absolutely am not. That Limerick has received far more in funds than an average similar sized town/city in the UK,

    Why compare it to a "similar sized town" in the UK, though ? Why not compare it to the UK's third largest CITY in order to compare like with like ?

    Or else go the whole hog in the direction that you're trying and decide which "similarly sized town" to Dublin in the UK got a BILLION euro not to create a bypass, but to add ONE LANE, not to mention the toll buyout and the development of the Luas and DART ?

    Edit : Just to be helpful - Glasgow, Birmingham or Leeds are of comparable sizes to Dublin, so you can use those.

    You can't argue it both ways; either Dublin is comparable to London with Limerick comparable to the third largest city, or else both should be comparable to similarly sized towns.

    Galway's necessary bypass project has not been built. The N17 has not been sorted out and unless PPP funds are found for the motorway, this will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

    .....as will any motorway or rail line that doesn't nonsensically spoke towards Dublin. You're suggesting that commerce and transport infrastructure be relegated to provide a bypass for a city that decided to sprawl because too many people moved there.

    I'd be more interested in ensuring that all cities were properly interconnected to allow for transport and tourism. Rosslare is not easily accessible, forcing transport through - surprise surprise - Dublin Port.
    Indeed we have the opposite happening in Limerick, with the City and County councils set to be merged.

    Long overdue due to the fact that the Greater Limerick Area has the industrial estates and businesses and retail parks, and no sensible planning is being done. Limerick COUNTY COUNCIL has completed the suburban bus lane, which then ends when it hits the city boundary because the city planners haven't a clue! Imagine that - a county council that's more progressive than the city one!

    My example of Limerick getting more than the average UK town of a similar size, was to discredit the "Dublin gets everything" notion.

    Your example is farcical for the reasons outlined above. Show me where a "similar size town" in the UK got anywhere near the funding that Dublin has ?
    There are many towns which have also received far more than they might be expected to receive in the UK.

    Yes. Dublin being one of them, if you insist on your "similar size town" parallel instead of comparing first, second and third cities. But you haven't done that because that consistency would undermine your argument completely.
    the city centre of Limerick is in many parts a joke. The bus system is a joke. Urban planning as you allude to in your next point, is a joke.

    At least we agree in something; and since all those are jokes, why in God's name would anyone want to live there ?
    And should I point out that that "urban" junction is further from the city centre than I am ? Are you classing it as urban ?

    It's largely for the benefit of "urban Limerick" as it enables access to and from the city. But I think you're being a bit pedantic on this point Liam.

    I am, based on the many farcical references to "middle of nowhere" and "isolation" in this thread despite me being far far nearer than Leixlip or Maynooth.
    But you're actually supporting my point, we are not serious about developing our urban areas properly. Sprawl, not developing public transport

    Which is why not living in a city is a no-brainer for me.
    Let me ask you this - how many people in urban areas do you know that will be able to help save the environment by parking near enough to their own dwelling to plug in their electric car ?

    I actually don't understand what you're asking here, nor do I see how it's relevant. :confused:

    Because city living is unsustainable and unplanned. If we all went to electric cars tomorrow I can park on my driveway and charge my car overnight; I would suggest that 60% of city and suburban dwellers could not.

    Which is more sustainable and forward-thinking now ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement