City Boundary extensions

Shane07

In the last week Environment minister Alan Kelly has announced the setting up of committies to look at extending the city boundaries in Cork and Galway.For example taken Galway it is going to look at extending the boundary to take in the towns of Barna and Oranmore with Oranmore being 11.5km from the city, I really think this needs to be done in Waterford we now have our new council but the city boundary is still the same so it doesnt reflect the true city population with also the loss of 3500 people in Ferrybank which is in the Kilkenny Co Co boundary.I really think the city boundary needs to be extended to include Tramore as it is only 7miles from the city,this would add 9000 people to the citys population,Dundalk and Drogheda are not far behind Waterford in the urban population table,we cannot afford to slip further down the list!

Harry Palmr

Shane07 wrote: »

In the last week Environment minister Alan Kelly has announced the setting up of committies to look at extending the city boundaries in Cork and Galway.For example taken Galway it is going to look at extending the boundary to take in the towns of Barna and Oranmore with Oranmore being 11.5km from the city, I really think this needs to be done in Waterford we now have our new council but the city boundary is still the same so it doesnt reflect the true city population with also the loss of 3500 people in Ferrybank which is in the Kilkenny Co Co boundary.I really think the city boundary needs to be extended to include Tramore as it is only 7miles from the city,this would add 9000 people to the citys population,Dundalk and Drogheda are not far behind Waterford in the urban population table,we cannot afford to slip further down the list!

Practically every sole is within the current boundary, there are thousands of empty acres within same. There is NO plausible justification to extend it. Adding Tramore is a joke - its a separate town

O Riain

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Practically every sole is within the current boundary, there are thousands of empty acres within same. There is NO plausible justification to extend it. Adding Tramore is a joke - its a separate town

It's happening in Galway. What happens here is you get a bigger city population on paper and this can be used to justify situations for providing services or, in the case of us, not providing services due to a low population.

Harry Palmr

I'd doubt they (the Dept of Environment and lines on maps) would allow such a blatant land grab, there is 10 Kms of green grass between the two. Likewise Galway and its satellite towns.

O Riain

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I'd doubt they (the Dept of Environment and lines on maps) would allow such a blatant land grab, there is 10 Kms of green grass between the two. Likewise Galway and its satellite towns.

Do you think the Minister of Environment is going to set up a committee with people on it that will allow any decision other than the one he wants?

This will happen.

fricatus

Shane07 wrote: »

In the last week Environment minister Alan Kelly has announced the setting up of committies to look at extending the city boundaries in Cork and Galway.For example taken Galway it is going to look at extending the boundary to take in the towns of Barna and Oranmore with Oranmore being 11.5km from the city, I really think this needs to be done in Waterford we now have our new council but the city boundary is still the same so it doesnt reflect the true city population with also the loss of 3500 people in Ferrybank which is in the Kilkenny Co Co boundary.I really think the city boundary needs to be extended to include Tramore as it is only 7miles from the city,this would add 9000 people to the citys population,Dundalk and Drogheda are not far behind Waterford in the urban population table,we cannot afford to slip further down the list!

What are you talking about? Waterford doesn't have a city council any more (unlike Cork and Galway) so a city boundary extension cannot happen! The last Environment Minister (Phil Hogan) abolished the council.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I'd doubt they (the Dept of Environment and lines on maps) would allow such a blatant land grab, there is 10 Kms of green grass between the two. Likewise Galway and its satellite towns.

Land grab? Ah here, come on... we're talking about a local government boundary. Do you think someone is planning to move settlers in or something?

Harry Palmr

heh I suppose that's true, how can Waterford City expand its reach if it doesn't legally exist?

Pablo Escobar

I'm not sure about the situation in Galway, but in Cork there are large parts of urban territory which are not officially in the city. I think the official population will go from 119,000 to above 300,000 with the extension.

Shane07

Yes we have one council here in Waterford now,but during the next census it will still be done from the old City and County boundary if Oranmore is going to come under Galway city there is no reason why Tramore shouldnt come under Waterford city to boost up the population like is being planned for up there.This is about getting and maintaining services and the higher the city population the more it gets from central government.

fricatus

Shane07 wrote: »

Yes we have one council here in Waterford now,but during the next census it will still be done from the old City and County boundary if Oranmore is going to come under Galway city there is no reason why Tramore shouldnt come under Waterford city to boost up the population like is being planned for up there.This is about getting and maintaining services and the higher the city population the more it gets from central government.

