Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Ireland 2040 plan "will kill rural Ireland"

1242527293033

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,140 ✭✭✭✭ markodaly


    Yawn. Again.

    A well thought out rebuttal. Well done, you have changed my mind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,778 ✭✭✭✭ Juniper Black Pinprick


    markodaly wrote: »
    Not at all. That word has entered the lexicon as other countries in the West want to adopt American type housing with gyms, games rooms, a movie theatre. In fact in Australia in some councils they have tried to ban these McMansions.

    If you are vain enough to want to be part of an episode of MTV Cribs then good luck to you. It does not mean that we, the tax payer should go on and subside your property for you and provide you with all the mod cons and services that are expensive to provide, such as fibre broadband to your house.

    Perhaps if you paid property tax on the Sq foot you had, perhaps you would change your tune? :rolleyes:

    Honestly what are you talking about? Vain?

    No it's very not vain it's having the house I want, you might be happy spending a few 100k on a small house or poky apartment and making do with that so you can live in other things people's laps but for me that just doesn't cut it. Having the house I want with the space, layout and facilities I want is far more important than being able to walk to a cafe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭ LeinsterDub


    Honestly what are you talking about? Vain?

    No it's very not vain it's having the house I want, you might be happy spending a few 100k on a small house or poky apartment and making do with that so you can live in other things people's laps but for me that just doesn't cut it. Having the house I want with the space, layout and facilities I want is far more important than being able to walk to a cafe.

    But you're unwilling to pay the actual value for the services you require to live here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,933 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152


    Honestly what are you talking about? Vain?

    No it's very not vain it's having the house I want, you might be happy spending a few 100k on a small house or poky apartment and making do with that so you can live in other things people's laps but for me that just doesn't cut it. Having the house I want with the space, layout and facilities I want is far more important than being able to walk to a cafe.

    Grand, but don't expect postal services, a decent road, fibre broadband, homecare when you are old, hospital services within a reasonable distance, schools, shops and pubs in walking distance, a bank within 50km, or any of the other services that are best provided in bulk in cities.

    As I have said before, feel free to live in a cave on top of a mountain if you want, nobody in a city has a problem with that. It is the expectation of comparable services that is rejected.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,933 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152


    A large proportion of rural dwellers commute to urban areas to work so their salaries are comparable in general.

    Rural homes tend to have more cars, newer and often more expensive cars. Vrt and vat on cars is a big expense. They spend more on fuel as they drive more which is a big cash cow for tax, they pay for water which had vat (urban dwellers refused to oay), they higher electricity thus more vat.

    Thank you for making one of the best arguments against rural living seen on this thread.

    The higher car ownership among rural dwellers is contributing disproportionately to Ireland's problems with meeting climate change targets. I think that a higher car tax on rural dwellers is more than justified in light of your post.

    In the meantime, if we increased the excise duty on diesel it would make a good start.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,942 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    Dublin is like a black hole sucking people in from outside of Dublin.

    Yes, cities do that, have done since the industrial revolution and will continue to do so at an ever quickening pace. Even in China the land of eternal supply of cheap labour, labour costs are going up and they are outsourcing some jobs to Bangladesh.
    But for the sanity of Dubliners and to ease the accommodation crisis it needs to be done.
    There are only so many sardines you can squeeze into the tin.

    Have you ever left this country? Dublin is very spacious, more green space per capita than any other European capital. The only problem is that government has made it very very expensive to develop apartments with rules:

    -4 floors max
    -underground car park for every apartment even in Central Dublin which is full of carless households.
    -dual aspect
    -feck all one bed units
    -studios banned.

    This can be changed tomorrow if politicians wanted it too. Ironically it's often left leaning politicians that insist on making housing expensive with dual aspect, underground parking, min 2 beds etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,516 ✭✭✭✭ Idbatterim


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Yes, cities do that, have done since the industrial revolution and will continue to do so at an ever quickening pace. Even in China the land of eternal supply of cheap labour, labour costs are going up and they are outsourcing some jobs to Bangladesh.



    Have you ever left this country? Dublin is very spacious, more green space per capita than any other European capital. The only problem is that government has made it very very expensive to develop apartments with rules:

    -4 floors max
    -underground car park for every apartment even in Central Dublin which is full of carless households.
    -dual aspect
    -feck all one bed units
    -studios banned.

