Ikea for Cherrywood?

Tragedy

josip wrote: »

My post addresses a number of points raised by you, Ted1 and SlutMonkey. My point is still completely valid, that for any given budgetary year, my rates would be lower if there are additional sources of rates such as Ikea, than if those sources were not present.

As stated, if DLR CC know they're getting an extra €1.1m rates from Ikea per year, they'll increase the budget by €1.1m. If it was 100 small businesses paying €11k each. I'd agree with you.

Your basic point is still "I don't care who does what, or where, as long as I get to pay less" which is a selfish and shortsighted view and typical of what caused many of the planning disasters during the boom.

Absolutely nothing you've posted has run counter to that.

Regarding your FYI, the 2013 council budget provisions for a Local Government Fund Grant of €24,772,300. Commercial rates to be levied will be €82,869,000. Please provide the source of your statement that the majority of the CoCo's funding comes from the exchequer.

My apologies, country wide, the majority of the County Councils funding comes from the Exchequer rather than rates. In 2008 (the last year I can find figures for), 45% of aggregate County Council funding came from the Local Government Fund with the remainder coming from own income and commercial rates.

josip

Tragedy wrote: »

My apologies, country wide, the majority of the County Councils funding comes from the Exchequer rather than rates. In 2008 (the last year I can find figures for), 45% of aggregate County Council funding came from the Local Government Fund with the remainder coming from own income and commercial rates.

You were referring to DLR CoCo which was the subject of this thread.

Tragedy wrote: »

Also just as an fyi, the majority of the CoCo's funding comes from the exchequer, which comes from taxes, which we all pay in one way or another.

2008 percentages are 5 years out of date.
And since when did 45% constitute a majority?

Tragedy

josip wrote: »

You were referring to DLR CoCo which was the subject of this thread.

Yes, and I already apologised for using the figure that was for the aggregate County Councils rather than DLR.

2008 percentages are 5 years out of date.

Please provide updated ones or be quiet, unless you have evidence to show that the proportion has changed drastically in the meantime.

And since when did 45% constitute a majority?

45% from Local Government Funds, ~21% from own income and ~30% from rates.

By majority I meant the largest grouping, which wasn't totally accurate I guess.


Now, do address why you're taking the selfish attitude of "People/Companies can do anything once it reduces my rates and damn the long term consequences"?
If you don't like paying rates so much, close your business.

Larbre34

Emmmm, Mods?

Tabnabs

Larbre34 wrote: »

Emmmm, Mods?

Mods no longer have the power of omnipresence, it gets the Atheist forum all wound up.

If you've a problem, hit the button.

josip

Tragedy wrote: »

Please provide updated ones or be quiet, unless you have evidence to show that the proportion has changed drastically in the meantime.

I have already provided the 2013 budgetary figures for DLR CoCo which is the subject of this topic. Rate revenue is over 3 times more than Local Government Funds.

Tragedy wrote: »

By majority I meant the largest grouping, which wasn't totally accurate I guess.

Inaccurate regarding DLR Coco.

Tragedy wrote: »

Now, do address why you're taking the selfish attitude of "People/Companies can do anything once it reduces my rates and damn the long term consequences"?

Please point out where I said anything like the above or,

Tragedy wrote: »

"I don't care who does what, or where, as long as I get to pay less"

The most extreme statement I can find that I said was “I would appreciate all the help I can get in the short to medium term to lessen that burden.”

Also, where did I complain “so much” about paying rates?

Tragedy wrote: »

If you don't like paying rates so much, close your business.

I have said multiple times only that I would appreciate if DLR had other sources of rates, such as Ikea to contribute to the overall revenue.
But I have usually repeated it in response to other posts and questions about my position.

And in order to remain on topic , that position is still, "I would like Ikea to come to Cherrywood"

Slutmonkey57b

josip wrote: »

Slutmonkey, ted1 and tragedy. Do you pay rates?
Do any of you live in DLR county?
Who funds your local services?
It's not unreasonable for those who are funding those services to want as much assistance as possible.

Green leafy suburbs are lovely to live in but they won't pay for the lights on your street or the council to maintain the parks.

I agree that the Killiney Towers roundabout has been a fiasco and I have no knowledge of Braemor Road save what I read on boards. However I do know that total expenditure to date on the Killiney Towers roundabout will be €430,000. I don't have figures for Braemor Road. Ikea alone would annually bring in €1,100,000 in commercial rates.

The idea that we shouldn't increase the revenue side of the budget but instead focus entirely on cost savings within the council is an easy but short sighted argument to make. Of course there are areas of spending in the council that need to be addressed and I would be a lot more actively critical of the council than many, but any business whose revenue stagnates will not survive for long.