It shouldn't matter anyway what the local government boundaries are. If the government is allocating services to different areas, it should be doing so on the basis of the population served (i.e. within a specified distance or driving time of a population centre). They're clearly not doing that, either deliberately (because it suits not to) or through incompetence.

Martin_D

Harry Palmr wrote: »

heh I suppose that's true, how can Waterford City expand its reach if it doesn't legally exist?

The City continues to exist alright - as does Limerick. Both specifically mentioned in the legislation setting up the new City and County Councils.

Population is one driver of development; quoted population figures for a City do create the potential for investment/development but ultimately it is a more complex set of factors including education; utility capacity; infrastructure; tax or other inducements; promotion; transport options and costs; political will and decision making; etc etc - what elements are the clinchers invariably have a significant political component of favouritism over the long run - can't say the South East has fared too well on many of these key drivers

Harry Palmr

Martin_D wrote: »

The City continues to exist alright - as does Limerick. Both specifically mentioned in the legislation setting up the new City and County Councils.

Population is one driver of development; quoted population figures for a City do create the potential for investment/development but ultimately it is a more complex set of factors including education; utility capacity; infrastructure; tax or other inducements; promotion; transport options and costs; political will and decision making; etc etc - what elements are the clinchers invariably have a significant political component of favouritism over the long run - can't say the South East has fared too well on many of these key drivers

Undoubtedly - the big difference between Galway and Waterford is that the former usually gets wants to wants while the latter rarely gets what it needs.

BBM77

Martin_D wrote: »

The City continues to exist alright - as does Limerick. Both specifically mentioned in the legislation setting up the new City and County Councils.

Population is one driver of development; quoted population figures for a City do create the potential for investment/development but ultimately it is a more complex set of factors including education; utility capacity; infrastructure; tax or other inducements; promotion; transport options and costs; political will and decision making; etc etc - what elements are the clinchers invariably have a significant political component of favouritism over the long run - can't say the South East has fared too well on many of these key drivers

I’m sorry I don’t mean to be pedantic but don’t be fooled by what happened with the merger. In the 2001 local government act Waterford was listed as one of the five cities of Ireland equal to Dublin, Cork and Galway. In the 2014 act Waterford and Limerick are now distinct from Dublin, Cork and Galway as having a “City and County Council”. There is nothing as far as I can see to say that the urban area of Waterford is a city under the act. City and County Council is just a title. It only says that “the description city” can be used surprise, surprise the same as Kilkenny.

(a) the continued use of the description city in relation to Kilkenny, to the extent that that description was used before 1 January 2002 and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act,

(b) the continued use of the description city in relation to Limerick and to Waterford, to the extent that each of those descriptions was used before the 2014 establishment day and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act.

The legal and ceremonial trappings of being a city have been removed.

Shane07

So when the next census comes will Waterford and Limerick cities just be included as their county populations as a whole? I thought when the new Metropolitan electoral area was created this would be the new city boundary which it should be. I think this issue needs to be pushed with our TDs!

Shane07

Shane07 wrote: »

For example taken Galway it is going to look at extending the boundary to take in the towns of Barna and Oranmore with Oranmore being 11.5km from the city

Bearna is less than 1 km from the city boundary (Barna woods being within the city boundary) and Oranmore is about 2 km's from the city boundary at Roscam.

Going out 11.5km would be to include An Spidéal or Baile Chláir.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Undoubtedly - the big difference between Galway and Waterford is that the former usually gets wants to wants while the latter rarely gets what it needs.

We are waiting twenty years for a bypass and have no airport. We don't get everything we want.

robtri

BBM77 wrote: »

I’m sorry I don’t mean to be pedantic but don’t be fooled by what happened with the merger. In the 2001 local government act Waterford was listed as one of the five cities of Ireland equal to Dublin, Cork and Galway. In the 2014 act Waterford and Limerick are now distinct from Dublin, Cork and Galway as having a “City and County Council”. There is nothing as far as I can see to say that the urban area of Waterford is a city under the act. City and County Council is just a title. It only says that “the description city” can be used surprise, surprise the same as Kilkenny.



The legal and ceremonial trappings of being a city have been removed.

the administrative services of city and county have been merged, this does not effect the City title...

BBM77

robtri wrote: »

the administrative services of city and county have been merged, this does not effect the City title...

