Coveney: Waterford can double it's population

JMT2016

According to today's Irish Times

Waterford can double its population from its current level of 47,000 within 25 to 50 years as part of a “balanced” future growth of the city on both sides of the river Suir. Mr Coveney said it could “become a much more balanced city” with “potentially thousands of houses with job opportunities”.“It needs a significant increase in population to become a city that can benefit from all the economies of scale that go with that.

How is this going to be done? And I'm not talking about re-drawing a line between waterford and south kilkenny here.

There was a very interesting Euro-stat report on cities published this year.

It showed that Waterford has the highest proportion of young people in Ireland - see article.

It also has the 3rd highest proportion of non-nationals living in the city (Galway 1st, Dublin 2nd).

These are two ways which contribute to the population doubling.

(P.s. on page 172 it has a table showing that Waterford has the highest proportion of deaths attributed to heart disease in Ireland, hmmm... I wonder do lack of proper facilities have anything to do with this....)

But to me the real question is what will make the young people stick around?

WIT already has a very strong reputation - will university status will bring in many more students?

Will the best broadband speeds and the large hub of technology companies and pharma companies here bring more employment?

Will the two motorways to Dublin (M9 & M11 via New Ross Bypass in 2018) and Waterford being the nearest gateway city to Dublin make Waterford attractive for the Dublin spillover as Waterford has some of the most attractive property prices and commuting times (see page 191 report) in the country?

In other words - quality of life.

I think it's definitely a time to be optimistic - once the applemarket works and the shopping centre redevelopment are complete the city centre will have a really attractive vibe to it also.

Poor Uncle Tom

I think it has more to do with the projected National Strategy and the notion that the city has the capacity to cater for a doubling of the population more so than actually predicting that it will.

This is just the first rumblings of what is coming down the line. All this is part of the National Development Plan which will form the slightly more specific Regional Development Plans which in turn will help form the County/City Development Plans.

All this to promote the growth of housing in serviced areas and to this end to concentrate housing (not just social housing but all housing development) to areas where the services are provided to cater for it. The uneconomic and disproportionate provision of services for housing is not sustainable and will not continue, specifically for small and one off housing developments in rural settings. To this end it is easy to see how the population of the city could double in the next 50 years if there is no where else for people to build or live except within the city borough environs.

By the way, this

And I'm not talking about re-drawing a line between waterford and south kilkenny here.

has more than just a little to do with the overall vision for the future development of Waterford as a city.

invara

This has everything to do with his leadership bid, positioning himself against Varadkar the Dub. Covney will be Cork 1st, and that is bad for Waterford. It is very hard to see him ever allowing the proper development of the city and region while it is against his main personal/political interest. This talk is cheap, he has sat in cabinet for six years whilst Waterford has burnt.

road_high

invara wrote: »

This has everything to do with his leadership bid, positioning himself against Varadkar the Dub. Covney will be Cork 1st, and that is bad for Waterford. It is very hard to see him ever allowing the proper development of the city and region while it is against his main personal/political interest. This talk is cheap, he has sat in cabinet for six years whilst Waterford has burnt.

Exactly. Cork have zero interest in a strong Waterford- the south east "region" has already been carved up- Kilkenny Carlow Wexford off to Dublins sphere, Waterford to cork. Which makes it a shame the relationship between Waterford and Kilkenny and Wexford has soured because added together we have quite a strong population. Thats just my opinion..
Look at everything concrete- WRH is now under corks thumb to the best of my knowledge, WIT- Cork will object as they have in the past to any upgrades-
Airport the same thing...
Cork needs Waterfords population as a satellite to justify increased services down There.
Coveney wants to use this "plan" as a handy shopping list for cork- Light Rail, docks redevelopment....when it came to mentioning Waterford he had no such actual things that may make this happen. Funny that wasnt it

KingBrian2

Good to see Waterford getting the National attention it justly deserved. We all know Dublin is overcrowded and over polluted. Long may this continue and into successive gvts instead of leaving parts of the country neglected as was the case in times past.

Harry Palmr

Doubling the population isn't that great an idea all things considered, the place is already badly served for social infrastructure, does anyone think money would be sunk into capital projects and ongoing needs to support 100,000k?

KingBrian2

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Doubling the population isn't that great an idea all things considered, the place is already badly served for social infrastructure, does anyone think money would be sunk into capital projects and ongoing needs to support 100,000k?

Dublin is the epicentre of the housing shortage crisis and we have a perfectly good city in Waterford going to waste. Bring the people from overpopulated cities to the underpopulated city. How you go about doing that is the main issue. Making more cities as opposed to cramming everyone in Dublin is a better use of local politicians time and money.

