Cork Mayoral Plebiscite

Brussels Sprout

On the same day as the local and European elections next month (May 24th) Cork City voters will be asked if they would like to have a directly elected mayor in the future. Here are some details:

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said the policy paper on the new powers, which will be published soon, outlines the nomination process, which Varadkar said is similar to that of someone running for the Dáil.

The powers of the directly elected mayors involves a “significant transfer of powers” to the elected mayor from the council.

The newly-elected mayors, if the public decide to vote for such a change, will be able to bring forward the council budget and development plan. However, individual decisions on planning will remain with the chief executive.

The relationship between the mayor and the council CEO is similar to that which exists between a Secretary General of a government department and their line minister.

The first election will be held in 2021 and the mayors will sit for a two-and-half year term with five-year term kicking in from 2024

link


I'm not sure what to make of this to be honest so I'd like to hear other people's opinions on the matter. What are the pros and cons of this?

flo8s967qjh0nd

Here's a link to the government document outlining the proposed roles, duties, powers of the proposed new directly elected mayors
https://www.housing.gov.ie/local-government/governance/directly-elected-mayors-executive-functions

Overall, I see it as a positive move and am broadly in favour.

Treehelpplease

Definitely in favour of it, at least they can be held accountable. I would prefer keeping it to two and a half years (or three), though. Five is a bit long..

Roger Hassenforder

I think its a crock of shît. A sop to calls for proper reform of local government, without doing anything meaningful.

Seems to be an upgrade and expansion of the role of the City CE, (who will still be thete) and subject to plebiscite, rather than a political appointment, with a downgrade of the Councillors, albeit who can remove the Mayor.

Could also be to the detriment of those outside the Metro area, why would potential FDI talk to a mayor on a 1 year cycle, when theres a paid City Mayor to talk to with more powers. We're politicizing one public service job who will be prioritising the metro area. No incentive to look after that outside. Maybe a mayor of all Cork would make more sense.

Also, invest too much power in one person may lead to impropriety or misconduct.

"Yea but london has one"..I'd prefer to see some proper devolution of powers from central government. Give LAs decent powers but make them more accountable. We've also too many national bodies active at a local level, but not accountable to anyone. Less parish pump politics in the dail, and a local council who can do something.

Not convinced.

mire

Anything that enhances local democracy is to be welcomed. Ireland is a hyper centralized state and city and county management is really an extension of Custom House rule. This is quite a radical reform of urban government because it involves a significant transfer of power from the executive to an elected office. This can only be good for democracy and accountability. In my view we should have elected mayors for every jurisdiction in the state. Every city and every municipal district.

For Cork City, this is proceeds, it would be a progressive move; the city needs civic leadership and much more effective strategic political direction. The mayor however will only be responsible for the city and will therefore only be leading part of the metropolitan area.

Overall, I think that city mayors should be elected rather than selected.

snotboogie

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I think its a crock of shît. A sop to calls for proper reform of local government, without doing anything meaningful.

Seems to be an upgrade and expansion of the role of the City CE, (who will still be thete) and subject to plebiscite, rather than a political appointment, with a downgrade of the Councillors, albeit who can remove the Mayor.

Could also be to the detriment of those outside the Metro area, why would potential FDI talk to a mayor on a 1 year cycle, when theres a paid City Mayor to talk to with more powers. We're politicizing one public service job who will be prioritising the metro area. No incentive to look after that outside. Maybe a mayor of all Cork would make more sense.

Also, invest too much power in one person may lead to impropriety or misconduct.

"Yea but london has one"..I'd prefer to see some proper devolution of powers from central government. Give LAs decent powers but make them more accountable. We've also too many national bodies active at a local level, but not accountable to anyone. Less parish pump politics in the dail, and a local council who can do something.

Not convinced.

And this is the first and only step on offer, I see no other option but to take it and subsequently use the office as a launch pad to push for more powers locally.

