Coveney: Waterford can double it's population

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.