Sure that is the point. There is nothing in the 2014 local government act that says that the urban area of Waterford is a city other than it can use “the description city”. This is very different than the 2001 local government act which clearly stated that the urban area of Waterford was one of the five cities of the state with a city council and a mayor. As I said don’t be fooled by what happened with the merger, in reality the nut and bolts that a city has like a city council and mayor were stripped from us for political reasons.

robtri

BBM77 wrote: »

Sure that is the point. There is nothing in the 2014 local government act that says that the urban area of Waterford is a city other than it can use “the description city”. This is very different than the 2001 local government act which clearly stated that the urban area of Waterford was one of the five cities of the state with a city council and a mayor. As I said don’t be fooled by what happened with the merger, in reality the nut and bolts that a city has like a city council and mayor were stripped from us for political reasons.

and the Irish statute book clearly make a difference between Waterford city and county

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2014/en/si/0067.html

the 2014 reform act says we can use the title as city like it was used before the act and that didn't change.... that's the way i read it....

so the act makes no changes to our city title

BBM77

robtri wrote: »

and the Irish statute book clearly make a difference between Waterford city and county

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2014/en/si/0067.html

the 2014 reform act says we can use the title as city like it was used before the act and that didn't change.... that's the way i read it....

so the act makes no changes to our city title

No it does not make a difference it is as clear as day in this section.

4. The City and County of Waterford shall have the following municipal districts for the purposes of section 22A (inserted by the Local Government Reform Act 2014 (No. 1 of 2014)) of the Local Government Act 2001 (No. 37 of 2001):
(a) the Metropolitan District of Waterford consisting of the Local Electoral Areas of Tramore-Waterford City West, Waterford City East and Waterford City South;
(b) the Municipal District of Comeragh consisting of the Local Electoral Area of Comeragh;
(c) the Municipal District of Dungarvan-Lismore consisting of the Local Electoral Area of Dungarvan-Lismore.

The Metropolitan District of Waterford is a municipal district no different to the Comeragh district or the Dungarvan-Lismore district. There is nothing more than a title difference here.

Yes it allows the use of the title city but that is all. Acts are about definitions and there is nothing defining Waterford as a city in the 2014 act the way there was in the 2004 act. Saying that the “the description city” can be used is a not saying that Waterford is legally a city. The legal reality is that our city status was removed. People need to get there head out of the sand and wake up to what the government did to Waterford with the merger.

7upfree

BBM77 wrote: »

No it does not make a difference it is as clear as day in this section.



The Metropolitan District of Waterford is a municipal district no different to the Comeragh district or the Dungarvan-Lismore district. There is nothing more than a title difference here.

Yes it allows the use of the title city but that is all. Acts are about definitions and there is nothing defining Waterford as a city in the 2014 act the way there was in the 2004 act. Saying that the “the description city” can be used is a not saying that Waterford is legally a city. The legal reality is that our city status was removed. People need to get there head out of the sand and wake up to what the government did to Waterford with the merger.

Well said. But you'll still have the FG trolls on here claiming it never happened. A blatant attack on the City by neighbouring reps.

robtri

BBM77 wrote: »

No it does not make a difference it is as clear as day in this section.



The Metropolitan District of Waterford is a municipal district no different to the Comeragh district or the Dungarvan-Lismore district. There is nothing more than a title difference here.

Yes it allows the use of the title city but that is all. Acts are about definitions and there is nothing defining Waterford as a city in the 2014 act the way there was in the 2004 act. Saying that the “the description city” can be used is a not saying that Waterford is legally a city. The legal reality is that our city status was removed. People need to get there head out of the sand and wake up to what the government did to Waterford with the merger.

this has nothing to do with the City title... its about the administration....

wellboytoo

robtri wrote: »

this has nothing to do with the City title... its about the administration....

Tell that to the City Mayor who has practically no political or titular standing anymore and is literally ignored at functions in deference to the chair of the council even in The remnants of Waterford City.
History will not treat FG well for this nor will I or a lot of like minded Citizens and it's like a toothache it grows worse with age.

THall04

BBM77 wrote: »

I’m sorry I don’t mean to be pedantic but don’t be fooled by what happened with the merger. In the 2001 local government act Waterford was listed as one of the five cities of Ireland equal to Dublin, Cork and Galway. In the 2014 act Waterford and Limerick are now distinct from Dublin, Cork and Galway as having a “City and County Council”. There is nothing as far as I can see to say that the urban area of Waterford is a city under the act. City and County Council is just a title. It only says that “the description city” can be used surprise, surprise the same as Kilkenny.



The legal and ceremonial trappings of being a city have been removed.

