Decentralisation

gbh

TempestSabre wrote:

How many of those buildings in Dublin are rented not owned?

Buildings is only part of the cost. Thats why its a Billion+

You are pulling the p**s surely? nobody could really be that ....(how should I phrase this?) ...reluctant to measure the benefits against the costs. and again its like the monty python sketch about asking for charity.. 'yah, but what's in it for me?'

eigrod

gbh wrote:

nobody could really be that ....(how should I phrase this?) ...reluctant to measure the benefits against the costs.

Oh yes there is somebody who is that reluctant. His name is Tom Parlon (TD) and the only figures he has put in the public domain thus far is the one that puts a positive spin on this mess, i.e. the money they aim to get from the sale of buildings. At no point has he addressed the question (despite being asked in numerous interviews) of the ongoing cost of it.

Macy

gbh wrote:

nobody could really be that ....(how should I phrase this?) ...reluctant to measure the benefits against the costs.

Has anyone measured the costs or the benefits? Certainly not the Government, as they know the numbers do not add up. A rough and realistic estimate of the costs has been given, taking us to nearly 2 billion - do you want to use your expert economic mind to do up an realistic estimate of the benefits?

Please take into account the number of rented buildings that can't be sold (and of those, buildings that have many years outstanding on leases which will have to be brought out). Also take into account office space for the 6000 that won't move or the cost of the redundancy package that'll be due if the move or sack them brigade get their way (a massive cost - hence the supposedly voluntary nature of the process).

I look forward to seeing the figures add up in favour of decentralisation.

eigrod

I see on Dept of Finance's website today that Minister Cowen made a presentation today to the Joint Oireachtas Committe on the new NDP 2007-2013.

I note that there isn't one reference to Decentralisation within it. Now, I'm no expert, but when I saw this I trawled through it fully expecting some reference within it. I'm not drawing any conclusions, but I thought it was interesting in its omission.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=3964 (too long to cut and paste the content in this post)

ishmael whale

Just to be clear, I take it that at this stage we have dispensed with all the other folderol that tries to cloud this debate. i.e.

1. It is understood that the regions are subsidised by Dublin taxes and not the other way around

2. It is understood that there is already a good spread of well paid public service jobs throughout the country

3. It is understood that Ireland has a very weak multiplier, as we are a small open economy, so any local benefits from increased demand will be minimal This report estimates, on the basis of assessments of UK decentralisations:

Assuming the multipliers in Figure 3.1 apply in Ireland, they mean that for every 100 public servants who relocate to an Irish town, between 25 and 50 additional new jobs could be created locally as a result of increased expenditure and wider investment and spin-off benefits.

The ‘could’ is significant, as moving a government office to a city of 700,000 like Leeds offers potential for local linkages that, say, moving Fas to Birr just won’t have. But, given this is a Government commissioned report, I think its plain that the idea that each euro generates five more is total nonsense.

4. It is understood that considerable resources are already invested in regional infrastructure

5. It is understood that the real problem in regional development is the need to create a few concentrations of population, and the proposed programme does nothing about that (and in fact the solution to that problem lies in the hands of people in the regions and their local planning authorities).

So that all we are left with is the idea that maybe if the Government sold some Dublin offices/stopped renting and built some in regional locations there might be a saving in accommodation costs. Maybe there would, but do you not feel someone should have worked this out before deciding on the programme?

The only assessment of accommodation costs was made one year after the programme was announced – the executive summary is published here. It suggests that, in theory, we should see the accommodation costs breaking even in 20 years time. I say in theory as its not clear if this report takes account of the decision to keep significant buildings like the Custom House in public hands. Also, there’s no mention of a comparison of the lost to the State of selling a building in the Dublin area that almost certainly will appreciate in value faster than an office in Thomastown. In fact, there’s no actual numbers stated at all – which is sort of strange for a cost assessment.

The coyness about figures is also a feature of the published assessment of non property costs here: which simply lists the kind of things that will cost, without making any assessment of how much they will cost.

If the purpose of this thing was to save money, I think we can take it that these assessments would have been made before the programme was announced, rather than afterwards in response to much media incredulity. I would also take it that if there were any cost savings they’d be splashed all over both documents, Parlon would be planting the figures at every opportunity. Instead of which no money amount is stated at all.

eigrod wrote:

I note that there isn't one reference to Decentralisation within it.

