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

murphaph · 29-02-2012 4:51pm #1

There are a number of threads currently touching on this rural/urban divide and I'd like to start a new one, solely aimed at tackling the heart of the matter.

There is a worldwide trend towards urbanisation, to which Ireland is not an exception. Ireland has been (slowly, compared to nations who went through the Industrial Revolution) urbanising and this will eventually undoubtedly have an impact upon the type of elected representatives we see in the Dail.

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.

We have overcrowded schools using prefabs and schools with a dozen pupils in rural areas. 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?

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.

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.

I think this is an issue that Ireland needs to face up to. we have been trying to spread the butter far too thinly and it has benefited nobody really. So, will we see an increasing divide at the polls between parties or politicians who wish to focus their representations on urban Ireland? Will ireland forever be a half and half sort of place? Will SF rise to be the standard vote for "working class" estates. Will FG be the future conservative party? Will The Greens rebound to represent "urbanites" and deliver those metros and decent integrated public transport in our cities? Or will we continue the charade that what happened during the civil war has in any way shape or form a bearing on life in modern Ireland?

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.

FreudianSlippers · 29-02-2012 4:54pm

Ireland is not becoming more urban. It has, over the last 20 years, become massively suburban. Dublin, for example, is being left to rot while the focus is on connecting the suburbs outside of Dublin to each other through a "core" where people work.

murphaph · 29-02-2012 5:08pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ireland is not becoming more urban. It has, over the last 20 years, become massively suburban. Dublin, for example, is being left to rot while the focus is on connecting the suburbs outside of Dublin to each other through a "core" where people work.

I take your point and agree with it, but for the purposes of this thread, I think it's fair to say that when people more to suburbs of any city from a rural location, that this process can be called urbanisation. People living in Swords for example are highly likely to want infrastructure in Dublin City Centre, such as Metro North. You get my drift.

Foghladh · 29-02-2012 5:11pm

How about people in Clonee or Balbriggan? What are the limitations for deciding what is rural and what is urban?

FreudianSlippers · 29-02-2012 5:13pm

Foghladh wrote: »

How about people in Clonee or Balbriggan? What are the limitations for deciding what is rural and what is urban?

That's the issue, I would not hesitate to call Kildare a suburb of Dublin now due to the massive amounts of urban sprawl that has occurred over the years.

Foghladh · 29-02-2012 5:24pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's the issue, I would not hesitate to call Kildare a suburb of Dublin now due to the massive amounts of urban sprawl that has occurred over the years.

I'd agree. Dublin has got to the point with sprawl that it'd be a fairly major task to try to accomodate 'urbanites' with an effective infrastructure system. I take urbanites here to mean those that work and benefit the economy of the city. I know of people that have moved as far afield as Athy and Edenderry to live but that continue to work in the capital. We don't have the densely populated, semi-contained urban centres like Stockholm or London. I don't see of any way to effectively (and fairly) balance a rural/urban divide. It's kind of hard for one to exist independently of the other in Ireland.

Liam Byrne · 29-02-2012 5:36pm

murphaph wrote: »

There is a worldwide trend towards urbanisation, to which Ireland is not an exception. Ireland has been (slowly, compared to nations who went through the Industrial Revolution) urbanising and this will eventually undoubtedly have an impact upon the type of elected representatives we see in the Dail.

In what way ? There is no difference between the various con-men that have emerged from Tipperary, Kerry or Dublin in the shape of Lowry, Healy-Rae & O'Donoghue or Ahern, with Ahern being just as bad for parochial crap with his Bertie Bowl as Lowry was for his casino.

What do you view as the "type of elected representatives" that we have, and what do you see it changing to ?

Because if you're talking about having ethical, fair and forward-thinking innovative people in there who don't milk the system through entitlements, I can think of no impact that any urban v rural change would have on that overall goal.

murphaph · 29-02-2012 7:10pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In what way ? There is no difference between the various con-men that have emerged from Tipperary, Kerry or Dublin in the shape of Lowry, Healy-Rae & O'Donoghue or Ahern, with Ahern being just as bad for parochial crap with his Bertie Bowl as Lowry was for his casino.

What do you view as the "type of elected representatives" that we have, and what do you see it changing to ?