Err... how do you get this figure of 1.1m? For a structure/business which doesn't even have planning permission, and won't be built, if approved, for several years? Do you have sight of council budgets for 5 years time?

Look at the developer's plan again. They propose to have this huge development with how many entrances/exits? one off the n11 (northbound traffic only). One off the carrickmines roundabout ( sharing an entry point to the m50 with all the traffic from carrickmines park and the narrow unsuitable bridge). One off the cherrywood exit which already struggles with average/low volumes and isn't a free flow.

So even assuming your 1.1m figure isn't pulled from thin air (or even less helpfully from the developer), how much work and cost would be required to manage the massively increased traffic flow of 8 thousand houses and an shopping mecca bigger than dundrum?

And I've never disputed that rate payers pay for services, but that's true for everyone. The argument "I pay more than paye plebs so my rights are more important" is fundamentally undemocratic and wrong. Should a top rate income tax payer have more human rights than someone on minimum wage?

josip

It's nice to be able to reply to a pleasantly worded post.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Err... how do you get this figure of 1.1m? For a structure/business which doesn't even have planning permission, and won't be built, if approved, for several years?

Pure conjecture and anecdotal speculation. A friend of mine, let's call him Dangerous Dave, works in the valuation office and said that a similarly sized Ikea to Ballymun, located in Cherrywood, at DLR's 2013 Rateable valuation, would come in around €1.1m. Give or take a few Range Rovers and K-club memberships.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

One off the cherrywood exit which already struggles with average/low volumes and isn't a free flow. Do you have sight of council budgets for 5 years time?

The Junction at Ballymun isn't freeflow either but I do take your point about the Carrickmines junction. My experience of it is limited to the Tullyvale roundabout twice daily and that part currently does not function properly at either rush hour. But if all those commuters, instead of rushing home at the same time, had a nice Ikea to call into, it would smooth out traffic flows a bit

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The argument "I pay more than paye plebs so my rights are more important" is fundamentally undemocratic and wrong. Should a top rate income tax payer have more human rights than someone on minimum wage?

I don’t think that’s what I said. AFAIR I said,

“It's not unreasonable for those who are funding those services to want as much assistance as possible.”

Which is a bit different. I was simply explaining why I wanted Ikea at Cherrywood.

By the way, I don't pay any more/less tax than a non owner/self employed PAYE worker. I'm on the same rates. The PRSI rates are less but so are the benefits.

ted1

josip wrote: »

Who said I personally pay them? Does your company also pay you to post on boards during work time ? IT, to answer your question.

you did many times in on this thread.

josip wrote: »

I'm not going to forget the 50,000 I have paid out to DLR over the last 10 years as a rate payer. I would appreciate all the help I can get in the short to medium term to lessen that burden.

josip wrote: »

my rates would be lower

josip

josip wrote: »

Who said I personally pay them?

ted1 wrote: »

you did many times in on this thread.

I'd rather not get into a terminology argument, because I'd probably lose, but I did say I, "as a rate payer" rather than "personally".

Please go back to my post at 17:46 yesterday that you quoted. You'll see I edited it 1 minute later. Take a look at the previous version. What is the difference between the 2 posts?

I have tried to be careful not to claim that I personally pay the rates since they are paid by the company which is a wholly distinct entity to me the individual. But with the company being 100% owned by me, they are ultimately, post taxes, a cost to me, so it's natural that I would have an interest in ensuring that cost is not any bigger than it has to be. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous.

ted1

rates are a cost of doing business.

do you honestly think if IKEA paid commercial rates they would reduce others?

no, they would spend in something stupid.

like a library, reinstating the world culture festival, an consultant to tell them what to do with Dun Laoighre baths, (then do nothing)

I can gurantee you that you will see no reduction in rates.

josip

ted1 wrote: »

I can gurantee you that you will see no reduction in rates.

While that may very well be the case, is that a valid reason to oppose additional sources of revenue.

"We don't want Ikea to come to Cherrywood partly because we believe DLR CoCo would waste the additional revenue"

I don't think that's exactly you or some of the other posters meant, but if I was to cherry pick pieces from various posts it would be one possible interpretation.

josip

And was the festival of world culture stupid? I always enjoyed the atmosphere, but maybe I'm out of touch with the general consensus.

ted1

cost wise it didn't do much. and its an example of how the extra rates will be sent.

OssianSmyth

Would IKEA in Cherrywood really increase employment and lower rates when you count the jobs and rates lost from the existing small shops that would be displaced?