Its a complete embarrassment to them - they have no idea how to get out of it.

TempestSabre

gbh wrote:

You are pulling the p**s surely? nobody could really be that ....(how should I phrase this?) ...reluctant to measure the benefits against the costs. and again its like the monty python sketch about asking for charity.. 'yah, but what's in it for me?'

The intended benefits of this plan (if you call it a plan) are clear. Votes.

The benefits of a well planned decentralisation plan is another thing entrirely.

gbh

I'm not going to waste my time any more with you people. The benefits of decentralisation are plainly obvious. You'd want to be blind not to see them.

As for costs such as 1 billion or two billion, I don't envisage that, but perhaps you in your biased way of making an argument do. However, Mary Harney has committed perhaps a billion and more to solving the A&E crisis in Dublin, reacting to public pressure and the need for votes(same ball game in Dublin as elsewhere). And will it solve the problem? no because it will require a billion this year and a billion the year after and so on.

As for subsidising the regions, I am sayign that the capital is full of people from the regions contributing to the Dublin economy, the most glaring example are our TD's and Senators. Are you going to deny this?

I'm off because you're all mad, mad I tell ya...

Aidan1

the capital is full of people from the regions contributing to the Dublin economy

As someone from 'the regions' working in the 'Dublin economy', I'd like to point out that the 'Dublin economy' is merely a (profitable) part of the national economy, and Dublin is merely a region within the state. Please don't be so divisive, it hurts my feelings.

Nice to see that Minister Cowen shares the feelings of the majority of posters here on regional development, saying today that " ... the goals of the National Spatial Strategy would form the basis of regional development, he indicated the investment must be focused. He noted the economic benefits enjoyed by regions adjacent to developing regions.

"We must avoid the development of a narrow localised mindset and try to ensure an integrated prioritised approach to regional development." (from Ireland.com)

Nice to see that the HSE also take a similar approach, when proposing new health infrastructure. (did someone mention the Hanley Report?)

jd

gbh wrote:

As for subsidising the regions, I am sayign that the capital is full of people from the regions contributing to the Dublin economy, the most glaring example are our TD's and Senators. Are you going to deny this?

I'm off because you're all mad, mad I tell ya...

I'm from "the sticks" too, and I'm not a public servant. This decentralisation "plan" is not a way to promote balanced regional development.

jd

Schuhart

gbh wrote:

I'm not going to waste my time any more with you people. The benefits of decentralisation are plainly obvious. You'd want to be blind not to see them

I've checked back over your posts. You don't seem to have identified any benefits.

gbh wrote:

As for costs such as 1 billion or two billion, I don't envisage that, but perhaps you in your biased way of making an argument do.

But if the plan has no benefits, €1 is too much to pay for it.

However, Mary Harney has committed perhaps a billion and more to solving the A&E crisis in Dublin, reacting to public pressure and the need for votes(same ball game in Dublin as elsewhere).

I don't think that money alone is the problem in the health services, but in any case your logic is flawed. If decentralisation brings no good, then it shouldn't be done regardless of what anyone is doing or not doing about A&E.

gbh wrote:

As for subsidising the regions, I am sayign that the capital is full of people from the regions contributing to the Dublin economy, the most glaring example are our TD's and Senators. Are you going to deny this?

Firstly, decentralisation leaves the Oireachtas in the capital (and if they moved presumably it would stop being the capital). Secondly, the point about who subsidises who seem to be just drawing attention to the fact that the tax paid by people outside Dublin generally stays within their county. Finally, there's a post up above that suggest that every 100 jobs might create another 25-50 downstream jobs. So these 10,000 public sector jobs might support another 5,000 downstream jobs at best. That's less than 1% of the Dublin labour market. Ineffectual as either a way of 'cooling' the Dublin economy or 'heating' the regional economy.

eigrod

Schuhart wrote:

Secondly, the point about who subsidises who seem to be just drawing attention to the fact that the tax paid by people outside Dublin generally stays within their county.