Because if you're talking about having ethical, fair and forward-thinking innovative people in there who don't milk the system through entitlements, I can think of no impact that any urban v rural change would have on that overall goal.

Ah Liam, I know only too well that gombeenism isn't an exclusively rural pastime. Dublin ahs elected some right gangsters and I generally view independents as a scourge on the country, even the noble minded ones like Tony Gregory.

I would like to see an option emerge for me as a "middle class" urban voter to vote for (when I eventually return to living in Ireland, as I don't have a vote there, despite still paying income taxes). I note that in my current home city, things like train delays and poor service are MASSIVE electoral issues that people weigh up when voting.

Parties and candidates must target their urban audience here and deliver urban improvements, or they're out. I wonder will Irish city dwellers (including those in the 'burbs) start to demand more for their cities, and only elect politicians who focus more on delivering for their cities, with a similar cohort touting for the rural vote. I wonder will we ultimately see a more federal Ireland with cities "going their own way" so to speak.

Liam Byrne · 29-02-2012 7:32pm

murphaph wrote: »

I would like to see an option emerge for me as a "middle class" urban voter to vote for (when I eventually return to living in Ireland, as I don't have a vote there, despite still paying income taxes). I note that in my current home city, things like train delays and poor service are MASSIVE electoral issues that people weigh up when voting.

That's a local issue, which has nothing to do with a national parliament.

You're proposing "suburban estate pump politics", which is not an improvement on what we currently have.

If train delays are an issue, complain to the equivalent of Iarnród Eireann (or just be grateful that you have an option of a train, which most urban or rural areas in this country don't, since most rail tracks annoying "spoke" from Dublin and are useless for proper inter-city travel) and don't go messing up the national parliament with local issues; that's the sort of crap that has us where we are.

murphaph · 29-02-2012 7:54pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's a local issue, which has nothing to do with a national parliament.

You're proposing "suburban estate pump politics", which is not an improvement on what we currently have.

If train delays are an issue, complain to the equivalent of Iarnród Eireann (or just be grateful that you have an option of a train, which most urban or rural areas in this country don't, since most rail tracks annoying "spoke" from Dublin and are useless for proper inter-city travel) and don't go messing up the national parliament with local issues; that's the sort of crap that has us where we are.

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.

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?

Liam Byrne · 29-02-2012 8:22pm

murphaph wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's a local issue, which has nothing to do with a national parliament.

You're proposing "suburban estate pump politics", which is not an improvement on what we currently have.

If train delays are an issue, complain to the equivalent of Iarnród Eireann (or just be grateful that you have an option of a train, which most urban or rural areas in this country don't, since most rail tracks annoying "spoke" from Dublin and are useless for proper inter-city travel) and don't go messing up the national parliament with local issues; that's the sort of crap that has us where we are.

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.

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?

I would certainly support proper directed taxation, with taxes going to the required services that people avail of.

I wouldn't support it as ADDITIONAL taxation, however, as I am currently not availing of - and have no future plans to avail of - the Luas or M50 or childrens allowance or social housing or urban sewerage or dole, and there is no local bus service or park or sewerage or community centre or library or public paths & lighting or anything the state provides for urbanites following their choices to have kids they can't afford with people they don't know and jump on housing lists in sprawling soulless estates that you arbitrarily class as "urban", paying a licence for Dublin-focussed media that I mostly don't use.

So if you want to allocate according to locality and usage, go right ahead. I know that I'll come off better if the above were the case as I'd be happy paying for "public services" of water and roads and a tiny amount towards a part-time local Garda station with one Garda that isn't exactly a reassurance when urban low-lifes steal a car and come robbing.

Otherwise, accept that taxes are pooled. I've accepted that my taxes are pooled and go towards others in society; I'm just not sure why you object to it.

One other small point : I'm nearer to the city centre than most of this area's suburbs, and given that you arbitrarily view places 30 miles away in another county as "suburbs", your self-suiting standards would actually be classifying me as "urban"; just so you know.

murphaph · 29-02-2012 9:54pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would certainly support proper directed taxation, with taxes going to the required services that people avail of.