Roger Hassenforder

snotboogie wrote: »

And this is the first and only step on offer, I see no other option but to take it and subsequently use the office as a launch pad to push for more powers locally.

What powers will this role actually have?
My understanding is very little. Its a figurehead to "add value".

Ireland signed up to the subsidiarity directive years ago. Nothing.
They abolished town councils which Howlin admits was a mistake.
LAs have to go cap in hand to central government for most things.
So we elect TDs to a dail to sort out medical cards and pot holes.
The dail should be for legislation and national issues, not local issues.
The last FG attempt at government reform (Seanad) failed.

Ive no trust in any party to initiate proper reform, i just think this is more of it.
Unconvinced.

Roger Hassenforder

mire wrote: »

This is quite a radical reform of urban government because it involves a significant transfer of power from the executive to an elected office. This can only be good for democracy and accountability. In my view we should have elected mayors for every jurisdiction in the state

Im not sure what exact power the executive of an LA has? (other than a waste management plan).
CDP- adopted by resolution
Budget- adopted by resolution
Theres SPCs and PPNs to beat the band.

Executive staff dont develop policies on their own initiative. All regulations enforced and implemented other than the odd bylaw are grounded in EU/National.

rebs23

I see this as a role to push Cork City and the region generally, make sure we are getting the funding required from national government. One small step but a step worth supporting.

snotboogie

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What powers will this role actually have?
My understanding is very little. Its a figurehead to "add value".

Ireland signed up to the subsidiarity directive years ago. Nothing.
They abolished town councils which Howlin admits was a mistake.
LAs have to go cap in hand to central government for most things.
So we elect TDs to a dail to sort out medical cards and pot holes.
The dail should be for legislation and national issues, not local issues.
The last FG attempt at government reform (Seanad) failed.

Ive no trust in any party to initiate proper reform, i just think this is more of it.
Unconvinced.

The powers are linked above and policy making is included. Again this is a step away from the issues you mention, I can’t understand why you are against this. You don’t like how government works so you vote against change because you don’t trust the government. In that case how can anything get done?

Roger Hassenforder

snotboogie wrote: »

The powers are linked above and policy making is included. Again this is a step away from the issues you mention, I can’t understand why you are against this. You don’t like how government works so you vote against change because you don’t trust the government. In that case how can anything get done?

I didnt realise we have to agree!
Maybe im just thick!

Spell it out for me, what exactly are these powers, being removed ftom the executive?
Bare in mind, anything the executive is doing, is either national policy or something the members voted for. E.g. planning decisions based on the members own policy.


The only major difference i can see is the mayor is now elected by the people (ok with that) rather than a yearly "who's turn is it lads" by the Councillors, and a nebulous "Programme for office" which will be a mish mash of aspiration, dreams and kowtowing to Central Gov for the money to deliver it.
Think Event Centre with a cherry.

Whats good about people disagreeing is sonetimes it can throw up a "jeez, never thought about that". But to me, this is just optics. Not reform.


Possible advantages and disadvantages of having a directly elected Lord Mayor with executive functions
The full consequences of introducing a directly elected Lord Mayor with executive functions
are not completely clear.
Possible advantages of having a directly elected Lord Mayor with executive functions
 The Lord Mayor would be directly and democratically accountable to the people of
Cork City
 The mayoral election campaign could raise awareness of and increase public debate
on local government policy options in advance of decisions being made
 Increased visibility of local government and the role of Lord Mayor in Cork City
 A directly elected Lord Mayor could advocate for increased functions for Cork City
Council
There may be other possible advantages that are not listed in this guide.
Possible disadvantages of having a directly elected Lord Mayor with executive
functions
 Increased power in a single elected individual and their office
 Negative impact on the powers and standing of existing elected members
 Increased costs for the council
 A more complicated process for the council to make policies and decisions
There may be other possible disadvantages that are not listed in this guide.

snotboogie

It’s a totally different office to the Lord Mayor. The full description is in the link above.