Harry Palmr

The theory is grand we all know the practice would be a catastrophe - massive estates and feck all else.

dzilla

I don't believe people relise there is as much a housing issue in Waterford as anywhere else. Anybody who has tried to get a rental property in the nicer areas of the town beyond newtown are struggling to find places. Yes there are properties in Waterford and people are having to compormise and settle for them but they are not always the first choice. There are pharmaceuticals in Waterford yes but someone also called it a technological hub, which is a bit of an overstatement. Yes there are some startups and development places and in a positive move a multinational has moved into the old NTL building but to class Waterford as a "hub" is a bit ambitious, it is years behind Cork for technology companies let alone Dublin, also the wages in Waterford won't be attracting anyone fast regardless off the "cost of living" or "quality of life"

BBM77

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Doubling the population isn't that great an idea all things considered, the place is already badly served for social infrastructure, does anyone think money would be sunk into capital projects and ongoing needs to support 100,000k?

Whereas I agree with expanding the city and the boundary extension. It is laughable to hear the government talking about investing in Waterford. Fine Gael this time around in government have ranged from not caring to outright hostility towards Waterford city. Does anybody really believe anything has changed, I don’t? I mean they are literally willing to let people die because of lack of funding in UHW, 24 cardiac care etc.

KingBrian2

BBM77 wrote: »

Whereas I agree with expanding the city and the boundary extension. It is laughable to hear the government talking about investing in Waterford. Fine Gael this time around in government have ranged from not caring to outright hostility towards Waterford city. Does anybody really believe anything has changed, I don’t? I mean they are literally willing to let people die because of lack of funding in UHW, 24 cardiac care etc.

Letting people die. Really, more likely even more people would suffer if gvt had give away budgets. The gvt needs to be able to afford life saving medicines not to mention infrastructure projects. This requires making important savings in the budget, it does not mean letting people die for lack of funding.

BBM77

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Letting people die. Really, more likely even more people would suffer if gvt had give away budgets. The gvt needs to be able to afford life saving medicines not to mention infrastructure projects. This requires making important savings in the budget, it does not mean letting people die for lack of funding.

Don’t agree with you. That is not what happened. And you are being naïve in the extreme if you believe that is the case with the 24 hr cardiac care issue particularly. For god sake, important savings! There was no savings they just spent the money in their own constituency and did not give a dam what happen in Waterford.

KingBrian2

BBM77 wrote: »

Don’t agree with you. That is not what happened. And you are being naïve in the extreme if you believe that is the case with the 24 hr cardiac care issue particularly. For god sake, important savings! There was no savings they just spent the money in their own constituency and did not give a dam what happen in Waterford.

You can't keep bringing up the 24 hr cardiac care issue to get every gvt to spend in your area. The gvt has the entire country to look at so priorities have to be met. You might seem to believe your region deserves greater attention than say hospitals or maternity wards in Dublin or Cork where most of the country uses these cities to live and work in. You would have more of a case with a genuine need to provide services to a integral part of the medical landscape of the country. The last we need is yet another unused medical service understaffed and not catering to a sufficient enough people.

BBM77

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You can't keep bringing up the 24 hr cardiac care issue to get every gvt to spend in your area. The gvt has the entire country to look at so priorities have to be met. You might seem to believe your region deserves greater attention than say hospitals or maternity wards in Dublin or Cork where most of the country uses these cities to live and work in. You would have more of a case with a genuine need to provide services to a integral part of the medical landscape of the country. The last we need is yet another unused medical service understaffed and not catering to a sufficient enough people.

Where do you live?

KingBrian2

BBM77 wrote: »

Where do you live?

I live in Dublin as do the vast majority of the country. Not saying for one second we deserve more than the rest of the country only that the big cities see the highest concentration of demand for medical services. Large parts of the countryside have little or no access to much needed services. I can see a case to be made for Waterford to be upgraded to city status in terms of providing much needed services if the need arose. At the moment Dublin cators to most of the country and not just native Dubliners.

Deiseen

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I live in Dublin as do the vast majority of the country. Not saying for one second we deserve more than the rest of the country only that the big cities see the highest concentration of demand for medical services. Large parts of the countryside have little or no access to much needed services. I can see a case to be made for Waterford to be upgraded to city status in terms of providing much needed services if the need arose. At the moment Dublin cators to most of the country and not just native Dubliners.

Waterford is one of the 5 cities.....

KingBrian2

Deiseen wrote: »

Waterford is one of the 5 cities.....

