Deiseen wrote: » Alan Kelly, Labour TD from Tipperary, set this up to look at the borders in a number of areas in Ireland, not just Waterford. So can you tell me, what have Waterford done to justify this label of "aggressors" that you keep going on about?
fricatus wrote: » Interesting article in the Irish Times today (not able to post link, but should be easy to find) about Simon Coveney's plan to focus growth on the four largest cities outside Dublin, plus somewhere in the midlands. In relation to Waterford, he's saying that it's future growth can be more balanced on both sides of the river, which sounds to me like a nod in favour of a boundary extension.
road_high wrote: » If you read the submission by WCC. It's basically a bashing exercise. Basically a lot Coffey was Junior Minister in the dept, it was driven by him as some kind of sad project to get the elected. After he realised he'd done nothing for the past 5 years.
road_high wrote: » Simon Coveney is one td in the house and thankfully only one opinion- growth can take place on all sides of the river, it doesn't need to have an imaginary line moved to achieve that. I never understood the obsession, lots of cities all over the planet are on one side of rivers, are beside the sea etc (you don't hear calls to reclaim land into the sea to have a more balance shaped city). There's also zero space constraints on the other side, but yet you get this bizzare fixation with the Kilkenny side of the river.
Deiseen wrote: » So WCC made a SUBMISSION to the commission based on their opinion of the situation? My god, how aggressive and Cromwellian of them.... The boundary commission for Waterford/South Kilkenny would have been set up regardless of Coffey. I'm sure he pushed for the case of it, likewise the Kilkenny TD's would have lobbyed that it wasn't needed. But at the end of the day Alan Kelly went with it because he saw some merit in it, as does Coveney.
Johnboy1951 wrote: » I cannot think of one off-hand, but accept there are some, but they would be a very small percentage of all cities on rivers.
Originally Posted by road_high  Simon Coveney is one td in the house and thankfully only one opinion- growth can take place on all sides of the river, it doesn't need to have an imaginary line moved to achieve that. I never understood the obsession, lots of cities all over the planet are on one side of rivers, are beside the sea etc (you don't hear calls to reclaim land into the sea to have a more balance shaped city). There's also zero space constraints on the other side, but yet you get this bizzare fixation with the Kilkenny side of the river.
Originally Posted by Johnboy1951  I cannot think of one off-hand, but accept there are some, but they would be a very small percentage of all cities on rivers.
road_high wrote: » Waterford can Develop on all sides of the river. County bounds don't need changing to achieve this. Shared local authorities occur in cities all over the world.
lots of cities all over the planet are on one side of rivers,
Squidvicious wrote: » I suppose that the question is what Coveney proposes doing to achieve this for Waterford. Merely proposing it will do nothing. Hint for Mr. Coveney :ensure that UHW is properly resourced and establish a university in Waterford. I am highly sceptical that a Cork TD will take these steps.
azimuth17 wrote: » I have been following these posts out of interest and in particular those by Road High. I cannot recall a review of the city boundary 10 years ago or the establishment of a boundary commission to consider that issue?
Minister Simon Coveney says Waterford can double its population from its current level of 47,000 as part of a balanced future growth of the city on both sides of the river Suir. Waterford is one of a number of Regional cities to be earmarked for expansion over the next 25 years. The Irish Times reports that the new national planning framework will attempt to ensure that Waterford along with Cork, Limerick and Galway, see greater population growth, more jobs and increased investment in transport links. Simon Coveney says the population of Ireland will likely increase by one million by 2040 and three-quarters of that growth should take place outside Dublin. Waterford he says could become a much more balanced city with potentially thousands of houses with job opportunities but it needs a significant increase in population.
Jamie2k9 wrote: » http://www.wlrfm.com/news/local/93876-waterford-earmarked-for-expansion-in-government-plan.html I still don't see them giving it the go ahead especially if FF will vote against it. Would require SF to support the Gov and I don't see them been in favor either.
azimuth17 wrote: » : Original post from Road High How naive. He went with it because they're buddies. This is Irish politics we are talking about. This being typical of the sliveenery that goes on. There was a review only ten years ago, yet here we are again with another to blow taxpayers money on something that ain't going to happen. If Coffey wasn't there there'd no review whatsoever. Can I take it we agree that there was no boundary review ten years ago?
azimuth17 wrote: » @Road High. I have indeed heard of Google. I am certain there was no boundary application 10 years ago. If there was, would you do me the kindness of posting the appropriate link as you seem so certain to the contrary. there was talk of such a thing indeed when Martin Cullen was Minister for Environment but no application to set up a commission was made as far as I can recall. So if you have access to information as to the setting up of a commission 10 years agp, I would very much like to see it, thanks.
road_high wrote: » As I said it may have taken a different format but there was a review or something similar. Seem to recall FF called a halt because their policy was to work within and across existing county boundaries.
Deiseen wrote: » So in other words, your spouting crap.
[Deleted User] wrote: » No i can remember this issue did resurface around 2005 originally.
Deiseen wrote: » Is there a link?
road_high wrote: » You were saying? It's such a shame these pages aren't better moderated to curb aggressive tones such as yours but really more a reflection on yourself that you can't conduct yourself with even a baseline of civility. Just because I may not agree with you.
Deiseen wrote: » Fair enough, sorry. I did have a decent search and found nothing. I'll have to have a better look next time before jumping the gun! One thing I did notice from searching about the one in 2005 is the sheer amount people, not just Waterford people, saying that development was lopsided and that something needed to be done. Why is it so hard for South KK people to see this fact? Everybody keeps saying that the councils can work together without extending the border but this does not seem to be forthcoming from KKCC. So what are you left with other than attempting to get the border extended?
road_high wrote: » Because I think you really need buy in from the county concerned. It's very hard to get that when one wants to effectively erase one from an area they've administered since counties were created. You can't just do this because you think it might be better for the area and some 3 man report may say so- I've seen no evidence to support this, I think WCC running of Waterford has been very poor. They allowed so much retail on the outskirts, the city centre took a huge blow for example. The working together needs to come from both sides and I've seen little evidence of any of this happening either.
Deiseen wrote: » What if you've a buy in from the majority of the people living in the area(Ferrybank)? Doesn't their say weigh much more than the say of people 50km up the road with no connection to Ferrybank or the City? If the commission gave genuinely sensible justification for it being approved then would you accept it? Assuming it is approved of course. Also, you are admitting yourself that there is no evidence of working together. So in the absence of this, what do you recommend?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/33ff51e6843dec62476295b286496533.svg)