Roger Hassenforder

snotboogie wrote: »

It’s a totally different office to the Lord Mayor. The full description is in the link above.

Ive read the description. Several times.
Its totally different? Its a mishmash of the current CE/mayor with an added political element and a wish list. But largely impotent, if they dont have the funds. Our centralised government wont relinquish powers easily.

& You've yet to tell me what the powers will be.
What will this new role be able to actually do? That a LA is unable to do.
Genuinely curious, if im expected to get on board the project as you're excoriating me to do so.

MrDerp

I’m against it, I don’t see the benefit of a politician in a CEO role, and I believe that the actual executive power will be embellished beyond recognition in a popularity contest.

An election for this office, in this country, will be full of ‘characters’ promising the sun moon and stars for Cork, and may serve as a distraction form the real business of running a city, possibly with an over focus on vanity projects.

I take the points on being a focal point for FDI etc, I just don’t believe it’s what our esteemed electorate will vote for, they’ll vote for someone promising to spend public money in their areas, rather than someone who can drive the local economy.

In short, I’ll vote against a directly elected mayor, because I think Irish people are too easily bought on promises which lack the funding to back them up.

marno21

Cork City has been taken for a ride when it comes to funding in recent years. There are an endless list of projects to be advanced, everything from roads to public transport, and having an extra bit of clout when it comes to seeking funding for these would be more than welcome.

mire

By the way, does anyone know whether the idea of the elected mayor can progress if it is passed in less than all three plebiscites? Say for instance that limerick and cork voted yes but Waterford voted no, does the proposal fail?

I really hope it passes. Anything that improves local democratic leadership and accountability is an enhancement. It would be good for these cities as they have no urban leadership capacity at present. Chief executives do not lead. They manage the local authorities and were introduced in 1929 as a way for custom house to control the untrustworthy localities because of the centralizing impulses of government.

By the way, the argument that we should not have elected mayors because the people might elect an idiot is simply an argument against democracy.

Ludo

mire wrote: »

By the way, the argument that we should not have elected mayors because the people might elect an idiot is simply an argument against democracy.

hmmm...with recent events (think Trump, Brexit, etc, etc) this is not necessarily a bad thing :-)

WoolyJumper

Personally I'd vote yes. I hope this issue get a proper debate because it is a big change. I worry that because this is not a national issue it will fall under the radar and people will just write this off as more "jobs for the boys" and vote no. I already see that the salary is enough to convince people to vote no without any consideration to what the benefits might be.

MrDerp

mire wrote: »

By the way, the argument that we should not have elected mayors because the people might elect an idiot is simply an argument against democracy.

It’s actually the opposite, I believe that people are idiots and open to concentrating power in the hands of whomever promises them free stuff paid for by others.

Executive powers + elected individual = less democracy, not more. A council of peers is a better proportional representation of interests. Whether they are sufficiently holding the executive to account is another matter, but not one that I believe is resolved by handing it over to a popularity contest.

The same argument would be that government fails because they don’t reach a consensus and they’re full of gombeens not holding senior civil servants to account, so we should put more power in the hands of the president to get things done, or have a directly elected Taoiseach or whatever.

Every dismantled democracy starts with claims that government have become anti-democratic, stalled in buerocracy, and despots slide in on the back of a wave of ‘change’. The role will be full of empty promises of whatever the populist issue of the day is.

‘I will build 10000 social houses, not next to anyone who doesn’t want them, but either way they will be reserved for Irish people who can trace their roots back to Niall of the 9 hostages, and these houses will be equidistant between the new translatlantic airport and high speed rail to Dublin, with easy access to the motorway to wherever you live and the new state of the art hospital. And your neighbour who earns more than you will pay for most of it, not a penny cost to your good self, and we’ll make Dublin pay for the rest!’

Concentrating power as an answer to democratic disillusionment? Give me a break.