I know which is why i'm glad its being highlighted. The fact remains Waterford is underpopulated as opposed to Dublin. The homeless crisis is in Dublin and Cork for the most part rarely do i hear it being acute in Waterford city.

Squidvicious

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I live in Dublin as do the vast majority of the country. Not saying for one second we deserve more than the rest of the country only that the big cities see the highest concentration of demand for medical services. Large parts of the countryside have little or no access to much needed services. I can see a case to be made for Waterford to be upgraded to city status in terms of providing much needed services if the need arose. At the moment Dublin cators to most of the country and not just native Dubliners.

I hate to seem a pedant but the "vast majority of the country" does not live in Dublin! Not even a majority. I assume you didn't mean to say "majority"?

zetalambda

Squidvicious wrote: »

I hate to seem a pedant but the "vast majority of the country" does not live in Dublin! Not even a majority. I assume you didn't mean to say "majority"?

I think he meant the vast minority

JMT2016

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The homeless crisis is in Dublin and Cork for the most part rarely do i hear it being acute in Waterford city.

Really?

If you have heard of the High Hopes choir then you have heard the voice of homelessness in Waterford even if you didn't realise it. - see
http://www.rte.ie/tv/programmes/highhopeschoir.html

Maybe you haven't heard about homelessness here because it doesn't get the attention it deserves or perhaps because the services locally are doing a great job to help manage the situation.

There was a tv3 documentary on one of the several homeless shelters in Waterford which was really good
https://www.tv3.ie/pr_sub.php?type=1&view_pr=621

In addition to the work done by VdP, Focus and Simon shelters and several other groups there is a community lead initiative called Helping hand also assisting the homeless in waterford. see - https://www.facebook.com/groups/197981667204103/?fref=ts

KingBrian2

Squidvicious wrote: »

I hate to seem a pedant but the "vast majority of the country" does not live in Dublin! Not even a majority. I assume you didn't mean to say "majority"?

Over a million people live in Dublin and the commuter belt. Don't have the precise figures to hand. Larger than any other province, town, city anywhere else on the Island. Including the number of visitors that stop off in Dublin at any one time we are talking about even larger numbers. In contrast to say Waterford or Kilkenny City the services required to hold such numbers requires Dublin to be self sustaining.

newacc2015

Squidvicious wrote: »

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I live in Dublin as do the vast majority of the country. Not saying for one second we deserve more than the rest of the country only that the big cities see the highest concentration of demand for medical services. Large parts of the countryside have little or no access to much needed services. I can see a case to be made for Waterford to be upgraded to city status in terms of providing much needed services if the need arose. At the moment Dublin cators to most of the country and not just native Dubliners.

I hate to seem a pedant but the "vast majority of the country" does not live in Dublin! Not even a majority. I assume you didn't mean to say "majority"?

40% of the population live in Dublin. It's not quite a majority but it's not far off it. Ireland is one of the few countries in the world where a huge amount of the population live in a single city. Yes Waterford is a 'city'. More people live in Dublin than all the cities in Ireland combined and some.

Instead of spending the money needed to make Dublin nice place to live ie proper public transport, social housing. Coveney has decided we should just throw the population growth around the country. It seems like a good idea for towns and 'cities' that are in a non-stop decline to have a larger population. But let's get real the state isn't going to spend the money to accomadate these new residents. Dublin is massive and it gets hardly infastructure spending. Why would a secondary city like Waterford get a blank cheque from the state?

KingBrian2

newacc2015 wrote: »

40% of the population live in Dublin. It's not quite a majority but it's not far off it. Ireland is one of the few countries in the world where a huge amount of the population live in a single city. Yes Waterford is a 'city'. More people live in Dublin than all the cities in Ireland combined and some.

Instead of spending the money needed to make Dublin nice place to live ie proper public transport, social housing. Coveney has decided we should just throw the population growth around the country. It seems like a good idea for towns and 'cities' that are in a non-stop decline to have a larger population. But let's get real the state isn't going to spend the money to accomadate these new residents. Dublin is massive and it gets hardly infastructure spending. Why would a secondary city like Waterford get a blank cheque from the state?

Dublin needs investment and Dublin needs beautiful buildings. I'm on the fence when it comes to building up or out as long as the city looks stylistic. An ugly city is just wrong for all concerned.

Squidvicious

newacc2015 wrote: »

40% of the population live in Dublin. It's not quite a majority but it's not far off it. Ireland is one of the few countries in the world where a huge amount of the population live in a single city. Yes Waterford is a 'city'. More people live in Dublin than all the cities in Ireland combined and some.