Is the big box / "free" parking model not outdated in an era of high oil prices? Why not make IKEA deliver for a fiver to public transport customers rather than generate so many individual trips? An IKEA store generates approx 4 million car trips per year.

josip

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Would IKEA in Cherrywood really increase employment and lower rates when you count the jobs and rates lost from the existing small shops that would be displaced?

Is the big box / "free" parking model not outdated in an era of high oil prices? Why not make IKEA deliver for a fiver to public transport customers rather than generate so many individual trips? An IKEA store generates approx 4 million car trips per year.

IMO Ikea Cherrywood would have a bigger impact on Ikea Ballymun than on local furniture shops. People who like Ikea will already probably be going to Ballymun. People who don't like Ikea wouldn't be tempted even if it opened in their neighbour's garden.

A lot of people, me included, like to touch, feel, sit on, bounce, kick whatever it is we buy before we hand over the money. I wouldn't be interested in an online model for a lot of what Ikea sells. Besides, the meatballs would be cold by the time they were delivered.

wolfpawnat

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Would IKEA in Cherrywood really increase employment and lower rates when you count the jobs and rates lost from the existing small shops that would be displaced?

Is the big box / "free" parking model not outdated in an era of high oil prices? Why not make IKEA deliver for a fiver to public transport customers rather than generate so many individual trips? An IKEA store generates approx 4 million car trips per year.

There is no other shops in the locality for them to effect. Maybe Woodies in Carrickmines. As for employment, there would surely be at least 20-30 people off the dole queue minimum with them.

Don't IKEA have a home delivery service, if they did then people could use the 7, 84, 145 and luas to get there easily enough and not clog the place with cars.

josip

OssianSmyth wrote: »

An IKEA store generates approx 4 million car trips per year.

That is a very, very big number of cars. I'm surprised Ikea don't get into the petrol market. I'm having trouble reconciling the numbers in that article and would like someone to check my logic.

3.9m / 364 = 10,714 cars per day and assuming an average of a 10 hour opening day = 1,071 cars/hour
But Ikea engineer said only 129 cars/hour would use the M50.
Do cars=trips? Are there really 900 cars an hour coming from the Ballymun side?
What have I missed/gotten wrong?

Aard

It seems to have quelled, but the argument about rates or indeed any financial contribution to DLR by Ikea is irrelevent. Granted it is an important argument, and indeed topical given the introduction of the property tax, but it has no bearing on whether planning permission for an Ikea store should be granted.

The whole Cherrywood SDZ has been in planning for a long time. It is an incredible example of forward planning (in Ireland that is), as opposed to the traditional developer-led model. The SDZ includes all the lands between the M50 and the N11, covering a huge area, which can all be planned at once. I might note here that this is the way things are done in places like Germany and the Netherlands, although they go into far more detail. Retail warehousing has specifically been disallowed -- I don't think that DLR are doing this for the good of their health, or even because of NIMBYs (nobody lives there yet...).

This doesn't really have anything to do with Ikea per se. It's just that an Ikea store demands a type of land use that is incompatible with the Cherrywood zonings. There are other parts of DLR that do allow retail warehousing.

The argument about whether Dublin needs another Ikea or not is moot; that's really up to Ikea.

Bits_n_Bobs

Aard wrote: »

The whole Cherrywood SDZ has been in planning for a long time. It is an incredible example of forward planning (in Ireland that is), as opposed to the traditional developer-led model. The SDZ includes all the lands between the M50 and the N11, covering a huge area, which can all be planned at once. I might note here that this is the way things are done in places like Germany and the Netherlands, although they go into far more detail

Yeah - its a paragon of planning alright;

Loughlinstown was, prior to 1990 a scenic area directly south of Dublin city on the Wexford road, site of the first dual carriageway in Ireland. In 1991, an intensive IR£800,000 public relations (PR) campaign to generate local support for the rezoning of hundreds of acres in Loughlinstown and nearby Cabinteely was spearheaded by public relations consultant and sports broadcaster Bill O'Herlihy and later by PR consultant and former political secretary Frank Dunlop. Some councillors firmly resisted the rezoning, supposedly concerned about the commercial and social welfare of nearby Dún Laoghaire but are alleged to have ensured that there was sufficient support from colleagues whose political bases were elsewhere. The rezoning was approved.

Fianna Fáil politician Liam Lawlor was presented at a public meeting concerning nearby Cherrywood as his party's "planning expert".

Source: Wikipedia

josip

Aard wrote: »

It seems to have quelled, but the argument about rates or indeed any financial contribution to DLR by Ikea is irrelevent. Granted it is an important argument, and indeed topical given the introduction of the property tax, but it has no bearing on whether planning permission for an Ikea store should be granted.

