Boundary Extension for City?

Squidvicious wrote: »

This comes as a surprise to me, particularly bearing in mind that KKCC has a office in Ferrybank. I'm a "borderer" myself (Kilkenny side) and have never had this problem. Sounds more like urban myth to me.

No it’s far from an urban myth. I was told it by people living in Slieverue who had an issue with the road outside their house in Slieverue.

Anybody know whats happening with this? Theres nothing on the boundary review website http://www.waterfordboundaryreview.ie/

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Anybody know whats happening with this? Theres nothing on the boundary review website http://www.waterfordboundaryreview.ie/

According to a direct query a colleague of mine made to the minister

"The date for submission of the report of the Boundary Committee has been extended in view of the number of submissions received to which the Committee must give due consideration.

As such, the publication date will now be early Autumn."

Autumn? There's one of those every year which is handy.

So the Roscommon-Westmeath Boundary Commission reported back last week and reccomended no change ! I wonder when the Waterford-Kilkenny review team will report back given that their revised publication date has long since past !

blue note wrote: »

Hmmm, no mention in the article of why it was better to not alter the catchment area. Presumably the town boundaries from however long ago are just perfect for now too.

Hmmm, me thinks that the waterford boundaries will be just perfect too and any time anyone complains about them they can be pointed to the findings of this independent report. I'm not expecting any explanations in the report though.

No way would a sensible, mutually beneficial,common sense decision be made over people's misguided GAA jersey beliefs, which would in fact, not be affected.

Report due next week. Saw on WLF FB one TD (FG) will resign if it happens.....reported it may say approve the change.

blue note wrote: »

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Report due next week. Saw on WLF FB one TD will resign if it happens.....reported it may say approve the change.

I'd say he's safe promising that. There's zero incentive for anyone to push this through. The government don't even want a strong waterford. Something else to stifle our growth while the other cities pull away would be great.

Yeah I think its unlikely to happen if approved by TDs but if FF and SF did the Government have no option.

Is the Kilkenny People a spinoff of Waterford Whispers? Did John Paul Phelan really say all of the below? I've highlighted the best bits that seem to make out that 7,500 will be homeless and amazingly highlights that they're all proud Cats over there who never miss a match! Not a mention of what makes economic sense and instead just emotive language centred around hurling!

http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/home/226733/kilkenny-td-john-paul-phelan-threatens-to-leave-fg-party-over-waterford-boundary-dispute.html wrote:

Kilkenny TD, John Paul Phelan has vowed to leave Fine Gael if the controversial “land grab” by Waterford is successful.

Phelan is gutted by speculation, rampant around Leinster House, that Minister for Housing, Simon Coveney will recommend to the Dail that Waterford be allowed take 20,000 acres of Kilkenny land and in one fell swoop, displace 7,500 people.

“What hurts most is the potential loss of identity. A boundary change will damage the culture and persona of 7,500 Cats, our flesh and blood. These people are steeped in the social, cultural and heritage fabric of County Kilkenny.

“The Kilkenny people living in Ferrybank, Slieverue and Mile Post are die hards who never miss a Kilkenny hurling match and are rooted in the rich history of what makes Kilkenny what it is.

“And to think that a Fine Gael government could, with a swipe of a pen, make us Waterford is disgraceful.

“Unless we as a county, rise up and oppose this, we will be ripped apart by the greed of our neighbour.

“We need to man the barricades and keep them out,” he said.

Minister Coveney will receive the report from the boundary committee in the next week or so and it's expected he will recommend implementing the changes which will see a huge swath of Kilkenny turned over to Waterford against the wishes of the vast majority of people.

“Waterford has long had designs on South Kilkenny and the rich industrial zone on the north bank of the River Suir out as far as the Pink Rock, taking in the Belview industrial zone but “b]I and mine will fight them every inch of the way[/b],” Deputy Phelan said.

A preliminary estimate of the value of lost income to Kilkenny County Council is a staggering €110 million.

It has been pointed out by Kilkenny County Council that Waterford cannot afford that level of compensation for a boundary change and would if allowed, result in a huge cost to the Government.

In what can only be described as an aggressive submission, Waterford City Council accused Kilkenny of neglecting the area. This has been strenuously denied by Kilkenny County Council.