    This can be changed tomorrow if politicians wanted it too. Ironically it's often left leaning politicians that insist on making housing expensive with dual aspect, underground parking, min 2 beds etc.

    nail on the head with the above, government insists on rip off property here. At local level, they do it to (as they see it) protect existing residents, to ensure they maintain their seats the next time there is a vote and at national level, they want to stymy Dublins development as much as possible, so it doesnt gain more influence.

    What the idiots are doing by this, is simply damaging Ireland Inc! They bitch about a lack of resources i.e. money and they wonder why! because they are strangling the golden goose!

    i hear this bull**** of rural life dying, the post office, the garda stations. If it means so much, why not increase the LPT? or is a an extra 50c or a euro a day, too much to ask? for better roads and increased services etc? buses to bring them to the pub, because the elderly here certainly arent lacking in cash, with the ridiculous generosity shown to them by the irish tax payer...

    The problem here is, its never problem solving, its problem dodging, point the finger. Infighting!


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,942 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    Honestly what are you talking about? Vain?

    No it's very not vain it's having the house I want, you might be happy spending a few 100k on a small house or poky apartment and making do with that so you can live in other things people's laps but for me that just doesn't cut it. Having the house I want with the space, layout and facilities I want is far more important than being able to walk to a cafe.

    Grand pay for it so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,942 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    nail on the head with the above, government insists on rip off property here. At local level, they do it to (as they see it) protect existing residents, to ensure they maintain their seats the next time there is a vote and at national level, they want to stymy Dublins development as much as possible, so it doesnt gain more influence.

    What the idiots are doing by this, is simply damaging Ireland Inc! They bitch about a lack of resources i.e. money and they wonder why! because they are strangling the golden goose!

    i hear this bull**** of rural life dying, the post office, the garda stations. If it means so much, why not increase the LPT? or is a an extra 50c or a euro a day, too much to ask? for better roads and increased services etc? buses to bring them to the pub, because the elderly here certainly arent lacking in cash, with the ridiculous generosity shown to them by the irish tax payer...

    The problem here is, its never problem solving, its problem dodging, point the finger. Infighting!

    Politicians want us to all live in 3 bed semi-ds in the suburbs and commute in, even if we are a one person household and would much rather a tiny space to ourselves in a central location with no need for a car. Forcing young people to share in the burbs puts the cost of those semi-ds even higher because the single folks and smaller households have nowhere to go.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,462 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    nail on the head with the above, government insists on rip off property here. At local level, they do it to (as they see it) protect existing residents, to ensure they maintain their seats the next time there is a vote and at national level, they want to stymy Dublins development as much as possible, so it doesnt gain more influence.

    What the idiots are doing by this, is simply damaging Ireland Inc! They bitch about a lack of resources i.e. money and they wonder why! because they are strangling the golden goose!

    i hear this bull**** of rural life dying, the post office, the garda stations. If it means so much, why not increase the LPT? or is a an extra 50c or a euro a day, too much to ask? for better roads and increased services etc? buses to bring them to the pub, because the elderly here certainly arent lacking in cash, with the ridiculous generosity shown to them by the irish tax payer...

    The problem here is, its never problem solving, its problem dodging, point the finger. Infighting!

    The rest of your post is an example of that which you decry in the bold part.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,844 ✭✭✭✭ osarusan


    defrule wrote: »
    I think mentality is something that needs to really change on top of the all the tangible developments that should happen.

    As an example, where in Dublin do we have underground tunnels to cross roads?
    40868726.9236e516.560.jpg?r2

    I never noticed we were missing these until I saw them in other cities. Instead of putting traffic lights everywhere, tunnels like these mean cars and pedestrians don't come into conflict.

    This mindset of really thinking about how to gain maximum utility from land including the vertical aspects is something we really need.

    Rather than going underground, something like this would be better. Pedestrian areas over the roads (and buildings have entrances both at the ground floor and the upper floor too).


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 34,552 Mod ✭✭✭✭ AlmightyCushion


    osarusan wrote: »
    Rather than going underground, something like this would be better. Pedestrian areas over the roads (and buildings have entrances both at the ground floor and the upper floor too).

    That's probably a hell of a lot more expensive. Looks class though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,844 ✭✭✭✭ osarusan


    That's probably a hell of a lot more expensive. Looks class though.

    It's a lot more lightweight than it looks, needs to be in an earthquake-prone country like Japan.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭ pilly


    Honestly what are you talking about? Vain?