Instead of spending the money needed to make Dublin nice place to live ie proper public transport, social housing. Coveney has decided we should just throw the population growth around the country. It seems like a good idea for towns and 'cities' that are in a non-stop decline to have a larger population. But let's get real the state isn't going to spend the money to accomadate these new residents. Dublin is massive and it gets hardly infastructure spending. Why would a secondary city like Waterford get a blank cheque from the state?

Hardly infrastructure spending? Dublin gets plenty: Luas, airport, the port tunnel , to name but three. Dublin gets at least it's fair share. Now, I'm not carping about that, Dublin needs spending like anywhere else but it's just not reality to say that Dublin gets no infrastructural spending.

Should Waterford get a blank cheque? Certainly not a blank cheque but it is entitled to its fair share and there is a case to be made that the country would benefit from spending to boost regional centres to relieve congestion in Dublin. If you don't do that, we could end up with a situation where 70% or 80%of the population lives in the greater Dublin region. Of course, that may be inevitable. Ireland /Dublin is not a unique situation. Similar issues arise in other countries e.g. Copenhagen /Denmark, Oslo/Norway and arguably London /UK. You may be correct that it's best acknowledge reality and concentrate on Dublin and abandon the rest of the country bar perhaps Cork and Galway, though that seems a bit depressing and defeatist to me.
Finally, Coveney has said nothing about spending. So far, it's just a piece of paper and I doubt any money will be put where his mouth is.

KingBrian2

Squidvicious wrote: »

Hardly infrastructure spending? Dublin gets plenty: Luas, airport, the port tunnel , to name but three. Dublin gets at least it's fair share. Now, I'm not carping about that, Dublin needs spending like anywhere else but it's just not reality to say that Dublin gets no infrastructural spending.

Should Waterford get a blank cheque? Certainly not a blank cheque but it is entitled to its fair share and there is a case to be made that the country would benefit from spending to boost regional centres to relieve congestion in Dublin. If you don't do that, we could end up with a situation where 70% or 80%of the population lives in the greater Dublin region. Of course, that may be inevitable. Ireland /Dublin is not a unique situation. Similar issues arise in other countries e.g. Copenhagen /Denmark, Oslo/Norway and arguably London /UK. You may be correct that it's best acknowledge reality and concentrate on Dublin and abandon the rest of the country bar perhaps Cork and Galway, though that seems a bit depressing and defeatist to me.
Finally, Coveney has said nothing about spending. So far, it's just a piece of paper and I doubt any money will be put where his mouth is.

For what it works as a Dubliner i like the idea of increased support to cities like Waterford. The commuter belt as you say is a major problem for Dublin and all the people coming to Dublin some at risk coming in on the motorways.

BBM77

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I live in Dublin as do the vast majority of the country. Not saying for one second we deserve more than the rest of the country only that the big cities see the highest concentration of demand for medical services. Large parts of the countryside have little or no access to much needed services. I can see a case to be made for Waterford to be upgraded to city status in terms of providing much needed services if the need arose. At the moment Dublin cators to most of the country and not just native Dubliners.

The reason I asked is because I suspected you were from Dublin. You were banging on about “important savings” and we in Waterford should be accepting them but (a) you don’t have to live with any consequences of what you are saying and (b) you don’t have a clue about what actually happened. Fact that you would say a “case to be made for Waterford to be upgraded to city status” shows how clueless of Ireland outside of Dublin you are.

road_high

BBM77 wrote: »

The reason I asked is because I suspected you were from Dublin. You were banging on about “important savings” and we in Waterford should be accepting them but (a) you don’t have to live with any consequences of what you are saying and (b) you don’t have a clue about what actually happened. Fact that you would say a “case to be made for Waterford to be upgraded to city status” shows how clueless of Ireland outside of Dublin you are.

Thing is, Dublin pays the bulk of the countries taxes. It's the engine of the economy and most of Leinster really. If places like Waterford were to survive on the taxes raised there alone then I can assure services would be a hell of a lot worse.
So the poster is dead right in my view to hold a whole country view and indeed prudent approach to national spending. If you choose to take that as some kind of affront to where you live fair enough, but you won't find many elsewhere in rest country too bothered. Just because they have "everything above in Dublin" doesn't mean it makes sense to have the same everywhere else. It's by far the largest city in the state.

Poor Uncle Tom

road_high wrote: »

Thing is, Dublin pays the bulk of the countries taxes. It's the engine of the economy and most of Leinster really. If places like Waterford were to survive on the taxes raised there alone then I can assure services would be a hell of a lot worse.
So the poster is dead right in my view to hold a whole country view and indeed prudent approach to national spending. If you choose to take that as some kind of affront to where you live fair enough, but you won't find many elsewhere in rest country too bothered. Just because they have "everything above in Dublin" doesn't mean it makes sense to have the same everywhere else. It's by far the largest city in the state.