Dang......I've used the 2001 act to wind up my Kilkenny work mates about it not being a city (and used it to prove to my Dub friends the non-existance of an entity called "County Dublin" ) ..... but the 2014 act spells it out pretty clear , the list of cities is only 3 long.....and Waterford (and Limerick) are no longer on that list

BBM77

robtri wrote: »

this has nothing to do with the City title... its about the administration....

You are the one who referenced this section saying it “clearly make a difference between Waterford city and county” which anybody can see it does not. You are contradicting yourself now. You are proving my point exactly. You are not able to show anything that says Waterford is a city in the 2014 act only it can use the title city.

7upfree

THall04 wrote: »

Dang......I've used the 2001 act to wind up my Kilkenny work mates about it not being a city (and used it to prove to my Dub friends the non-existance of an entity called "County Dublin" ) ..... but the 2014 act spells it out pretty clear , the list of cities is only 3 long.....and Waterford (and Limerick) are no longer on that list

Hogan can huff and puff. But nothing will change the fact that Waterford always has been - and always will be - a city.

It should be a priority to have this rectified as soon as these gob****es and their local "representatives" who supported this are booted out.

7upfree

wellboytoo wrote: »

Tell that to the City Mayor who has practically no political or titular standing anymore and is literally ignored at functions in deference to the chair of the council even in The remnants of Waterford City.
History will not treat FG well for this nor will I or a lot of like minded Citizens and it's like a toothache it grows worse with age.

The local ones who signed up to this are even worse than Hogan in my book.

wellboytoo

robtri wrote: »

this has nothing to do with the City title... its about the administration....

It was said it was about administration. Not one person has been left go, all buildings are still occupied, staff that were based in the City are now driving to dungarvan and being paid mileage and vice versa.
Where I ask you are the savings ? It was a cluster**** from start to finish cobbled together to save money in theory and implemented by a bully,

Chip Whitley

Why would Galway be considered a 'real' city and not us? Is it really down to Phil Hogan posturing? If so, thats ridiculous. Genuine question as I'm not politically minded at all.

mire

There are only three legally recognised cities in Ireland, under the Local Government Act. Dublin, Cork and Galway. In administrative, legal and functional terms, Waterford Metropolitan District is a Municipal District with the same range of powers and competencies that any Municipal District has. It is subservient to the City and County Council. There is no Lord Mayor. However, the legislation allows WMD (Waterford Metropolitan District) to 'call itself' a 'city'. I've never really believed that legislation could actually be condescending but that kind of tokenism was pathetic.

The fact remains that Waterdord's status as a City has ended. The city does not exist as part of the structures or architecture of local government. If the city has no independent powers to govern and administer itself as a city, then it's not a City in terms of local governance. Its powers as a WMD are very limited. I don't know why this didn't get people marching on the streets to be honest.

fricatus

mire wrote: »

There are only three legally recognised cities in Ireland, under the Local Government Act. Dublin, Cork and Galway. In administrative, legal and functional terms, Waterford Metropolitan District is a Municipal District with the same range of powers and competencies that any Municipal District has. It is subservient to the City and County Council. There is no Lord Mayor. However, the legislation allows WMD (Waterford Metropolitan District) to 'call itself' a 'city'. I've never really believed that legislation could actually be condescending but that kind of tokenism was pathetic.

The fact remains that Waterdord's status as a City has ended. The city does not exist as part of the structures or architecture of local government. If the city has no independent powers to govern and administer itself as a city, then it's not a City in terms of local governance. Its powers as a WMD are very limited. I don't know why this didn't get people marching on the streets to be honest.

Excellent post, which sums up the real situation, as distinct from the pathetic gloss that FG and Labour have tried to put on this "merger" (which as far as I can see is simply the abolition of the city's independent council).

The reason people weren't marching in the streets is that they are apathetic about politics and don't think this sort of thing matters. They see councillors as just being a bunch of greedy noses in a trough, and were all too happy to support a government which was targeting them for "cost saving" reasons.

Those of us who did send in submissions when this was being looked at were apparently simply ignored in favour of the greater wisdom that is Phil Hogan. I read somewhere that there were 17 submissions, and 15 were against this so-called merger.

This tells you two things: firstly, there is widespread apathy. I sent in one of the submissions, and all it took me was 30 minutes of keyboard warriorhood. To think that only 16 others bothered their holes really annoys me. Secondly though, it tells you the way power is structured in this country, and how much the people count once we've put these muppets in power - not a bloody jot! So in a way, who can blame people for not bothering?

Pity we don't have a mobile-phone billionaire living down this way - we'd have been listened to then! :mad:

O Riain

fricatus wrote: »

Excellent post, which sums up the real situation, as distinct from the pathetic gloss that FG and Labour have tried to put on this "merger" (which as far as I can see is simply the abolition of the city's independent council).