I wouldn't support it as ADDITIONAL taxation, however, as I am currently not availing of - and have no future plans to avail of - the Luas or M50 or childrens allowance or social housing or urban sewerage or dole, and there is no local bus service or park or sewerage or community centre or library or public paths & lighting or anything the state provides for urbanites following their choices to have kids they can't afford with people they don't know and jump on housing lists in sprawling soulless estates that you arbitrarily class as "urban", paying a licence for Dublin-focussed media that I mostly don't use.

So if you want to allocate according to locality and usage, go right ahead. I know that I'll come off better if the above were the case as I'd be happy paying for "public services" of water and roads and a tiny amount towards a part-time local Garda station with one Garda that isn't exactly a reassurance when urban low-lifes steal a car and come robbing.

Otherwise, accept that taxes are pooled. I've accepted that my taxes are pooled and go towards others in society; I'm just not sure why you object to it.

One other small point : I'm nearer to the city centre than most of this area's suburbs, and given that you arbitrarily view places 30 miles away in another county as "suburbs", your self-suiting standards would actually be classifying me as "urban"; just so you know.

You seem to be taking this thread very personally Liam. I haven't even classified what I consider urban here. You are free to classify yourself as you please, but expressions like "urban low-lifes" make it fairly clear where you stand.

Anyway, I do not object to taxes being used in a cost effective manner to deliver services to people, nor do I object to my taxes being used to provide a social safety net to those less fortunate and so on. The principal of my taxes supporting others (genuinely) less fortunate is not at issue, which is what you are implying above.

I believe that cities pay for themselves twice over. The figures for Dublin and Cork certainly show this. Both cities export vast amounts of money to other parts of Ireland. Given that about half (probably a bit less) the population of the RoI live in the Greater Dublin Region or Cork, I am wondering when these areas will begin to receive their fair share. I am wondering will we see an option for the voters in these cities that advocates greater autonomy for the cities, with tax raising powers and directly elected mayors (akin to London or Berlin) who can actually decide to build the infrastructure that these cities need, instead of constantly subsidising other parts of the country (the status quo).

I think you grossly under estimate the actual costs associated with one-off housing. The dispersed population means roads maintenance alone is an order of magnitude more expensive to provide. That inefficient Garda station must be maintained and (part-time) staffed and all to achieve what you yourself admit is a poor service. The same goes for the schools with a dozen pupils:the buildings still need to be maintained whether there are a dozen or 500 pupils.

The figures show that social transfers to non-urban centric counties far outweigh the tax take, so the money is being spent on something, regardless of what you think. You say that the state provides libraries and lighting and sewage etc. but it's not the state, it's the urban area itself. Dublin (as an example) sends vast quantities of money to Connaught counties. Dublin taxes pay for Dublin libraries and street lighting and so on, not "state taxes". Dublin generates taxes, gets a fraction of them to spend, then exports the rest to Connaught mostly.

If Dublin and Cork could just keep their own tax revenue, then they'd be able to build the infrastructure they require as modern cities, competing for jobs with the likes of Munich.

Btw, rural German areas sometimes have a very basic bus service (some places might have a couple of buses a day) but these services are paid for by the local communes. Would you be prepared to fund a rural bus service for your area, seeing as you probably wouldn't use it?

woodoo · 29-02-2012 9:58pm

Do you want the entire population of Ireland living in Dublin. Because if you don't then with your plan Dublin would be the richest and best catered for place in the Ireland by a country mile

. Anywhere else would lack the money to have decent services. There is always going to be some level of subvention for less populated areas.

The planning offices can do a lot to design better towns and villages. But having places look after themselves would result in a great Dublin, Cork 2nd etc and on the way down the pecking order until you reach small villages than are potholed kips.

Liam Byrne · 29-02-2012 10:06pm

murphaph wrote:

......expressions like "urban low-lifes" make it fairly clear where you stand.

Are you trying to falsely imply that I am labelling ALL urbanites as such ?

I was specifically referring to the joyriders and thieves that come from urban areas, and so in the correct context the phrasing is accurate.

Do not try to twist the reference beyond that.

Given that about half (probably a bit less) the population of the RoI live in the Greater Dublin Region....

Hang on.....are you talking about urban areas or not ? Because - as I said - I would be living within what would be an equivalent "Greater Limerick Region", and therefore your suggestion would imply that I should have the services that I am paying for such as sewerage or buses.

You say that the state provides libraries and lighting and sewage etc. but it's not the state, it's the urban area itself.