Your template is seriously flawed if you think along the lines of the above.

Rates are regional for the most part. Other taxes like VAT, Import Duties, VRT, DIRT Tax, Property Tax, etc, etc, ad finitum goes to central government for distribution, which means the country as a whole provide for Dublin City every bit as much as the offerings from the City itself does. When the city is looked after, the country is then looked at for distribution of the crumbs.

In light of this your posts come across as smug at best, ill informed at worst.

road_high

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Your template is seriously flawed if you think along the lines of the above.

Rates are regional for the most part. Other taxes like VAT, Import Duties, VRT, DIRT Tax, Property Tax, etc, etc, ad finitum goes to central government for distribution, which means the country as a whole provide for Dublin City every bit as much as the offerings from the City itself does. When the city is looked after, the country is then looked at for distribution of the crumbs.

In light of this your posts come across as smug at best, ill informed at worst.

It's not true. Dublin generates this countries wealth in a whole range of measurements. If you want to believe that's not true then fair enough. It has the lowest unemployment, most jobs, most economic activity etc.
I'm not even from Dublin but I recognise this. 40% of the people live there so I'd safely assume over 50% of all tax is generated there too..not sure where the crumbs bit is coming from because in reality it's Dublin subsidising the rest of us, not the other way around.
I'm not smug just calling things as they are and not interested in Dublin bashing that seems fashionable in some parts.

Poor Uncle Tom

road_high wrote: »

It's not true. Dublin generates this countries wealth in a whole range of measurements.

Only if you consider the taxation controling body's base location (Department of Finance) as being the generating force for the tax.

road_high wrote: »

40% of the people live there

Quick calculation tells us 28% of the Republic's population live in the metropolitan area of Dublin.

road_high wrote: »

so I'd safely assume over 50% of all tax is generated there too..

False assumption.

road_high wrote: »

not sure where the crumbs bit is coming from because in reality it's Dublin subsidising the rest of us, not the other way around.
I'm not smug just calling things as they are and not interested in Dublin bashing that seems fashionable in some parts.

Re-evaluate and revert, please.

space2ground1

If anyone's not in the humour for baseless assertions, it might be worth reading the figures below taken as an extract from a Facebook post by John Halligan earlier in the year.

It might warm the odd ego to revert to the 'Waterford hasn't got the numbers' excuse for defunding a city and it's its people to secure standards for the higher populated Irish cities, but factually it's incorrect.

Facts don't matter though. If I learned anything from this issue in 2016 it's that other influences come before facts every time.

...Waterford is being treated as second class purely to protect the budgets of hospitals in Cork and Dublin. I think it is important to illustrate this by going into detail on the figures.
The DOH advised that the international guidelines recommend a minimum of 100 PPCI (emergency) stent cases per year to justify 24/7 cardiac services in a primary care hospital. To illustrate their point, they brought figures from the 6 other primary centres - but suspiciously could not produce figures for Waterford. When I obtained the stats I realised why.

In 2013, UHW had 98 cases where emergency stents were required. In 2014, it was 87, and in 2015 it was 80.

These were all between the hours of 9-5. Many more patients were referred to Cork or Dublin outside of office hours. In 2015 this number was 77, meaning that 157 of these patients in total presented at UHW. This means that for the past few years at least, UHW has been above the Dept. of Health's OWN threshold for requiring a 24/7 cardiac service.

But if that alone seems outrageous, here's the key point: Waterford Hospital is being presented with more emergency cardiac cases than many of the hospitals who DO provide 24/7 cardiac care. I mentioned that in 2015, the total number in UHW was 157; in Cork, it was 144; the Mater, 143; and St. Vincent's, 95.

When I raised this with the Department, they advised that pulling cases back from Cork or Dublin would "impact" the budgets in those hospitals. In other words, Waterford people needing emergency cardiac care are being put in an ambulance and transferred two hours away in order to protect funding levels in hospitals in the two largest cities in the State. Again: by the Department of Health's own admission, lives are being risked in Waterford and the South East to protect the budgets of the country's largest hospitals.

Johnboy1951

space2ground1 wrote: »

If anyone's not in the humour for baseless assertions, it might be worth reading the figures below taken as an extract from a Facebook post by John Halligan earlier in the year.

It might warm the odd ego to revert to the 'Waterford hasn't got the numbers' excuse for defunding a city and it's its people to secure standards for the higher populated Irish cities, but factually it's incorrect.

Facts don't matter though. If I learned anything from this issue in 2016 it's that other influences come before facts every time.