The reason people weren't marching in the streets is that they are apathetic about politics and don't think this sort of thing matters. They see councillors as just being a bunch of greedy noses in a trough, and were all too happy to support a government which was targeting them for "cost saving" reasons.

Those of us who did send in submissions when this was being looked at were apparently simply ignored in favour of the greater wisdom that is Phil Hogan. I read somewhere that there were 17 submissions, and 15 were against this so-called merger.

This tells you two things: firstly, there is widespread apathy. I sent in one of the submissions, and all it took me was 30 minutes of keyboard warriorhood. To think that only 16 others bothered their holes really annoys me. Secondly though, it tells you the way power is structured in this country, and how much the people count once we've put these muppets in power - not a bloody jot! So in a way, who can blame people for not bothering?

Pity we don't have a mobile-phone billionaire living down this way - we'd have been listened to then! :mad:

There's a US billionaire after buying a house in Stradbally!

wellboytoo

O Riain wrote: »

There's a US billionaire after buying a house in Stradbally!

He is there for over a year , was on a walk through the estate last Sunday

O Riain

wellboytoo wrote: »

He is there for over a year , was on a walk through the estate last Sunday

Did ya ask him for a few bob?

Seriously though, the council should be wining and dining this man...

wellboytoo

O Riain wrote: »

Did ya ask him for a few bob?

Seriously though, the council should be wining and dining this man...

The boss man of 3 lives in Dunmore

wellboytoo

Great post btw Fricatus

robtri

page 25 of the local goverment act 2014 clearly states the name is Waterford city

the boxed table at top of page

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2014/en.act.2014.0001.pdf

BBM77

fricatus wrote: »

...I read somewhere that there were 17 submissions, and 15 were against this so-called merger...

+1 on this. I was one of the people who made a submission against the merger. I was later appalled to find out that I was one of only about 17 submissions.:mad:

mire

robtri wrote: »

page 25 of the local goverment act 2014 clearly states the name is Waterford city

the boxed table at top of page


1. Perhaps you did not read the text in the box you refer to, which states clealry the name of the local unit of government as "Name of City and County" = 'Waterford'. See page 24 where it lists the named three Cities an dthere are only 3, Cork, Dublin and Galway.

2. page 22 of the Act confirms that waterford and limerick may still 'call themselves cities' by stating clearly that "the continued use of the description city in relation to Limerick and
to Waterford, to the extent that each of those descriptions was used before the 2014 establishment day and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act.”. This is meaningless, if those cities no longer exist legally. see point 3

3. page 19 states clearly that

"(c) the local government area of the county of Waterford and the local government
area of the city of Waterford as existing immediately before the 2014 establishment day—

(i) shall cease to exist on that day, and

(ii) the areas so ceasing shall, on that day, be amalgamated to form a single local
government area to be known in the Irish language as Cathair agus Contae
Phort Láirge and in the English language as Waterford City and County.

I think it's pretty clear that the City no longer exists as a legal or governing entity. To suggest it does is flat-earthy.

robtri

mire wrote: »

robtri wrote: »

page 25 of the local goverment act 2014 clearly states the name is Waterford city

the boxed table at top of page


1. Perhaps you did not read the text in the box you refer to, which states clealry the name of the local unit of government as "Name of City and County" = 'Waterford'. See page 24 where it lists the named three Cities an dthere are only 3, Cork, Dublin and Galway.

2. page 22 of the Act confirms that waterford and limerick may still 'call themselves cities' by stating clearly that "the continued use of the description city in relation to Limerick and
to Waterford, to the extent that each of those descriptions was used before the 2014 establishment day and is not otherwise inconsistent with this Act.”. This is meaningless, if those cities no longer exist legally. see point 3

3. page 19 states clearly that

"(c) the local government area of the county of Waterford and the local government
area of the city of Waterford as existing immediately before the 2014 establishment day—

(i) shall cease to exist on that day, and

(ii) the areas so ceasing shall, on that day, be amalgamated to form a single local
government area to be known in the Irish language as Cathair agus Contae
Phort Láirge and in the English language as Waterford City and County.

I think it's pretty clear that the City no longer exists as a legal or governing entity. To suggest it does is flat-earthy.

so what part of name of city and county not clear enough as to that there is a waterford city....

show me where the city title has been removed?? show where it says the title and status of a city has been removed...


the rest of what you posted referes to the administration of the area.. nothing to do with city status.... it says no where that the city title has been removed....