False. Tax revenue is centralised and therefore funds for local services are provided by the state. As I've said, my contributions go towards national roads, national children's allowance, etc.

You mentioned that you don't mind providing a fund for those less fortunate; well those receiving children's allowance - most of whom, by your own admission - are in Dublin & Cork - are not automatically in that bracket, and yet you gloss over that fact. Just as I chose to live where I do and accept the additional costs of my "lifestyle choices", so should they.

Btw, rural German areas sometimes have a very basic bus service (some places might have a couple of buses a day) but these services are paid for by the local communes. Would you be prepared to fund a rural bus service for your area, seeing as you probably wouldn't use it?

What makes you assume that I "probably wouldn't use it" ? And given your all-embracing "Greater Dublin Area" and the fact that I am 3 miles from a city centre and therefore in an equivalent area (closer than most of the soulless uburban sprawl) why are you not supporting the claim that such an area should be serviced from taxes, given that you support this for the area that suits your argument ?

Are you in all honestly just arguing for services in the "Greater Dublin Area" because that is what you want, and disguising it as a general approach for all "greater" areas around cities in order to make it less objectionable ?

murphaph · 29-02-2012 10:14pm

woodoo wrote: »

Do you want the entire population of Ireland living in Dublin. Because if you don't then with your plan Dublin would be the richest and best catered for place in the Ireland by a country mile . Anywhere else would lack the money to have decent services. There is always going to be some level of subvention for less populated areas.

The planning offices can do a lot to design better towns and villages. But having places look after themselves would result in a great Dublin, Cork 2nd etc and on the way down the pecking order until you reach small villages than are potholed kips.

It's not just Dublin. I'm talking about all of Ireland's cities having the ability to elect their own executive mayors, with tax raising and spending powers.

The question is, why should sparsely populated areas for one second assume they are entitled to decent services. I would argue that sparsely populated areas would naturally suffer a dearth of services. That should be an advantage of living in an urban area-services on one's doorstep.

Foghladh · 29-02-2012 10:14pm

murphaph wrote: »

I believe that cities pay for themselves twice over. The figures for Dublin and Cork certainly show this. Both cities export vast amounts of money to other parts of Ireland. Given that about half (probably a bit less) the population of the RoI live in the Greater Dublin Region or Cork, I am wondering when these areas will begin to receive their fair share. I am wondering will we see an option for the voters in these cities that advocates greater autonomy for the cities, with tax raising powers and directly elected mayors (akin to London or Berlin) who can actually decide to build the infrastructure that these cities need, instead of constantly subsidising other parts of the country (the status quo).

I think you grossly under estimate the actual costs associated with one-off housing. The dispersed population means roads maintenance alone is an order of magnitude more expensive to provide. That inefficient Garda station must be maintained and (part-time) staffed and all to achieve what you yourself admit is a poor service. The same goes for the schools with a dozen pupils:the buildings still need to be maintained whether there are a dozen or 500 pupils.

The figures show that social transfers to non-urban centric counties far outweigh the tax take, so the money is being spent on something, regardless of what you think. You say that the state provides libraries and lighting and sewage etc. but it's not the state, it's the urban area itself. Dublin (as an example) sends vast quantities of money to Connaught counties. Dublin taxes pay for Dublin libraries and street lighting and so on, not "state taxes". Dublin generates taxes, gets a fraction of them to spend, then exports the rest to Connaught mostly.

If Dublin and Cork could just keep their own tax revenue, then they'd be able to build the infrastructure they require as modern cities, competing for jobs with the likes of Munich.

It kinda sounds like you'd like to abolish the idea of central government and split the country up into a number of autonomous regions.

Here's a question for you. What exactly happens to the resources of the state that happen to lie outside the Greater Dublin or Cork urban areas?

murphaph · 29-02-2012 10:22pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you trying to falsely imply that I am labelling ALL urbanites as such ?

I was specifically referring to the joyriders and thieves that come from urban areas, and so in the correct context the phrasing is accurate.

Do not try to twist the reference beyond that.

Hang on.....are you talking about urban areas or not ? Because - as I said - I would be living within what would be an equivalent "Greater Limerick Region", and therefore your suggestion would imply that I should have the services that I am paying for such as sewerage or buses.