Can you provide a link to that post please?
or even a date?
Thanks.

Disturbing figures!

space2ground1

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Can you provide a link to that post please?
or even a date?
Thanks.

Disturbing figures!

https://www.facebook.com/johnhalliganwaterford/posts/1121761391221226

He goes on to say he couldn't play a part in a government where a situation like that goes on. Id prefer he did stay in government and look to solve it other than staying on the outside complaining about it. I believe he is more likely to deliver capital spending to Waterford than the previous govt TDs. I base that assertion on the city's dreadful experience of FG/Lab. I'd happily give Halligan a proper chance to deliver this.

Wanderer78

space2ground1 wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/johnhalliganwaterford/posts/1121761391221226

He goes on to say he couldn't play a part in a government where a situation like that goes on. Id prefer he did stay in government and look to solve it other than staying on the outside complaining about it. I believe he is more likely to deliver capital spending to Waterford than the previous govt TDs. I base that assertion on the city's dreadful experience of FG/Lab. I'd happily give Halligan a proper chance to deliver this.

thank you for sharing this info, its a very disturbing read. im actually proud of halligan for all that give out about him but i think he was a little naive when entering this government. i think hes now feeling the power of big party politics. its a job that few could really do including myself. hes trying at least

Deiseen

space2ground1 wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/johnhalliganwaterford/posts/1121761391221226

He goes on to say he couldn't play a part in a government where a situation like that goes on. Id prefer he did stay in government and look to solve it other than staying on the outside complaining about it. I believe he is more likely to deliver capital spending to Waterford than the previous govt TDs. I base that assertion on the city's dreadful experience of FG/Lab. I'd happily give Halligan a proper chance to deliver this.

Explain the 100% drop in IDA visits to Waterford then?

I really like Halligan but I won't allow him off the hook for anything.

space2ground1

Deiseen wrote: »

Explain the 100% drop in IDA visits to Waterford then?

I really like Halligan but I won't allow him off the hook for anything.

Maybe a whole load of TDs that don't want this city to thrive lest their own patch lose a morsel of present or future prosperity and influence?, that are apathetic (I'm being very kind) to the decimation of the city in order to strengthen their own or to maybe even to continue a deep seated anti Waterford bias held by many? Forgive my negativity but I've observed enough behaviour and defence of blatant anti Waterford policy to fill my cynical little cup to overflowing.

I'm wildly guessing of course and I could be wrong but you did ask for possible reasons. If the best we can hope for from a TD is to stop the others from negative influence, we're arguing over scraps..

newacc2015

Squidvicious wrote: »

Hardly infrastructure spending? Dublin gets plenty: Luas, airport, the port tunnel , to name but three. Dublin gets at least it's fair share. Now, I'm not carping about that, Dublin needs spending like anywhere else but it's just not reality to say that Dublin gets no infrastructural spending.

The Airport is a national infrastructure project not just for the residents of Dublin. It is owned by a state company, that raises its own funds and it is ran as a business. The Luas is run like a for profit company too and doesn't cost the taxpayer a cent(it in fact makes the taxpayer a profit). So two of those 3 examples don't cost the taxpayer a cent... I would love to know how infrastructure project in Waterford make a profit for the taxpayer. Rural roads have gotten far more infastructure spending than Dublin has gotten in the last 15 years.

Squidvicious wrote: »

Should Waterford get a blank cheque? Certainly not a blank cheque but it is entitled to its fair share and there is a case to be made that the country would benefit from spending to boost regional centres to relieve congestion in Dublin. If you don't do that, we could end up with a situation where 70% or 80%of the population lives in the greater Dublin region. Of course, that may be inevitable. Ireland /Dublin is not a unique situation. Similar issues arise in other countries e.g. Copenhagen /Denmark, Oslo/Norway and arguably London /UK. You may be correct that it's best acknowledge reality and concentrate on Dublin and abandon the rest of the country bar perhaps Cork and Galway, though that seems a bit depressing and defeatist to me.
Finally, Coveney has said nothing about spending. So far, it's just a piece of paper and I doubt any money will be put where his mouth is.

So instead of dealing with the congestion in Dublin, we should force residents who have moved to Dublin for the superior quality of life to move to regional centres as we can get away with having to build massive infastructure like trams? Dublin wouldn't have congestion if the state actually spent some money on it. But instead Dublin pays for glorified driveways aka regional roads.

We are already past the situation where most of the state may live in Dublin, as about 40% of the state does live in Dublin. Dublin needs serious money spent on it, that the state has neglected to do for the last 30 years.