In excess of 18,000 submissions, objecting to any change to the existing boundary between the two counties were submitted to the relevant authorities.

blue note wrote: »

I'd say he's safe promising that. There's zero incentive for anyone to push this through. The government don't even want a strong waterford. Something else to stifle our growth while the other cities pull away would be great.

Oh god you lot really are comical. Do you start learning in playschool how downtrodden you are and everyone else is out to get you?
Other cities and towns in Ireland prosper because the people there make it so, it's not a gift from the socialist state.
Despite the huge investments over the years (not in proportion to the actual population) it's still not enough. Be it hospitals, third level, jobs, roads etc everyone else is trying to keep you down, apparently. Kilkenny of course is the sworn enemy and devil incarnate, cork aren't too far behind but not so much due to being much further away.

AdMMM wrote: »

Is the Kilkenny People a spinoff of Waterford Whispers? Did John Paul Phelan really say all of the below? I've highlighted the best bits that seem to make out that 7,500 will be homeless and amazingly highlights that they're all proud Cats over there who never miss a match! Not a mention of what makes economic sense and instead just emotive language centred around hurling!

Hate the way they try to spin it as if everyone in Ferrybank is a 'cat' who is more interested in GAA identity politics than growth. < than half are Waterford people anyway. I've noticed that even WLR have this slant "The people don't want it and the government are trying to push it through" Couldn't be further from the truth.

I have no affinity to Kilkenny whatsoever and I don't watch GAA. Kilkenny CoCo have done nothing for us in recent years.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

How would that benefit the government, if you don't mind my asking?

Simply, they don't want a stronger Waterford as our claim on resources is increased also.it's something everyone who lives in Waterford and the south east with a passing knowledge of politics is familiar with.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

By that logic wouldn't they want every city and every region to be weaker? Why would Waterford be singled out? And wouldn't ab economically stronger city contribute more resources to the state? My understanding is that unemployment and recession etc tend to drain state resources?

Again, just trying to figure this out.

Difference is Cork as the two top FF TD's, Limerick has Noonan and Galway?.....don't stick up for them and you know what happens!

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Difference is Cork as the two top FF TD's, Limerick has Noonan and Galway?.....don't stick up for them and you know what happens!

Thats a good point. Our four TDs couldn't sell a cup of coffee to the government never mind a university. John Deasy is the only one with a chips to play and,, Well, lets not talk about him.

On the other hand Kilkenny does not have much power in the Dail either, SO, the border decision wont be influenced by politics. IMO.

Deiseen wrote: »

Well explain to me why it has the rest representation of third level institutions in Ireland and why the IDA office was moved out of the South East a while ago, or why the hospital is not up to scratch?

The list could go on

All of those could be explained by neglect. But ye are saying that it is a deliberate policy to weaken the city. I'm just wondering why the government would deliberately weaken the city.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It would not have to be deliberate policy, but the end result is the same.
Long term neglect, by prioritising other regions & urban areas (probably due in part to better political influence) would also explain it.

The difference is I guess, if you live in the area then it sure feels like it is deliberate.

Even our national media regularly miss out any mention of Waterford when reporting on cities ...... Cork, Limerick, Galway & Dublin get listed but not Waterford.
It really is becoming noticeable.

Could you offer anything that might explain all this?

OK, but blue note said "The government don't even want a strong waterford. Something else to stifle our growth while the other cities pull away would be great." That is not the same as saying they neglect Waterford (or the south east or whatever) by prioritising other regions. It's saying the government are pursuing a definite policy of stifling growth, that this would not just be an incidental effect of prioritising others, but would in fact be "great".

Now you might say it "feels" deliberate, but that doesn't make it so. And that's clearly not what blue note meant. And to me the thinking behind it doesn't make sense (the explanation that Waterford being "stronger" would mean it would have a greater "claim on resources" is very unclear).

To your last question, are you asking if I can explain why the national media mentions Cork, Galway, and Limerick more than Waterford? Well, those places are all bigger than Waterford, and are therefore more important. Now, aside from that, I would have thought how often a place is mentioned by the national media isn't particularly important, but I'm assuming you see this as indicative of a greater level of neglect by government. The idea of a conspiracy to weaken Waterford is not necessary to explain anything that has happened to the city, and there's no real evidence for it either.