Squatter

mire wrote: »

By the way, the argument that we should not have elected mayors because the people might elect an idiot is simply an argument against democracy.

In that case, it's an exceptionally strong argument. Remember - it was your cherished democracy that gave us the Healy-Raes and Ming the Mindless.

QED.

Brussels Sprout

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I hope this issue get a proper debate because it is a big change.

Very much so. I also hope that for the "No" side they don't wheel out some contrarian "No to Everything" character a la John Waters (or at least a Cork version of him).

I'd like to hear a factual debate of the pros and cons from both sides.

Roger Hassenforder

Does anyone know how the current SPC "mode"l will change?

Currently SPCs develop local policies, bring them through for ratification by the Council. NGOs, sectoral interested groups, social partners etc. all contribute to the various SPC.
If approved, and subject to a budget being found, the executive then implement it.

Will responsibility for this local policy development now be vested in one person, the mayor? E.g. who approves the County Development Plan? LAP Zoning/rezoning? If one person is responsible for this, rather than an elected group, there is a significant risk of impropriety.

Anteayer

My view is it is that it’s a significant step in the right direction. It isn’t perfect but it’s more accountable and has more ability govern than anything we have at present in local government.

I will definitely be voting in favour, but I don’t see it as a solution to all things in local government.

Cynically shooting it down because it’s not absolutely perfect will just send a signal to central government that there’s no demand for reform and we’ll be back to stagnation.

There’s a long way to go to be anywhere near normal continental or American style urban governance but as least it’s some degree of change and a start of a debate.

If an elected mayor turns out to be a positive thing, I can see this leading to sane local government in the future.

Roger Hassenforder

Jeez, not exactly inspiring confidence in the process.

Maybe City Hall could be the Apple Hall, Patrick St. be named Idaho Avenue

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/City-council-has-no-idea-how-directly-elected-mayor-role-could-be-financed-5ce73e1a-8ac5-4633-8bd1-b827abd33fbe-ds

namloc1980

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Jeez, not exactly inspiring confidence in the process.

Maybe City Hall could be the Apple Hall, Patrick St. be named Idaho Avenue

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/City-council-has-no-idea-how-directly-elected-mayor-role-could-be-financed-5ce73e1a-8ac5-4633-8bd1-b827abd33fbe-ds

Not a chance this passes. People will read articles like this and think "jobs for the boys" and vote No. Shame.

Roger Hassenforder

namloc1980 wrote: »

Not a chance this passes. People will read articles like this and think "jobs for the boys" and vote No. Shame.

Its the "just shut up and vote for it" that has me not sold on it yet.

Government are doing little to sell it other than vague platitudes about expanded powers, all of which a local authority has anyway, just vested in either the executive or the elected members.


Mire(?) asked a question a while back, Ive still no idea of the answer, despite reading whats available.
Does the plebiscite have to pass in all 3, or is it a majority of the total 'electorate' in the 3 that decides.

350125GO!

Could someone tell me why this is just for the Munster regional cities?

i.e. Why not Galway?(which is bigger that Waterford) ...or are they voting at a later date???

Also would any of you be of the opinion that would be better if one Munster region Mayor / Governor was appointed/elected. - A political figurehead to promote and represent the 3 cities as one unitary block.

That way the Munster cites (acting as one economic & political identity) could compete more successfully as an equal economic counterbalance to Dublin.

Munster Enterprise Panel, Transport for Munster, Munster Housing Strategy, Munster Airport Authority, etc.

Just a though.

Roger Hassenforder

350125GO! wrote: »

Could someone tell me why this is just for the Munster regional cities?

i.e. Why not Galway?(which is bigger that Waterford) ...or are they voting at a later date???

Also would any of you be of the opinion that would be better if one Munster region Mayor / Governor was appointed/elected. - A political figurehead to promote and represent the 3 cities as one unitary block.