    No it's very not vain it's having the house I want, you might be happy spending a few 100k on a small house or poky apartment and making do with that so you can live in other things people's laps but for me that just doesn't cut it. Having the house I want with the space, layout and facilities I want is far more important than being able to walk to a cafe.

    Given the whole subject of this thread is Ireland 2040 plan which will do away with the type of the house you're talking about I'm not sure of the point of your posts other than a hollow boast?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭ nuac


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    nail on the head with the above, government insists on rip off property here. At local level, they do it to (as they see it) protect existing residents, to ensure they maintain their seats the next time there is a vote and at national level, they want to stymy Dublins development as much as possible, so it doesnt gain more influence.

    What the idiots are doing by this, is simply damaging Ireland Inc! They bitch about a lack of resources i.e. money and they wonder why! because they are strangling the golden goose!

    i hear this bull**** of rural life dying, the post office, the garda stations. If it means so much, why not increase the LPT? or is a an extra 50c or a euro a day, too much to ask? for better roads and increased services etc? buses to bring them to the pub, because the elderly here certainly arent lacking in cash, with the ridiculous generosity shown to them by the irish tax payer...

    The problem here is, its never problem solving, its problem dodging, point the finger. Infighting!

    I am now elderly. Could you please tell me where I can access this "ridiculous genorsity"?

    E.g. during the financial emergency some of my modest pension pot was taken to plug some hole in state finances. AFAIK hasn't been refunded.

    Worked hard to raise and educate children during years of high taxation and high interest.

    Have i missed a memo somewhere?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,516 ✭✭✭✭ Idbatterim


    The rest of your post is an example of that which you decry in the bold part.

    the problem as I see it, is lack of cooperation. I do just think that these idiots operate on a simple level of us v them!

    If there is such an issue rurally and most of it comes down to money, is there an issue with paying fractionally more tax? Also Dublin has been made a planning balls of, but so has rural Ireland, the problem is the pool of people we can choose to elect from. They offer no vision, nothing. Just more of the same!


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,788 ✭✭✭✭ BonnieSituation


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    nail on the head with the above, government insists on rip off property here. At local level, they do it to (as they see it) protect existing residents, to ensure they maintain their seats the next time there is a vote and at national level, they want to stymy Dublins development as much as possible, so it doesnt gain more influence.

    What the idiots are doing by this, is simply damaging Ireland Inc! They bitch about a lack of resources i.e. money and they wonder why! because they are strangling the golden goose!

    i hear this bull**** of rural life dying, the post office, the garda stations. If it means so much, why not increase the LPT? or is a an extra 50c or a euro a day, too much to ask? for better roads and increased services etc? buses to bring them to the pub, because the elderly here certainly arent lacking in cash, with the ridiculous generosity shown to them by the irish tax payer...

    The problem here is, its never problem solving, its problem dodging, point the finger. Infighting!



    The thing is, not one person in "rural" Ireland has the gumption to realise what we're on about here.

    I want small viable towns dotted around the country as do so many here and in this thread. But the insistence on ripping the heart out of these to ensure they have their road frontage and their big McMansion is mind blowing.

    Subsidising small towns to thrive and survive is something larger cities have always done and something we would all like to continue especially for some from a quality of life and even an internal tourism aspect.

    But you'd swear we put a fatwa on rural living given the lack of understanding in here.

    As long as there is no disincentive to one off housing or an incentive to build in or beside a town then we've lost the battle. Critical mass is key. But it needs to be spelled out clearly that if you want a gaff miles from anyone for no good reason other than vanity then off you pop. But you're gonna pay for it.

    The cities should not be involved in this argument at all. We're dragged into it and the issue really isn't our problem. This isn't urban v rural in the strict sense. This needs to be framed as rural town v rural country [sic]. And those people living in our dying smaller towns and villages need to be woken up and face the fact that their neighbours are killing their way of life with selfishness and vanity.

    It's not Dublin, Cork or Limerick at fault we're keeping the lot on life support.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,896 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    jmayo wrote: »
    Have you compared some of those apartments in Europe and what spaces are available nearby for kids with what has historically been on offer in Ireland ?
    Wait till your kid gets bigger or you have another one and I would bet tonight's lottery you will be on the move out of that apartment of yours.

    As it is now, we will never need to move out. Plenty of space. My daughters room is big enough to take a king size bed. The room is about three times larger then the box room that I grew up in!