I suppose what I'm wondering, is whether Blue note is being entirely objective here. That, after all, is exactly what this thread is all about, how Kilkenny people are putting questions of local pride ahead of what's best for the region. What I'm suggesting is that maybe, just maybe, this odd conspiracy theory indicates the people posting here might be thinking in terms of local pride as well, rather than entirely in a spirit of objective, rational thought. Certainly the anxiety over how often RTE mentions Waterford would seem to bear that out.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I did not refer to how often Waterford was mentioned, but how it was omitted when the other cities were listed.

The 'feel' is very very important. It impacts on every aspect of one's life.
If you feel you are constantly being 'got at', neglected or other, then it has the same effect on you, whether true or not. So I would not easily dismiss how people 'feel' about this.

My question to you was a more general one ...... what do you think would explain the existing situation that the South-East finds itself in?
Whether deliberate or wilful neglect or other cause, the result is there for all to see.
What could be the explanation in your opinion?

I'm not dismissing how people feel, I'm saying that just because they feel a particular way doesn't make them correct. To say that the distinction between feeling and fact isn't particularly important at least has the virtue of being an honest statement about the way that politics works these days, but that doesn't mean it should be the case. More importantly, again, this whole thread is based on the premise that how Kilkenny people "feel" about this boundary issue should be ignored because the facts are what they are regarding the administration of the city.

As it happens, I think that a redrawing of the boundary is eventually inevitable and the centralisation of city administration is a good thing as long as that is done democratically, so I'm not arguing to the benefits or otherwise of the issue at hand. But what I am saying is that this thread, and what we might call the "waterford side" of this argument has from the outset claimed the rational high ground, dismissing the concerns of their opponents as nothing more than GAA-jersey nonsense. Now they might be right. But taunts about Kilkenny people working in the city, or about where one county begins and ends, and ultimately about how simple-minded the objections of those people are, are never too far from the edges of this argument. The idea that the Waterford argument is entirely rational, and not at all about getting one over or making some kind of assertion of local identity, while the Kilkenny side of the argument is entirely identity-politics based nonsense, kind of falters when people make clearly emotive arguments about how the government is out to get Waterford. And I would argue that appeals to how people "feel" instead of to reality, seem to feed into the impression that this is much more emotive than people are letting on.

To answer your last question, neglect explains it (no need for "wilful" or "deliberate"), perfectly adequately. I've given that explanation in pretty much every post I've put up here, so I'm not sure why I'm still being asked.

As an aside, when they list those places but don't mention Waterford (again, I'm not sure when you mean, some examples might help), presumably they have to stop listing places at some stage. I'm not sure what difference it makes.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I'm not dismissing how people feel, I'm saying that just because they feel a particular way doesn't make them correct. To say that the distinction between feeling and fact isn't particularly important at least has the virtue of being an honest statement about the way that politics works these days, but that doesn't mean it should be the case. More importantly, again, this whole thread is based on the premise that how Kilkenny people "feel" about this boundary issue should be ignored because the facts are what they are regarding the administration of the city.

As it happens, I think that a redrawing of the boundary is eventually inevitable and the centralisation of city administration is a good thing as long as that is done democratically, so I'm not arguing to the benefits or otherwise of the issue at hand. But what I am saying is that this thread, and what we might call the "waterford side" of this argument has from the outset claimed the rational high ground, dismissing the concerns of their opponents as nothing more than GAA-jersey nonsense. Now they might be right. But taunts about Kilkenny people working in the city, or about where one county begins and ends, and ultimately about how simple-minded the objections of those people are, are never too far from the edges of this argument. The idea that the Waterford argument is entirely rational, and not at all about getting one over or making some kind of assertion of local identity, while the Kilkenny side of the argument is entirely identity-politics based nonsense, kind of falters when people make clearly emotive arguments about how the government is out to get Waterford. And I would argue that appeals to how people "feel" instead of to reality, seem to feed into the impression that this is much more emotive than people are letting on.

To answer your last question, neglect explains it (no need for "wilful" or "deliberate"), perfectly adequately. I've given that explanation in pretty much every post I've put up here, so I'm not sure why I'm still being asked.