That way the Munster cites (acting as one economic & political identity) could compete more successfully as an equal economic counterbalance to Dublin.

Munster Enterprise Panel, Transport for Munster, Munster Housing Strategy, Munster Airport Authority, etc.

Just a though.

Galway was left out because theyre merging?
(Or was that shelved?)

The regional cities are effectively impotent. Its cap in hand to Dublin for anything. The whole local government/subsidiarity is a joke.

Anteayer

Galway was removed by a Fianna Fail sponsored Seanad amendment because of concerns about the merger. As far as I remember it was also supported by SF and some independents.

Dublin is complicated by the fact that it straddles 4 local authorities.

Limerick and Waterford has their mergers with their county councils while Cork City was significantly extended rather than merged.

It's likely Galway's mayor situation would probably be dealt by a separate bill with whenever Dublin is doing a plebiscite.

Brussels Sprout

Seems to be a bit of confusion about whether the money for this will be coming from central government or not. John Paul Phelan tweeted that the money would be and has already been accounted for but I'm not sure if Varadkar has confirmed this.

razorblunt

Everyone should get a shot at the role.

Nice chance to build up the Air Miles with a sojourn to San Fran, China, and Knocka.

Roger Hassenforder

razorblunt wrote: »

Everyone should get a shot at the role.

Nice chance to build up the Air Miles with a sojourn to San Fran, China, and Knocka.

What we need is a Cork celebrity to get the gig. Someone popular the masses will love.
Get him/her on a party ticket, someone that'll really drive Cork forward, someone immune to political machinations, someone that knows what Cork needs and can deliver it...

This is going to be a 5yr 120k/year popularity contest for one of the lads/lasses, to siphon off public money on vanity projects proposed by their backers.

namloc1980

Last thing we need is some populist promising all sorts of nonsense.

Brussels Sprout

namloc1980 wrote: »

Last thing we need is some populist promising all sorts of nonsense.

I suspect the previous poster's post may have been facetious.

razorblunt

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What we need is a Cork celebrity to get the gig. Someone popular the masses will love.
Get him/her on a party ticket, someone that'll really drive Cork forward, someone immune to political machinations, someone that knows what Cork needs and can deliver it...

This is going to be a 5yr 120k/year popularity contest for one of the lads/lasses, to siphon off public money on vanity projects proposed by their backers.

I accept your offer.

Roger Hassenforder

razorblunt wrote: »

I accept your offer.

If its a house for everyone beside their ma, two weeks holiday in Santa Ponsa, a motorway between the two new airports, and a retractable dome over the city, I'll vote for you.

namloc1980

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I suspect the previous poster's post may have been facetious.

Indeed. But I'm sure you'll agree we don't need a populist spoofer in that role.

Roger Hassenforder

namloc1980 wrote: »

Indeed. But I'm sure you'll agree we don't need a populist spoofer in that role.

My fear is this is what we'll get

snotboogie

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

My fear is this is what we'll get

I don’t think it will pass, the echo have wound up most of the city over the salary

Roger Hassenforder

https://twitter.com/CorkGreens/status/1124402420321222656?s=19

Dog shįt Cycle paths Save Cork Trees policy Climate strikes

Seems to be the thrust of the argument in favour.

Anteayer

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

My fear is this is what we'll get

Well, it’s possible but we also don’t have the same kind of voting system as the US or UK that tends to lead to a split vote and someone coasting in on 35%

In a single seat election (eg the presidency) our proportional representation voting system turns into an instantaneous runoff, so unless you get more than 50% in first preferences, the second and subsequent counts matter and you get broader reflection of electorate.

I’m not saying we wouldn’t ever see a populist in power but they have to get more than half the votes to do so, even if the ballot is split the mayor will have to have a majority in terms of voter preferences.

Also I think the Irish electorate has been good at avoiding populists in the presidency, so I don't think they'll be much different in mayoral elections.