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.

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.

Do you think Dublin should be entitled to see its tax revenue being spent to a greater degree in Dublin?

Liam Byrne · 29-02-2012 10:32pm

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.

Are you serious ? The entire road has houses all along it - including a number of cul-de-sacs running perpendicular with a number of houses each - and further development was prevented to avoid over-congestion.

Please stop basing your argument on rubbish by bringing in imagined observations that you clearly know nothing about.

BTW - I'm on the water mains, so that argument is rubbished too.

By all means try to support your argument based on facts, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt thus far, but any more introduction of ridiculous contrived and false assumptions will be considered trolling and not worth replying to.

Do you think Dublin should be entitled to see its tax revenue being spent to a greater degree in Dublin?

Only if it's not hijacking the income from other areas that you're arbitrarily choosing to claim, like Leixlip, and only if I don't need to pay for social housing and childrens allowance for those whose "self-imposed parenthood" was their lifestyle choice.

murphaph · 29-02-2012 10:35pm

Foghladh wrote: »

It kinda sounds like you'd like to abolish the idea of central government and split the country up into a number of autonomous regions.

Here's a question for you. What exactly happens to the resources of the state that happen to lie outside the Greater Dublin or Cork urban areas?

No I wouldn't abolish central government completely. I would leave income taxes under central government control as well as PRSI and social welfare. There would still be an element of social transfers taking place from the cities to rural Ireland, but the cities would see more of their wealth stay within them in the form of better infrastructure (things like quality public transport that are considered essential in other European cities).

Given that there would still be social transfers from the cities to rural Ireland, I would see no need to change the status of any of the resources of the state (though Ireland is not really endowed with abundant resources anyway, but I would be happy if the Western Seaboard could support itself with wind generated energy or whatever). In any case, natural resources are not generated by the coming together of peoples, as is the case with city generated wealth. Natural resources are just there, not because of the labours of people who live near them.

murphaph · 29-02-2012 10:39pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you serious ? The entire road has houses all along it - including a number of cul-de-sacs running perpendicular with a number of houses each - and further development was prevented to avoid over-congestion.

Please stop basing your argument on rubbish by bringing in imagined observations that you clearly know nothing about.

BTW - I'm on the water mains, so that argument is rubbished too.

By all means try to support your argument based in facts, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt thus far, but any more introduction of ridiculous contrived and false assumptions will be considered trolling and not worth replying to.

Liam, you've made your own false assumptions too, so less of the indignation please

You then wouldn't classify your property as rural? Rather suburban?

Liam Byrne · 29-02-2012 10:45pm

murphaph wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you serious ? The entire road has houses all along it - including a number of cul-de-sacs running perpendicular with a number of houses each - and further development was prevented to avoid over-congestion.

Please stop basing your argument on rubbish by bringing in imagined observations that you clearly know nothing about.

BTW - I'm on the water mains, so that argument is rubbished too.

By all means try to support your argument based in facts, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt thus far, but any more introduction of ridiculous contrived and false assumptions will be considered trolling and not worth replying to.

Liam, you've made your own false assumptions too, so less of the indignation please

You then wouldn't classify your property as rural? Rather suburban?

You're the one proposing this, you're the one arbitrarily including Leixlip, and you're the one avoiding any mention of social housing and children's allowance.

Given that you're happy to include Leixlip in order to maximise "your region's" income, you should be doing the definitions.

So you tell me what - in the context of a "Greater Dublin Area" that you decided includes other counties and their taxes - what a built-up (just not a sprawling estate - "commune" I think your description was) that is between two suburbs as the crow flies and is 3 miles from the dead centre of the city would be classified as in your "ideal" dictionary.

murphaph · 29-02-2012 10:46pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Only if it's not hijacking the income from other areas that you're arbitrarily choosing to claim, like Leixlip, and only if I don't need to pay for social housing and childrens allowance for those whose "self-imposed parenthood" was their lifestyle choice.

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

murphaph · 29-02-2012 10:53pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're the one proposing this, you're the one arbitrarily including Leixlip, and you're the one avoiding any mention of social housing and children's allowance.

Given that you're happy to include Leixlip in order to maximise "your region's" income, you should be doing the definitions.