BBM77

robtri wrote: »

...the rest of what you posted referes to the administration of the area.. nothing to do with city status.... it says no where that the city title has been removed....

WHOW!?

the dark phantom

fricatus wrote: »

It shouldn't matter anyway what the local government boundaries are. If the government is allocating services to different areas, it should be doing so on the basis of the population served (i.e. within a specified distance or driving time of a population centre). They're clearly not doing that, either deliberately (because it suits not to) or through incompetence.

Tramore and Dunmore and the city are 1 now, The old borough boundary is defunct.

mire

robtri wrote: »

mire wrote: »

so what part of name of city and county not clear enough as to that there is a waterford city....

show me where the city title has been removed?? show where it says the title and status of a city has been removed...


the rest of what you posted referes to the administration of the area.. nothing to do with city status.... it says no where that the city title has been removed....

Are you actually serious? Do me a favour and read what I quoted, please. I think that you may not actually understand what the legislation actually states. It says that the City of Waterford "shall cease to exist" The new Local Authority is the "City and County of Waterford" i.e. an amalgamated entity.

Your statement that "the rest of what you posted referes to the administration of the area" suggests to me that you're completely confused. The 'administration of the area" means its governance, its legal status in other words. The legislation identifies only three legal cities in Ireland. Waterford isn't metioned. You can keep on pretending if you like.

robtri

mire wrote: »

robtri wrote: »

Are you actually serious? Do me a favour and read what I quoted, please. I think that you may not actually understand what the legislation actually states. It says that the City of Waterford "shall cease to exist" The new Local Authority is the "City and County of Waterford" i.e. an amalgamated entity.

Your statement that "the rest of what you posted referes to the administration of the area" suggests to me that you're completely confused. The 'administration of the area" means its governance, its legal status in other words. The legislation identifies only three legal cities in Ireland. Waterford isn't metioned. You can keep on pretending if you like.

No I not confused, i think you are reading between the lines and coming up with your own interpertation....

the document clearly states the name waterford city

local authority does not define if a place is a city or not....

The CSO staes they are a legal city

http://census.cso.ie/censusasp/saps/boundaries/city-towns_bound.htm

Towns with legally defined boundaries
These comprise
the five County Cities (Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway);
the five Municipal Cities (Clonmel, Drogheda, Kilkenny, Sligo and Wexford);

O Riain

robtri wrote: »

mire wrote: »

No I not confused, i think you are reading between the lines and coming up with your own interpertation....

the document clearly states the name waterford city

local authority does not define if a place is a city or not....

The CSO staes they are a legal city

http://census.cso.ie/censusasp/saps/boundaries/city-towns_bound.htm

Towns with legally defined boundaries
These comprise
the five County Cities (Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway);
the five Municipal Cities (Clonmel, Drogheda, Kilkenny, Sligo and Wexford);

You are actually clutching at straws man if you are using the census. Everyone here has read the legislation and come to the conclusion that Waterford has been robbed of its city status. Before, I was 50/50 as to how it was gonna turn out but now I see it for what it is.

Can you just accept Fianna Gael has demoted Waterford and Limerick just so they can focus on three cities in Ireland the south, east and west.

mire

robtri wrote: »

mire wrote: »

No I not confused, i think you are reading between the lines and coming up with your own interpertation....

the document clearly states the name waterford city

local authority does not define if a place is a city or not....

The CSO staes they are a legal city



Towns with legally defined boundaries
These comprise
the five County Cities (Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway);
the five Municipal Cities (Clonmel, Drogheda, Kilkenny, Sligo and Wexford);

OK, you're actually having a laugh. What defines a city is its legal status as a governing entity. Waterford city is not a legal entity. It cannot issue contracts, it cannot pay bills, it cannot hire, it cannot issue tender notices, it cannot carry out works, it cannot hold elections, it cannot raise taxes, it cannot function as a separate governing entity. It can 'call itself' a city if it wants. But that's like telling a child he can call himslef Batman if he wants. That doesn't mean he's Batman. You see the difference.

By the way, the CSO reference was useful. The CSO last collected information on cities and counties in 2011. Before the merger. This will be revised in 2017. Your straw clutching is coming to an end.

paul2015

The new County Development Plan for County Galway which comes into effect next week does not mentioned that people from City cannot move to high pressure areas in the county. It has never mentioned it but the planners seems to have an internal rule. Do you reckon I could take a punt on some agri land in somewhere like Oranmore and hope the city will expand.