Do people outside Dublin pay taxes ? I got the impression from the numbers of "outside Dubliners" who appear on Winning Streak that they think that buying scratch cards is a legitimate alternative to subscribing to the exchequer.
.
.
.
.
.
I jest (well, sort of )

Victor

gbh wrote:

As for subsidising the regions, I am sayign that the capital is full of people from the regions contributing to the Dublin economy, the most glaring example are our TD's and Senators. Are you going to deny this?

Counting TDs only (one would have to research where Senators live), 43 are from Dublin 123 the rest of the country. Those TDs are presumably doing their census and tax returns from their home constituencies. So TDs are part of the subsidisation of the rest of the country.

NewDubliner

gbh wrote:

Well I think the plan is to sell off offices in Dublin. Much of government property in Dublin is in prime city centre locations where prices usually go for about 50million/acre. That would mean selling 20 acres to finance the new buildings. Shouldn't be too difficult.

But the properties that are owned by the government are, for the most part, not the ones occupied by people whose jobs are being given to the provinces. So, any sale of these properties is not a saving, it's a cost. It's money that could have been spent upgrading the road to Cork, for example.

Whatever about rents down the country being cheaper. you can be sure they'll be much higher when the government goes shopping for a lease & higher again once the office is established.

I'm still waiting for your detailed costings and benefits.

No project should be allowed to start unless the costs are known and the value of the outcomes properly assessed. How will we know if the project is off-target?

Macy

gbh wrote:

The benefits of decentralisation are plainly obvious. You'd want to be blind not to see them.

You should have no problem listing them, and putting a value on them so...

BolBill

The GREATEST mistake the government has made with decentralisation is simply : NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WANT TO GO !!!!!!

All they had to do was mail/contact every Civil Servant and ask them to tick a Yes/No box if interested in decentralisation and then they'd have found out how many wanted to leave Dublin. Instead they f-ing announce in a budget behind our backs to smokescreen a sh*te budget.

Its voluntary, Im staying behind to sit at a desk with no work and cant be made redundant - genius plan.

gazzer

What they should have done at the offset was to look at the transfer request list from every depts human resources office in Dublin and work out how many people wanted to transfer to a certain location(s) and work it out from there... It is just a rediculous situation now.

In the IT area i work in i revenue nobody wants to transfer to Kildare... it looks like the only people they are going to get to move are the contractors (mainly Accenture) that are already making inroads into Revenue and replacing the civil servents anyway.

Unless i decided to move(sell my house and fork out stamp duty cos i wont be a first time buyer) to kildare i would have to get a bus into town, a bus to Hueston Station and then a train to Kildare.. If i were to drive i will have to put my name down for the driving test now cos the waiting list is massive.

I dont particularly want to go to Kildare but if i want to stay working in IT thats what i have to do.. otherwise i will be put into an admin position and i have trained too long to go back to that.

NewDubliner

gazzer wrote:

In the IT area i work in i revenue nobody wants to transfer to Kildare... it looks like the only people they are going to get to move are the contractors (mainly Accenture) that are already making inroads into Revenue and replacing the civil servents anyway.

The whole idea is to demoralise & dislodge the existing IT staff so that Accenture can get a clear run. This is to satisfy the PDs obsession with privitisation & out-sourcing. It also suits the mandarins at Finance who want to break Revenue's control of its own IT systems.

Some of the Accenture folks in your department are quite busy documenting your job so that it can eventually be off-shored to a low-cost economy outside the EU.

The new office, if it actually gets built in Kildare, will be a token office, as Accenture are not obliged to move to Kildare as long as the work gets done. A handful of low-spec staff will be employed there to support the local sandwich-manufacturing economy.

Diaspora

After the Deloitte controvercy on IT where Bertie failed to see de lite I can't see the attraction of outsourcing IT

On a more general theme I note this thread has reached 1458 responses and 73 pages over 2 years.

Well done all

As sister thread has been going since 2003 http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2556
and reached a mere 62 replies

NewDubliner

Diaspora wrote:

After the Deloitte controvercy on IT where Bertie failed to see de lite I can't see the attraction of outsourcing IT

It keeps the PDs happy.

To coin a phrase It's the politics, stupid! (GBH - This 'Decentralisation' scheme is nothing to do with economics)

MadMoss

Macy wrote:

Has anyone measured the costs or the benefits?