So you tell me what - in the context of a "Greater Dublin Area" that you decided includes other counties and their taxes - what a built-up (just not a sprawling estate - "commune" I think your description was) that is between two suburbs as the crow flies and is 3 miles from the dead centre of the city would be classified as in your "ideal" dictionary.

You should ask more questions before assuming anything. No counties or people in the GDA would be forced into anything-nothing would be done without plebiscites being taken, but I assume that many areas (towns and villages) adjacent to Dublin would be voluntarily part of a GDA as they might likely get the DART upgrades that they need for their commuters (who mostly work inside Dublin proper).

Liam Byrne · 29-02-2012 10:56pm

murphaph wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Only if it's not hijacking the income from other areas that you're arbitrarily choosing to claim, like Leixlip, and only if I don't need to pay for social housing and childrens allowance for those whose "self-imposed parenthood" was their lifestyle choice.

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

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.

Oh - one other point :

Rural taxpayers don't pay a red cent towards urban lifestyle single parents

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 ?

Liam Byrne · 29-02-2012 11:09pm

murphaph wrote: »

You should ask more questions before assuming anything. No counties or people in the GDA would be forced into anything-nothing would be done without plebiscites being taken, but I assume that many areas (towns and villages) adjacent to Dublin would be voluntarily part of a GDA as they might likely get the DART upgrades that they need for their commuters (who mostly work inside Dublin proper).

Laughing my ass off at the irony of the embolden parts!

So you're happy to provide transport to a city that they chose not to live for them and their neighbours, but not for me and mine.

As I said, making up rules to suit your argument and predefined agenda.

Fr Tod Umptious · 29-02-2012 11:27pm

murphaph wrote: »

Given that there would still be social transfers from the cities to rural Ireland, I would see no need to change the status of any of the resources of the state (though Ireland is not really endowed with abundant resources anyway, but I would be happy if the Western Seaboard could support itself with wind generated energy or whatever). In any case, natural resources are not generated by the coming together of peoples, as is the case with city generated wealth. Natural resources are just there, not because of the labours of people who live near them.

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

Foghladh · 29-02-2012 11:44pm

murphaph wrote: »

No I wouldn't abolish central government completely. I would leave income taxes under central government control as well as PRSI and social welfare. There would still be an element of social transfers taking place from the cities to rural Ireland, but the cities would see more of their wealth stay within them in the form of better infrastructure (things like quality public transport that are considered essential in other European cities).

Given that there would still be social transfers from the cities to rural Ireland, I would see no need to change the status of any of the resources of the state (though Ireland is not really endowed with abundant resources anyway, but I would be happy if the Western Seaboard could support itself with wind generated energy or whatever). In any case, natural resources are not generated by the coming together of peoples, as is the case with city generated wealth. Natural resources are just there, not because of the labours of people who live near them.

Natural resources may just be there but in many cases so are the resources currently located in the urban areas like Dublin. Our transport system is geared towards a central hub, our government is, sports facilities, medical. Naturally industry follows for accesibility and those industries feed off the hinterlands. It's rather more a symbiotic relationship and is the result of a government policy going back decades. The abolition of domestic rates back in the 70's and the subsequent central government allocations to local authorities affirmed that intention. Local authorities in Ireland aren't geared to revenue generation and weren't meant to be.

It seems to me that what you propose would penalise those living outside the urban sprawl and encourage its spread.
It is different in other european cities, where you get high density compact living and you can develop an efficient infrastructure system. As has been noted earlier Dublin is by no means urban. It is a suburban spread that covers parts of 4 counties and hence cannot be compared with a city of similar population. The cost of providing even a localised transit system in the city centre would prove beyond the capacities of a municipal tax system and I dread to think what the cost of servicing the GDA would be. Suffice to say I wouldn't like to get my share of the tax bill through the letter box. Either way you'd end up with a slightly smaller version of what you claim exists today. Parts of the Dublin area would end up subsidising the transport needs of another. Parts of the area are more cash generating than others.

Having said that I'm not opposed to a Dublin municipal tax being levied and used in Dublin for whatever they see fit. I am opposed to the idea that if 'X percentage of people live in this area, then X percentage of national revenue should be spent solely on this area'.