The whole Cherrywood SDZ has been in planning for a long time. It is an incredible example of forward planning (in Ireland that is), as opposed to the traditional developer-led model. The SDZ includes all the lands between the M50 and the N11, covering a huge area, which can all be planned at once. I might note here that this is the way things are done in places like Germany and the Netherlands, although they go into far more detail. Retail warehousing has specifically been disallowed -- I don't think that DLR are doing this for the good of their health, or even because of NIMBYs (nobody lives there yet...).

This doesn't really have anything to do with Ikea per se. It's just that an Ikea store demands a type of land use that is incompatible with the Cherrywood zonings. There are other parts of DLR that do allow retail warehousing.

The argument about whether Dublin needs another Ikea or not is moot; that's really up to Ikea.

Let's put this thread to sleep then and let our children/grandchildren continue the debate in 30 years time whether the SDZ was inspirational or aspirational.

Cookie_Monster

josip wrote: »

Let's put this thread to sleep then and let our children/grandchildren continue the debate in 30 years time whether the SDZ was inspirational or aspirational.

you are assuming it'll actually get built though...

Tragedy

josip wrote: »

I have already provided the 2013 budgetary figures for DLR CoCo which is the subject of this topic. Rate revenue is over 3 times more than Local Government Funds.

You asked if I had newer figures than 2008 for the aggregate funding of all County Councils. You did not provide 2013 aggregate funding figures for 2013. Who are you arguing with, because it isn't me?

Inaccurate regarding DLR Coco.

And? This is the third time I'm stating that I used the aggregate figure for all CCs as I wasn't aware that the figures were published individually. What exactly are you looking for? I apologised straight away when you listed the DLR figures and explained where the mistake came from, but you keep banging this drum?

Please point out where I said anything like the above or

D L R _ C o C o _ w i l l _ g e t _ a _ l o t _ o f _ r a t e _ p a y m e n t s _ f r o m _ I k e a _ in _ C h e r r y w o o d _ b u t _ n o t _ i n _ C o r k.

Capisce?

It's all about the rates.

I think a good reason for Ikea to be in Cherrywood is to contribute to the rates of Dun Laoghaire.

It's all about the rates.

I'm not going to forget the 50,000 I have paid out to DLR over the last 10 years as a rate payer. I would appreciate all the help I can get in the short to medium term to lessen that burden.

It's all about the rates.

Re your first question. You and your mates have to buy everyone else in the pub a round of drinks sharing the cost equally between you. In scenario 1, you have 3 mates. In scenario 2, you have 4 mates. In which scenario do you, slutmonkey, pay more?

Re your 2nd point. I think you are confusing one off development levies, an over reiliance on which in the past got DLR into their current situation with recurring revenue from commercial rates, such as Ikea would provide, which is what I have been advocating.

It's all about the rates.

It's not unreasonable for those who are funding those services to want as much assistance as possible.

It's all about the rates.

The most extreme statement I can find that I said was “I would appreciate all the help I can get in the short to medium term to lessen that burden.”

Also, where did I complain “so much” about paying rates?

See above!

I have said multiple times only that I would appreciate if DLR had other sources of rates, such as Ikea to contribute to the overall revenue.
But I have usually repeated it in response to other posts and questions about my position.

See above

Hopefully we can move on from the argument of "I want IKEA because I'll pay less rates" and go back to "Would Ikea be good for the area?"

Bits_n_Bobs

Tragedy wrote: »

Hopefully we can move on from the argument of "I want IKEA because I'll pay less rates" and go back to "Would Ikea be good for the area?"

I'd prefer living with the wasteland and a vague sense of optimism that 'something decent will be built on it eventually' over some monstrous great big blue box and acres of parking.

wolfpawnat

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

I'd prefer living with the wasteland and a vague sense of optimism that 'something decent will be built on it eventually' over some monstrous great big blue box and acres of parking.

They are over there with the last 2 weeks with diggers and dumper trucks. Any idea what they are doing?

Tabnabs

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

I'd prefer living with the wasteland and a vague sense of optimism that 'something decent will be built on it eventually' over some monstrous great big blue box and acres of parking.

I'd rather see a big blue box than wasteland with the hope of more shoebox flats just over the horizon.

errlloyd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

They are over there with the last 2 weeks with diggers and dumper trucks. Any idea what they are doing?

Mostly digging and dumping, from what I can tell.

wolfpawnat

errlloyd wrote: »

Mostly digging and dumping, from what I can tell.

I gathered that much :pac:

ladybirdbaby1

Just wondered if anyone heard any news about ikea opening in cherrywood?? its been a while since there was any news

CatFromHue

Think of the amount of tickets the Gardai could give out for people speeding (going over 60Km) just as they come off the M50 if Ikea opened!!!