The council will also continue to exist so, it's not like you're electing someone who'll have absolute power. There'll be checks and balances.

I wouldn't think that fear of a self-inflicted populist would be much of a reason to continue with the joke of bland unaccountable mess that we have at the moment.

The system we have at present effectively has an unelected appointee (the City Manager), running the city with a very weak council acting as a policy forming and checking body. It's probably the least active form of local democracy in Europe and only barely qualifies as devolved power.

What's being proposed tips the balance back towards a genuine local democratic system. It's certianly not giving any new mayor absolute power, just creating an office that has real ability to get things done and to be publicly accountable for success or failure of policies.

Squatter

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/CorkGreens/status/1124402420321222656?s=19

Dog shįt Cycle paths Save Cork Trees policy Climate strikes

Seems to be the thrust of the argument in favour.

Right, just for fun let's look at the items on that list.

Dog sh1t: the Greens will employ ex Army Rangers to shoot any dog (and its owner?) seen crapping in a public place. Only biodegradeable bullets will be used and dog and owner corpses will be removed and incinerated free of charge. I'm all in favour.

Cycle paths: the Greens will provide free car parking areas all around Cork City where commuters can transfer to free buses/bicycles to complete their daily commute to the city centre. I'm in favour.

Save Cork: the kind of vapid, brainless, meaningless waffle that makes me hate the Greens.

Trees Policy: rather like the creatures in Orwell's Animal Farm, the Greens have a simplistic chorus that goes along the lines "all trees good, all developments bad". Infantile. Fact is that there isn't a political party or Council in Ireland that isn't pro-tree!

Climate Strikes: The right to strike is sacred so if the Climate wants to go on strike then the Greens have no right to stop it!

Summary: other than their imaginative dog shooting and free parking initiatives, the Greens's tweet isn't worth the minute area of cyberspace that it occupies!

Roger Hassenforder

Anteayer wrote: »

The system we have at present effectively has an unelected appointee (the City Manager), running the city with a very weak council acting as a policy forming and checking body. It's probably the least active form of local democracy in Europe and only barely qualifies as devolved power.

What's being proposed tips the balance back towards a genuine local democratic system. It's certianly not giving any new mayor absolute power, just creating an office that has real ability to get things done and to be publicly accountable for success or failure of policies.

We agree we've a shīt system of local government.

But seriously, what will be this ability to get things done? How?
Money: can they borrow, or will that be subject to resolution?
"Power". That which is devolved is always there.

We've had the Mahon tribunal into what goes wrong when elected members have authority to overturn executive decisions. So they executive is retaining planning function.

This is where i think the problem is, people not understanding how LA works, the lack of independence from central authority.
The LA executive isnt sitting in dark rooms devising policy. All Local Government policy was either originally developed in Europe/Oireachtas, or via the SPC/bylaw process. The executive doesnt develop policy. Ever.

So the big change will be an elected mayor will be able to implement policy... but thus was policy ever implemented, only, rather than a policy being adopted by majority resolution (of elected members), now it rests in the hands of one elected person? This is actually an erosion of democracy.

The greens ( who in fairness seem to be the biggest proponents of subsidiarity) used an example of a mayor could do something about bike lanes.
https://twitter.com/CorkMayor/status/1123916494272892928?s=19
They can do something about it as it is. Its already within the gift of the current system between the reserved and executive, if people would do their jobs.

Any thoughts of being suddenly accountable?
This is Ireland. No one is ever accountable.


However, when you find yourself on the same side as Solidarity cranks, it may be time to rethink ones position...
https://twitter.com/oliver_moran/status/1124718320899567616?s=19

Squatter

"This is about putting someone B]who may or may not be qualified, be intelligent or be competent[/B in charge of unelected B]but professionally qualified[/B officials. "

Predictable tripe from the Greens - the same bunch of "principled" gobsh1tes who tumbled into bed with Bertie as soon as he offered them a dog biscuit. Not forgetting that their leader is the same joker who, as Bertie's Minister for Communications promised us in 2010 that Ireland would have “broadband everywhere” by 2012.