Yes, I have examined in detail the report done by my Agency and decentralisation costs 3 times what the sale of our building will make. Our cost per person if brought to a total of 10,000 people being decentralised would estimate a total cost of 1.8 billion. This figure has already been discounted by the sale of buildings. Bear in mind this figure would be spread over 10-15 years. My conclusion is that decentralisation doesn't pay for itself it is a net expense.
I hope this sheds light on cost involved.
There will also be ongoing additional expense for my Agency as we are required to make visits all over the country and it will be harder and more expensive to do that from our decentralised location.
The plan makes no financial sense. In fact I think it's a financial disaster for us. I believe this financial burden puts my Agency in jeopardy. I also believe it puts pointless and permanent financial burden on the exchequer.

Rael

Tom Parlon has refused to appear before next week's all party Oireachtas Committee on Finance and Public Service.

Seems Parlon was due to give a status and progress report on Decentralisation so far but has withdrawn due to a "previous engagement outside Dublin".

Allegedly The Director General of Fás: Roddy Molloy & the Chairman of the Decentralisation Implementation Group: Finbarr Flood will not be appearing either on Wednesday according to last night's Eveneing Herald.

Nice to see three of the main players have such a high regard for the scheme when they can't be bothered to show up, or is it an indictment of the ridiculous nature of the Decentralisation scheme?

TempestSabre

AFAIK know our agency is expect to fund the cost of buying a site and building a new building, (our existing building is rented) and then all other costs from our normal operating budget. So services can only suffer as a result.

eigrod

Rael wrote:

Tom Parlon has refused to appear before next week's all party Oireachtas Committee on Finance and Public Service.

Seems Parlon was due to give a status and progress report on Decentralisation so far but has withdrawn due to a "previous engagement outside Dublin".

Allegedly The Director General of Fás: Roddy Molloy & the Chairman of the Decentralisation Implementation Group: Finbarr Flood will not be appearing either on Wednesday according to last night's Eveneing Herald.

Nice to see three of the main players have such a high regard for the scheme when they can't be bothered to show up, or is it an indictment of the ridiculous nature of the Decentralisation scheme?

That's interesting. I posted earlier that I was amazed that there was not 1 reference to decentralisation in the new NDP 2007-2013 unveiled earlier in the week.

I know I could be miles off, but it does seem that the Government have gone underground on this issue since the FAS dispute was "resolved". Will they really go the year until the election without facing up to the massive issues that have been thrown up by this "project" (I use that word very loosely) ?

NewDubliner

eigrod wrote:

I know I could be miles off, but it does seem that the Government have gone underground on this issue since the FAS dispute was "resolved". Will they really go the year until the election without facing up to the massive issues that have been thrown up by this "project" (I use that word very loosely) ?

Every time the government makes an announcement on 'Decentralisation' it's an opportunity for the lies & spin to be exposed. So, the less said, the easier it is to get away with it. But, it hasn't gone away, you know.

Parlon is presently concentrating on other issues that might shore up his vote in Laois/Offaly.

holly_johnson

Rael wrote:

Allegedly The Director General of Fás: Roddy Molloy will not be appearing either on Wednesday according to last night's Eveneing Herald.

Nice to see three of the main players have such a high regard for the scheme when they can't be bothered to show up, or is it an indictment of the ridiculous nature of the Decentralisation scheme?

Rody Molloy is a civil servant too; I knew him in his former Department, so I wouldn't be surprised if he thought Decentralisation was a load of pants too.

Macy

holly_johnson wrote:

Rody Molloy is a civil servant too; I knew him in his former Department, so I wouldn't be surprised if he thought Decentralisation was a load of pants too.

I'd be very surprised. Only 3 people in FAS are driving decentralisation (and caused the dispute), and he's very much one of them.

TempestSabre

I thought I heard hes from Birr? I could be wrong on that though.

Macy

TempestSabre wrote:

I thought I heard hes from Birr? I could be wrong on that though.

From Birr, or it's surrounds.

holly_johnson

Well, he doesn't live there; or at least he didn't when I knew him

Macy

holly_johnson wrote:

Well, he doesn't live there; or at least he didn't when I knew him

No he doesn't, but it'll be nice for him to see out his days up to retirement at his home place...