    Yes, if we have another child we will eventually be forced to move. But not for at least another 12 years. My apartment actually comes with a study, that many of my neighbours use as a third bedroom. Fine for a smaller child. Though I'd admit once the child hit teenage years, it might be a bit small. Then I'd start looking for a three bed apartment and would hopefully have the finances to afford it due to being further along my career path.

    BTW roughly half the apartments in my building have kids and most of them have two or three kids.

    That is the point, my apartment building was very much built in a European style and thus made it more suitable for raising a family.

    I'm not for a moment saying everything is perfect out their. We absolutely need to be building more European style, family friendly apartments, more three bedroom apartments, etc.

    We also need to be building more single bedroom apartments for younger people.

    The overall point I'm trying to make is that you can absolutely build great apartments that people raise families in. I'm experiencing it with myself. You certainly don't have to automatically move to a three bed house WAY outside the city the minute you get married. We just need to change the way we think about these things and demand better from our government and planners.

    I worry though that the reason such apartments aren't being built, is because Irish people turn up their nose at them and fell that they have to have the 3 bed semi-d if you have a family and the builders are simply responding to that demand. We are our own worse enemy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,348 ✭✭✭✭ jmayo


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Grand, but don't expect postal services, a decent road, fibre broadband, homecare when you are old, hospital services within a reasonable distance, schools, shops and pubs in walking distance, a bank within 50km, or any of the other services that are best provided in bulk in cities.

    As I have said before, feel free to live in a cave on top of a mountain if you want, nobody in a city has a problem with that. It is the expectation of comparable services that is rejected.

    So if I understood the city folk right the choices for living in the country are mcmansions or caves. :rolleyes:

    BTW I type this as I look out on miles and miles of rolling hills, mountains, trees, fields and you know what it is damn nice.
    There is a hell of a view from this cave. :D

    BTW go into some of the banks today and you find yourself being directed to a machine in the corner so doesn't really matter where they are in the future.
    blanch152 wrote: »
    Thank you for making one of the best arguments against rural living seen on this thread.

    The higher car ownership among rural dwellers is contributing disproportionately to Ireland's problems with meeting climate change targets. I think that a higher car tax on rural dwellers is more than justified in light of your post.

    In the meantime, if we increased the excise duty on diesel it would make a good start.

    Remind me again how many cars are crawling through city centres today spewing out pollution and carbon ?
    But I suppose you will claim they are all people from the country.
    cgcsb wrote: »
    Politicians want us to all live in 3 bed semi-ds in the suburbs and commute in, even if we are a one person household and would much rather a tiny space to ourselves in a central location with no need for a car. Forcing young people to share in the burbs puts the cost of those semi-ds even higher because the single folks and smaller households have nowhere to go.

    You see this is where you are dead wrong.
    It is not politicians that want that, but the actual people themselves.
    Irish people like their bit of space, they like their bit of land.
    It is a historical thing that is ingrained in a lot of people, probable due to our history.

    And I would bet most of the ones rabitting on about apartment living around here are youngish and single, or at least not with families.
    Add a family in and you will soon find that Irish apartment living soon gets tiresome and you want your semi D, your own bit of green space.

    Or was I imagining all those people stuck in apartments by negative equity claiming they were miserable because they now had growing families and wanted to get a decent sized house of some sort or other.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,833 ✭✭✭✭ Geuze


    nuac wrote: »
    I am now elderly. Could you please tell me where I can access this "ridiculous genorsity"?

    E.g. during the financial emergency some of my modest pension pot was taken to plug some hole in state finances. AFAIK hasn't been refunded.

    Worked hard to raise and educate children during years of high taxation and high interest.

    Have i missed a memo somewhere?

    Older people pay less direct taxes:
    http://www.publicpolicy.ie/old-people-pay-much-less-tax-than-the-young/


    Older people have lower poverty rates.

    My parents pay 10% direct income tax on approx 50k, and get:

    2x travel passes
    free TV licence
    2x med cards
    35pm off their elec bill


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,462 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how


    The thing is, not one person in "rural" Ireland has the gumption to realise what we're on about here.

    I want small viable towns dotted around the country as do so many here and in this thread. But the insistence on ripping the heart out of these to ensure they have their road frontage and their big McMansion is mind blowing.

    Subsidising small towns to thrive and survive is something larger cities have always done and something we would all like to continue especially for some from a quality of life and even an internal tourism aspect.

    But you'd swear we put a fatwa on rural living given the lack of understanding in here.