Probably worth adding that, if the elected mayor starts acting the dick, the public service unions won't be long putting manners on him/her.

Brussels Sprout

Anteayer wrote: »

The system we have at present effectively has an unelected appointee (the City Manager), running the city with a very weak council acting as a policy forming and checking body. It's probably the least active form of local democracy in Europe and only barely qualifies as devolved power.

What's being proposed tips the balance back towards a genuine local democratic system. It's certianly not giving any new mayor absolute power, just creating an office that has real ability to get things done and to be publicly accountable for success or failure of policies.

This is all true. I'd just like to add though that sometimes having a position that is accountable to the electorate can lead to decisions that are not ultimately in the long term interest to the greatest number of people.

Basically I'm on about the classic "benevolent dictator" potentially being a good thing, although for every Paul Kagame or Lee Kuan Yew you get a Robert Mugabe or John Delaney!

pwurple

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This is all true. I'd just like to add though that sometimes having a position that is accountable to the electorate can lead to decisions that are not ultimately in the long term interest to the greatest number of people.

I'll also add here, that a city manager or chief exec needs to be experienced in how the council and country works. It's the same in any industry, and you see it in corporates too... half the job is knowing how to pull the levers to get something done. That's very difficult to achieve in an elected person going in completely green, because you have that learning curve of figuring out how it all works. You're starting from scratch every time you get a newbie in there.

Take the example of the late city manager Joe McHugh, who made a massive difference to the city in the 80's, with a long term vision. Infrastructure projects like the ring roads and tunnel we have now, inner city development like the upgraded market and north main street, parks being developed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/former-city-manager-a-catalyst-in-transform-ing-cork-1.1093130

That was over, what... 12+ years in the position, having come from a long council background. He clearly knew the system inside out and was able to get projects done during recession. It's almost impossible to get that sort of long-term work done in short stints like a mayor would be trying. Every long term project that starts, gets canned by the next kid on the block.

namloc1980

If this gets anything other than a resounding No I'll be shocked. Most of the discussion about is revolving around cost and nothing else. The Echo have everyone wound up about the salary and I'd say many people will vote no on the basis of cost and that's it. If it is a No the people of Cork will be giving a firm message that they don't really want evolution or improvement in local government.

marno21

namloc1980 wrote: »

If this gets anything other than a resounding No I'll be shocked. Most of the discussion about is revolving around cost and nothing else. The Echo have everyone wound up about the salary and I'd say many people will vote no on the basis of cost and that's it. If it is a No the people of Cork will be giving a firm message that they don't really want evolution or improvement in local government.

A half baked **** up would be par for the course for Cork these days to be honest. It isn't really surprising.

j8wk2feszrnpao

namloc1980 wrote: »

If it is a No the people of Cork will be giving a firm message that they don't really want evolution or improvement in local government.

Untrue.

namloc1980

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Untrue.

That's how it'll be interpreted and rejecting the elected Mayor is rejecting local government reform.

MrDerp

namloc1980 wrote: »

That's how it'll be interpreted and rejecting the elected Mayor is rejecting local government reform.

It’s not a rejection of reform per se, it’s a rejection of a proposed reform.

Ultimately councils rely on central funding mostly, and vote against property taxes which could increase their pot. I don’t see how having a mayor increases the available pot, and may dwindle it somewhat.

For me an executive mayor without local taxes is just concentrating the limited funds and will lead to vanity projects.

People constantly refer to US mayors here but ignore the fact that if we were in US we’d pay federal tax, state tax and local tax. Local tax gets increased to pay for projects, and wealthier areas enjoy better funding for schools etc by paying taxes. A mayor in a poor city has to beg for state and federal funds, and poor cities go bankrupt all the time raising bonds they can’t pay off.

Apples and Oranges