KingBrian2

BBM77 wrote: »

The reason I asked is because I suspected you were from Dublin. You were banging on about “important savings” and we in Waterford should be accepting them but (a) you don’t have to live with any consequences of what you are saying and (b) you don’t have a clue about what actually happened. Fact that you would say a “case to be made for Waterford to be upgraded to city status” shows how clueless of Ireland outside of Dublin you are.

I'm actually agreeing Waterford could do with additional funding and you come on and take a swipe at me. You seem to have a anti Dublin agenda going for you. Perhaps you don't like that we are the All Ireland Winners in GAA. The fact is Waterford is a city i know this but in terms of coming to National prominence it does not have the size or tourist numbers that Dublin has. Suburbs within Dublin have larger populations and better amenities than Waterford. I actually visited Waterford once i like it a lot but it is not Dublin. The scale, the grandeur of Dublin. As a Dubliner i see a lot of parts of the country that are really part of the countryside even the large cities.

Squidvicious

newacc2015 wrote: »

The Airport is a national infrastructure project not just for the residents of Dublin. It is owned by a state company, that raises its own funds and it is ran as a business. The Luas is run like a for profit company too and doesn't cost the taxpayer a cent(it in fact makes the taxpayer a profit). So two of those 3 examples don't cost the taxpayer a cent... I would love to know how infrastructure project in Waterford make a profit for the taxpayer. Rural roads have gotten far more infastructure spending than Dublin has gotten in the last 15 years.



So instead of dealing with the congestion in Dublin, we should force residents who have moved to Dublin for the superior quality of life to move to regional centres as we can get away with having to build massive infastructure like trams? Dublin wouldn't have congestion if the state actually spent some money on it. But instead Dublin pays for glorified driveways aka regional roads.

We are already past the situation where most of the state may live in Dublin, as about 40% of the state does live in Dublin. Dublin needs serious money spent on it, that the state has neglected to do for the last 30 years.

It's been a trend the world over for big cities to get bigger(particularly capital cities) and for rural areas and smaller towns and cities to decline. I put this mainly down to market forces in a globalised world and I think that there is a limited amount that governments can or even should do to combat this. It's good for the country that we have a city that is "on the map" in international terms. However, that doesn't mean that Dublin gets a blank cheque either, which seems to be what you're looking for.

I would take issue with the bolded bit. First, "force residents to move"? Well, that's kind of what happens to many non-Dubliners who don't necessarily want to move there. Many would be glad of the opportunity to leave Dublin. And lets just say that not everyone would agree that Dublin has a "superior quality of life" - not everyone who moves to Dublin does so to escape the boredom of living in the bogs! They often move because they have to in order to find work as jobs are somewhat harder to come by outside of Dublin. As for spending money to cure Dublin's congestion problems, the difficulty is that Dublin is a bottomless pit to some degree. Due to it's rapid growth, it will inevitably experience congestion difficulties whatever you do. That's not to say that no money should be spent, but you write as though there's some kind of magic bullet for Dublin. There's not. Indeed, if the government did embark on a major infrastructural programme, that massive spending in itself would cause more economic growth, more congestion etc.

I'm genuinely not anti Dublin. But I really don't see why some steps cannot be taken such as decentralisation. I know, that's moving people out of Dublin, but as I said above, welcome to our world "down the country" when many of us have to move.

Your post also suggests that there is an imbalance between revenue raise/money spent to the detriment of Dublin. I'm really not sure what the precise balance is in this regard - it would be a fairly complicated calculation. You mention roads. However, so much government spending stays in Dublin, for example, Dublin has far more government employees than any other county. Their salaries remain in Dublin boosting the Dublin economy.

As for the specific projects you mention, Luas may now be self-financing, but who paid for it? Presumably, the taxpayer to some degree? I don't begrudge the expenditure but it is an example of major infrastructural spending in Dublin. Every part of the country has it's own infrastructural wish list. Dublin has it's needs but I'm sure that it is at least as well served as anywhere else in terms of government spending.

The only Major infrastructural project that I'm aware of in the Waterford area is the new bridge which was needed not just from a local point of view but from a regional perspective also. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that no new infrastructural investment should be made outside of Dublin because that seems to be one interpretation of what you've said.

And regional roads as "glorified driveways"? What ? All of them? I assume that that was intended as tongue in cheek??

KingBrian2

The big debate of the future as i put it earlier is are we going to build cities taller? So far people are two ways about Dublin having skycrapers. Leaving aside the homeless crisis which is plaguing the entire country we need livable cities. It would be horrible if Dublin became as bad as New York in terms of all the tall buildings they have. They also have similar problems that massive urban spaces bring.