Liam Byrne · 29-02-2012 11:44pm

Natural resources are just there, not because of the labours of people who live near them.[/b]

Tell that to Shell & the oil companies.....
:rolleyes:

Actually, Mayo & Connaught would probably be well sorted if they kept that amount, as per murphman's rules.

And of course Cork & Munster could have kept the gas field without building that pesky pipeline infrastructure all the way to Dublin through the rural areas, making gas much cheaper for everyone due to proper supply and demand.

The same with the water from the Shannon and the electricity generated by Ardnacrusha and Moneypoint. Or whatever will be generated by wind & wave power along the west coast when we eventually get our act together.

Dublin could then build a nuclear reactor - within its GDA of course, right on its own doorstep - to look after its own power needs. And if it can't reach demand we could sell it at €100 per unit.

All sorted, so! Great idea murphman!

John_Rambo · 29-02-2012 11:55pm

murphaph wrote: »

If Dublin and Cork could just keep their own tax revenue, then they'd be able to build the infrastructure they require as modern cities, competing for jobs with the likes of Munich

Won't happen. Rural Ireland has become far too reliant on the money. As for the one off housing? People can't see the wood for the trees... it's a disaster, an obvious one to people with a bit of foresight, but, you may as well be talking to the wall if you think you are going to try and change some minds here. But, they (and others are right now) seeing the folly of their ways when it comes to kids, school runs, sports, fuel prices, heating, fragmented communities, increasing price of services etc... There's also an obvious immature hatred of Dublin that is mixed in with a lack of knowledge of the place too.

Liam Byrne · 29-02-2012 11:57pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

If Dublin and Cork could just keep their own tax revenue, then they'd be able to build the infrastructure they require as modern cities, competing for jobs with the likes of Munich

Won't happen. Rural Ireland has become far too reliant on the money. As for the one off housing? People can't see the wood for the trees... it's a disaster, an obvious one to people with a bit of foresight, but, you may as well be talking to the wall if you think you are going to try and change some minds here. But, they (and others are right now) seeing the folly of their ways when it comes to kids, school runs, sports, fuel prices, heating, fragmented communities, increasing price of services etc... There's also an obvious immature hatred of Dublin that is mixed in with a lack of knowledge of the place too.

Unbelievably condescending. All that just because some people don't agree with you ?

Rural living is more expensive, but we get the above for daring to have alternate priorities for our "lifestyle choices".

Having kids is also a lifestyle choice, and yet there's no-one spouting the above tripe in relation to those expenses, and people accept those of us who choose otherwise and don't expect others to foot the bill HAVING to foot said bills.

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.

Foghladh · 01-03-2012 12:36am

John_Rambo wrote: »

Won't happen. Rural Ireland has become far too reliant on the money. As for the one off housing? People can't see the wood for the trees... it's a disaster, an obvious one to people with a bit of foresight, but, you may as well be talking to the wall if you think you are going to try and change some minds here. But, they (and others are right now) seeing the folly of their ways when it comes to kids, school runs, sports, fuel prices, heating, fragmented communities, increasing price of services etc... There's also an obvious immature hatred of Dublin that is mixed in with a lack of knowledge of the place too.

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.

mikemac1 · 01-03-2012 1:06am

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

murphaph · 01-03-2012 9:40am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

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.

murphaph · 01-03-2012 9:49am

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.

murphaph · 01-03-2012 10:03am

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.

Liam Byrne · 01-03-2012 10:47am

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.

Cú Giobach · 01-03-2012 11:04am

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.

Godge · 01-03-2012 11:38am

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.

Fr Tod Umptious · 01-03-2012 12:25pm

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.

Liam Byrne · 01-03-2012 1:03pm

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.

John_Rambo · 01-03-2012 1:53pm

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?

Foghladh · 01-03-2012 1:58pm

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!

Liam Byrne · 01-03-2012 2:18pm

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.

AlekSmart · 01-03-2012 2:27pm

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.

RichardAnd · 01-03-2012 2:42pm

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.

jmayo · 01-03-2012 2:43pm

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.

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.

BluntGuy · 01-03-2012 4:42pm

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.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

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.

#15 · 01-03-2012 5:19pm

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.

Liam Byrne · 01-03-2012 5:49pm

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.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

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.

BluntGuy · 01-03-2012 6:07pm

#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.

jmayo · 01-03-2012 6:17pm

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.

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

Comments