    As long as there is no disincentive to one off housing or an incentive to build in or beside a town then we've lost the battle. Critical mass is key. But it needs to be spelled out clearly that if you want a gaff miles from anyone for no good reason other than vanity then off you pop. But you're gonna pay for it.

    The cities should not be involved in this argument at all. We're dragged into it and the issue really isn't our problem. This isn't urban v rural in the strict sense. This needs to be framed as rural town v rural country [sic]. And those people living in our dying smaller towns and villages need to be woken up and face the fact that their neighbours are killing their way of life with selfishness and vanity.

    It's not Dublin, Cork or Limerick at fault we're keeping the lot on life support.

    You are not entirely wrong but nor are you fully correct. Not everyone outside of Dublin wants or suggests that everyone should have a house in the middle of nowhere.

    A lot in Rural locations have been paying much more for years for water supplies and sewage treatment than those in urban schemes but are being told here that they are being fully subsidised on everything. Most of the challenges against water charges came from urban locations. Rural are used to paying for them.

    We have problems in both cities and rural towns and yet the solutions to those problems partially exist with the surplus of what the other has to hand. (I'm not suggesting it is easy to do so).
    My position, is that several towns and cities in the country have empty houses, offices and shopfronts while their younger people have moved to bigger cities for work. That is not rural living pulling the heart out of those towns. But then I read suggestions that we should put 8000 more people in the north inner (inner) Dublin city.

    Also, could we stop using the term McMansion, or are there bonus club points for it being used or something. It's about as true a statement as every apartment being referred to as a penthouse.

    Finally, I wonder do all the owners of holiday homes dotted in most coastal towns around the country which they visit 4 times a year think that rural housing is the source of all problems.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,512 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    jmayo wrote: »
    Remind me again how many cars are crawling through city centres today spewing out pollution and carbon ?
    But I suppose you will claim they are all people from the country.

    I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of posters on here who live in Dublin agree that there is far too many cars crawling around Dublin spewing out pollution. And most want improved public transport and cycling networks.

    So I’ve no idea what your point is. :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,778 ✭✭✭✭ Juniper Black Pinprick


    But you're unwilling to pay the actual value for the services you require to live here.
    cgcsb wrote: »
    Grand pay for it so.

    I assume you are both very very strongly against all forms of social housing, given that it esentially means a free or subsidised to almsot nothing cost to fairly significant number of people.

    Rural people do pay for their homes and while the actual building itself naturally costs less due to alreading owning the land or land costs being lower they do pay more to run the house in having water charges, paying to manage their own sewage, higher electricty costs, most likley BB costs will be higher also. Nobody in this country pays the "actual" cost for their services, that's not how a functioning society works and the sooner people raelise this and that they can't impose their way of living on other people the better.
    blanch152 wrote: »
    Grand, but don't expect postal services, a decent road, fibre broadband, homecare when you are old, hospital services within a reasonable distance, schools, shops and pubs in walking distance, a bank within 50km, or any of the other services that are best provided in bulk in cities.

    As I have said before, feel free to live in a cave on top of a mountain if you want, nobody in a city has a problem with that. It is the expectation of comparable services that is rejected.

    Postal services, roads, homecare, fibre BB and schools are required regardless as there is always a decent proportion of people who have to live rurally be they farmers, farm businesses or providing various different services to the area. So depopulating rural areas just makes the provision of these services more expensive. Also just so you know the road to our house was improved quite a few years ago with a significant proportion of the costs being coverd by the people living there. Aside from the surfacing all other works were also done by ourselves and the other locals such as making corners safer and widening some sections.

    Its 5 mins drive to a thriving school which has been more than doubled in size with a massive extension in the last 5 years so I'm safe enough there.

    25km from a city centre, 5km from a town (with a very busy bank branch) and 15km from a big county town. I think I'm safe enough there for both hospital and banking - not that I even need to go to the bank except on very very rare occasions.

    I never said I wanted shops or pubs within walking disance, in fact I very much wouldn't want them.
    pilly wrote: »
    Given the whole subject of this thread is Ireland 2040 plan which will do away with the type of the house you're talking about I'm not sure of the point of your posts other than a hollow boast?

    Due to having a farm at home I (and a lot of other people from rural areas) would always get "needs planning" even if (and its very big if) something was brought in to stop people from building in rural areas.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,512 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    Driving everywhere.

    Without doubt the way forward.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,942 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    jmayo wrote: »
    Remind me again how many cars are crawling through city centres today spewing out pollution and carbon ?