As an aside, when they list those places but don't mention Waterford (again, I'm not sure when you mean, some examples might help), presumably they have to stop listing places at some stage. I'm not sure what difference it makes.

Nail on head as regards the moral high ground that Waterford posters claim on the boundary issue while painting those of us on the other side of the debate as knuckle dragging neanderthals. Fact is that there's a huge amount of one-upmanship going on and some of the motivation on the Waterford side is about putting one over on the neighbours. There is a hint of a persecution complex in Waterford as regards it's national status. What better way to big itself up than by grabbing a slice of the neighbours? I'm by no means saying that every one in favour of the move thinks this way. Of course, there are rational arguments for and against a boundary change. However, one-upmanship is a motivation for many.

County identity is important in Ireland. One of the first questions Irish people ask one another is where are you from. It's no small matter to be moved from one county to another. Is it so unreasonable that many of us want to remain with Kilkenny?

The big ticket issues for Waterford are the hospital, IDA investment, the status of the IT. I fail to see how the boundary move will affect these issues. The only difference most of us would see would probably be more housing on that side. It won't make a jot of difference to the real issues facing Waterford.

Of course, the real point of the exercise from Waterford County Council's point of view is the boost that they would get from gaining South Kilkenny rates. However, it's far from self evident that it is fair that the rates income from, say Belview, ought to be redirected to Waterford.

7upfree wrote: »

Quote in the KK People this week - "7,500 people displaced". Where do ye think ye are? The Gaza Strip?

The fact that a local newspaper engages in overblown hyperbole is hardly the biggest issue here.
Nor does your reply deal with the points I raised.

7upfree wrote:

Quote in the KK People this week - "7,500 people displaced". Where do ye think ye are? The Gaza Strip?

It's our Crimea I'm afraid

Squidvicious wrote: »

Complete bollocks? A man for all seasons, aren't you? We've just heard other people above saying that there's a national campaign to do down Waterford. If that's not insecurity, I don't know what is.
The point is that a boundary change really makes very little difference to the running of any local area. I have seen no compelling arguments to show what benefits it would bring to anybody or why it's so necessary. Behind it all, the people who argue for boundary change are also mainly interested in county identity when all is said and done.
The issues that I raised are the important issues for Waterford which will not be affected by a boundary change.
As for your reference to "you types", I think that I tried to put my argument in a reasoned way. Your response is typical of the utter lack of respect shown to those of who don't want a boundary change merely because we don't all roll over and say what a wonderful idea it is. I struggle to understand the anger shown.

The issues you raised are (or should be) of great concern to all who live in the region. They are not specifically 'Waterford problems' but more 'South-East Region' problems.
The boundary extension is a separate issue; one that has been ongoing for many decades. Nevertheless a 'stronger Waterford' would benefit the region as a whole .... including those who object to the extension. The boundary extension would be expected to produce a 'stronger Waterford'.

7upfree wrote: »

Quote in the KK People this week - "7,500 people displaced". Where do ye think ye are? The Gaza Strip?

:mad::mad:

Is that a genuine quote? Jesus Christ!
The Editor and headline writer should be sacked for that. If they were looking at the Syria crisis everyday they'd see what displacement meant.
Hope somebody pulls them up on it.

gw80 wrote: »

Haha, I can see it now, oxfam ads on TV.
Celebrities crawling all over ferrybank(ground zero) trying to find the most heart wrenching stories,
International leaders pleading with John halligan,

Yeah, not really the editor's finest moment. You'd have to assume that he was sniggering a little as he wrote it it's so over the top in parts. And I doubt he has any inside track on what the boundary commission will decide. I may well be wrong but I don't see them going for a change. After all, the decision in Roscommon/Westmeath was no change. Admittedly, there could be different factors at play there. However, the big issue is rates and the proposed boundary change would cause a huge revenue loss to Kilkenny and would have serious ramifications for the county. They would need pretty overwhelming reasoning to inflict that on Kilkenny.
That said, there is a possibility of a draw. Waterford asked for the maximum - a boundary extension as far as the bypass and Belview. If it's open to them, the commission might reject that but allow a smaller boundary move.