BBM77

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I'm actually agreeing Waterford could do with additional funding and you come on and take a swipe at me. You seem to have a anti Dublin agenda going for you. Perhaps you don't like that we are the All Ireland Winners in GAA. The fact is Waterford is a city i know this but in terms of coming to National prominence it does not have the size or tourist numbers that Dublin has. Suburbs within Dublin have larger populations and better amenities than Waterford. I actually visited Waterford once i like it a lot but it is not Dublin. The scale, the grandeur of Dublin. As a Dubliner i see a lot of parts of the country that are really part of the countryside even the large cities.

Yes that is it. Because football is that popular in Waterford. Then you wonder why I’d be saying how clueless of Ireland outside of Dublin you are.

mire

It is important to point out that Dublin's dominance, which is actually problematic from a national perspective (it is not a good thing to have such an imbalanced economy and territory), is not the result of some natural intrinsic competitive advantage. It is the outcome of decades of public policy that favours concentration of investment and decision making in the capital. The country needs a strong Dublin of course. But it needs strong secondary cities much more in my view.

space2ground1

mire wrote: »

It is important to point out that Dublin's dominance, which is actually problematic from a national perspective (it is not a good thing to have such an imbalanced economy and territory), is not the result of some natural intrinsic competitive advantage. It is the outcome of decades of public policy that favours concentration of investment and decision making in the capital. The country needs a strong Dublin of course. But it needs strong secondary cities much more in my view.

Nail on the head. Capital spending in Waterford has generally been reported as parish pump, yet money spent in Dublin or Cork is considered investment.

That's not to say that capital spending in Waterford (proportional to the regions population and status) has been acceptable to the current & last govt. The dogs in the street would wonder how Waterford has 'fallen' off the radar with such enthusiasm.

Wanderer78

mire wrote: »

It is important to point out that Dublin's dominance, which is actually problematic from a national perspective (it is not a good thing to have such an imbalanced economy and territory), is not the result of some natural intrinsic competitive advantage. It is the outcome of decades of public policy that favours concentration of investment and decision making in the capital. The country needs a strong Dublin of course. But it needs strong secondary cities much more in my view.

space2ground1 wrote: »

Nail on the head. Capital spending in Waterford has generally been reported as parish pump, yet money spent in Dublin or Cork is considered investment.

That's not to say that capital spending in Waterford (proportional to the regions population and status) has been acceptable to the current & last govt. The dogs in the street would wonder how Waterford has 'fallen' off the radar with such enthusiasm.

id have to completely agree with fintan o'toole in regards parish pump politics, this is largely due to the design of our national political system, i.e. most of the power and control of our political system is in leinster house. we elect our local politicians to represent our needs in the dail, thus leading to parish pump politics. he believes our local councils should be given far more power and control, effectively decentralising our political system, reducing the effects of parish pump politics. this makes a lot of sense.

KingBrian2

Wanderer78 wrote: »

id have to completely agree with fintan o'toole in regards parish pump politics, this is largely due to the design of our national political system, i.e. most of the power and control of our political system is in leinster house. we elect our local politicians to represent our needs in the dail, thus leading to parish pump politics. he believes our local councils should be given far more power and control, effectively decentralising our political system, reducing the effects of parish pump politics. this makes a lot of sense.

Decentralization was tried in the 90's and came up with stiff opposition as TD's do not want to relocate to peripheral locations. Dublin is by no means the most congested region of Ireland. People outside of Dublin keep lumping so much of Eastern Leinster into Dublin. The crowding of Dublin comes at the expense of the city itself, entire areas of Dublin City consist of deprived communities. The services in the capital is much needed to the locals and residents. Public officials need to make it a lot more affordable to the average citizen.

Wanderer78

KingBrian2 wrote:

Decentralization was tried in the 90's and came up with stiff opposition as TD's do not want to relocate to peripheral locations. Dublin is by no means the most congested region of Ireland. People outside of Dublin keep lumping so much of Eastern Leinster into Dublin. The crowding of Dublin comes at the expense of the city itself, entire areas of Dublin City consist of deprived communities. The services in the capital is much needed to the locals and residents. Public officials need to make it a lot more affordable to the average citizen.

Who said anything about moving td's, it's a system change, I.e. system decentralization. What may not have worked in the 90's, May actually work now. I 'll post Fintan o'Toole's idea later, might make more sense, even though it was proposed a few years ago, I still think he's right on this one. Many areas are deprived in Ireland, not just in Dublin, but I'm sure many of dublins issues are far more serious than other parts of the country to, but that doesn't mean we need to forget about other areas issues.