    Cars in Dublin are 3 or 4 weeks from being seriously curtailed. ASide from that Car usage in Central Dublin has fallen by over a third in 20 years. Car usage per person is low, and a lot lower than it is in rural areas, but you know that.
    jmayo wrote: »
    You see this is where you are dead wrong.
    It is not politicians that want that, but the actual people themselves.

    Young single people don't want to share semi-Ds with 4 other young single people in the burbs, they want small personal spaces in central locations. By forcing them into the semi-Ds the price of the family home goes higher.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,942 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    A lot in Rural locations have been paying much more for years for water supplies and sewage treatment than those in urban schemes but are being told here that they are being fully subsidised on everything.

    Well that's just not true, one off houses have septic tanks, that's not paying for your sewage treatment, that's paying a small fraction of your sewage treatment. Septic tanks only provide primary treatment, the discharge is very low quality and pollutes the water table which the government has to clean up or get fined for or both. Septic tanks are supposed to be a 'better than nothing' option used where needs must. In Ireland we have 300,000 of them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,462 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how


    cgcsb wrote:
    Well that's just not true, one off houses have septic tanks, that's not paying for your sewage treatment, that's paying a small fraction of your sewage treatment. Septic tanks only provide primary treatment, the discharge is very low quality and pollutes the water table which the government has to clean up or get fined for or both. Septic tanks are supposed to be a 'better than nothing' option used where needs must. In Ireland we have 300,000 of them.

    Do you think it's better to have it flow directly into waterways and seas like it does from several urban schemes?

    This idyllic view suggesting of city living to counter the reality is bemusing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,942 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    I assume you are both very very strongly against all forms of social housing, given that it esentially means a free or subsidised to almsot nothing cost to fairly significant number of people.

    Rural people do pay for their homes and while the actual building itself naturally costs less due to alreading owning the land or land costs being lower they do pay more to run the house in having water charges, paying to manage their own sewage, higher electricty costs, most likley BB costs will be higher also. Nobody in this country pays the "actual" cost for their services, that's not how a functioning society works and the sooner people raelise this and that they can't impose their way of living on other people the better.

    No I'm of course supportive of social housing. It's not the subsidization of a service that I have problem with it's the bang for buck. A developer builds a scheme of 200 apartments on his site in Cork City Centre and hands 20 of them over to Cork City Council for social housing, they pay rent to Cork City Council and are provided with some maintenance in return. This is quite a small cost and the service is being provided to 20 households, all ontop of each other, who would otherwise be without a home. You have boasted about your wealth and your ability to comfortably build your own cathedral of capitalism in your field so the society has no interest in keeping you off the streets. Likewise the state is promoting social cohesion and integration by providing these homes to the less well off. There is no social benefit to subsidisng your one man ship in the middle of nowhere in fact it's a social negative given you'll be driving your, quite large I'm sure, vehicle to your nearest out of town retail park to buy frozen fare from a german retailer then come home home and pollute the water table with your untreated effluent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,942 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    Do you think it's better to have it flow directly into waterways and seas like it does from several urban schemes?

    This idyllic view suggesting of city living to counter the reality is bemusing.

    Urban schemes have primary, secondary and some have tertiary treatment and effluent is typically of high quality. There are occasionally spills, sometimes during storm events for example but many urban schemes now have overflow tanks to account for that and more overflow tanks are being built. Even after a spill from an urban scheme typically that water will have at least completed primary treatment and much of it's secondary treatment. So to answer your question, yes even if one takes into account the occasional overspill due to storms effluent from water treatment schemes is ALWAYS better than primary-only septic tanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,462 ✭✭✭✭ Tell me how


    cgcsb wrote:
    Urban schemes have primary, secondary and some have tertiary treatment and effluent is typically of high quality. There are occasionally spills, sometimes during storm events for example but many urban schemes now have overflow tanks to account for that and more overflow tanks are being built. Even after a spill from an urban scheme typically that water will have at least completed primary treatment and much of it's secondary treatment. So to answer your question, yes even if one takes into account the occasional overspill due to storms effluent from water treatment schemes is ALWAYS better than primary-only septic tanks.

    Once again, your being misleading in suggesting its only occasional. You should read the EPA report on it.

    Of course, the solution is more money and thanks to abandonment of water charges, that might be slow in coming.

    Of course perfectly operating public schemes should be better.
    We don't have them.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement