Johnboy1951 wrote: » They are not there for administrative purposes? What are they for so?
Road-Hog wrote: » Ask people living in tramore, dunmore east, passage east, and checkpoint/faithlegg areas if they notice any differences since the merger of the old city and county councils? Up to 2014 the areas mentioned above were 'administered' from dungarvan a mere 30 miles away or so, similar to the distance that the 'boundary extension' area is from kk co co civic offices.....I know for a fact that the 'greenway' project would not have been as quickly progressed without the merger of the two old local authorities and I'm sure there are other benefits/synergies in the operation of local government sine the merger.
road_high wrote: » Such as? I'm sure if you actually asked them they'd tell ya it made zero difference to their actual every day lives, in any way shape or form.
robtri wrote: » actually a few people i have spoken to have said its worse... services are now more directed at the city and resulting in slower responses in the country parts....
road_high wrote: Following that logic, we should divide up all counties and have smaller hubs all-over to provide services "closer to the people"- now I doubt anyone would argue we should do that, as it would mean more costs/duplication.
zulutango wrote: » There's an optimal set up though. And the current one is sub optimal. This is basic economic and spatial planning. Have a look at the National Spatial Strategy or the discussions around the National Planning Framework. Counties as administrative boundaries are on the way out because arbitrary lines on a map are not a good way to divide administrative areas. It makes far more sense to set boundaries based on population clusters and sphere of influence. This should have no effect on who plays hurling for who. The GAA can continue to use the old county lines, as they do in the North.
road_high wrote: Well if we are going to abolish all County councils based on county structures that's a completely different matter to an extension into Co. Kilkenny which is what is proposed here. Not what you are proposing. It's putting everyone on an equal footing rather than perceived dominance of one over another.
zulutango wrote: » I don't disagree with you. The boundary extension approach is probably wrong or at least not ideal. But it's possibly more achievable than an amalgamation of both counties?
road_high wrote: An amalgamation of Kilkenny and Waterford likely wouldn't work either. Carlow and Kilkenny yes, Waterford no, as we have never joined together whereas as Carlow/Kilkenny is an existing unit for a whole host of govt services and politics already. I can't see county units joining though, the policy is to encourage cooperation with various services but keep the county unit intact. FF especially strongly lean thisway. Waterford much prefer an independent approach as you can see from this thread and others. The impression I always get it's Waterford way or else which does get kind of tiresome.
Max Powers wrote: » It has been, numerous times, basically stronger Waterford, with more population will help regions biggest city grow and fight fir resources, which will in turn benefit region.
Realt Dearg Sec wrote: » Just to get some clarification on this: the poster you responded to said so far all of the evidence provided just says how it will benefit Waterford, not the whole region. You responded by listing the ways it will benefit Waterford, and then just said "this will benefit the region". So we're no closer to understanding the benefits to the region than before. One of the recurring themes here has been Waterford posters saying that the current status quo has allowed Cork to become stronger, and that this has occurred at Waterford's expense. I dunno if that's true, or how you would demonstrate it. But couldn't the same logic apply to Waterford and Kilkenny as well? That a stronger Waterford would pull resources away from other urban centres around the South East, thereby weakening the rest of the region? I'm not arguing whether that's for the best or not, I believe centralising resources in urban concentrations is the right thing to do, but if ye can't actually explain clearly how Waterford becoming stronger benefits the whole region, then ye should probably stop saying it.
Realt Dearg Sec wrote: » Well that may be true but having a university has nothing to do with the boundary extension. More businesses in Waterford would mean more jobs in Waterford. That's great, of course, but it would benefit the Waterford hinterland, not the whole region. Again, that's not a problem, but the tendency is for larger cities to draw resources from their region into themselves rather than to disburse those resources. I don't see how this would benefit other towns in the region, but I can see how it would draw populations (and at a certain critical mass, businesses) more towards Waterford and away from places like Kilkenny. Again it's not strategically problematic, but this repeated claim that the region as a whole benefits needs to be examined, because the notion that Kilkenny (just to that the prescient example) has nothing to lose from a stronger Waterford doesn't necessarily tally.
Realt Dearg Sec wrote: » Again, that's not a problem, but the tendency is for larger cities to draw resources from their region into themselves rather than to disburse those resources.
Realt Dearg Sec wrote: » I don't see how this would benefit other towns in the region, but I can see how it would draw populations (and at a certain critical mass, businesses) more towards Waterford and away from places like Kilkenny.
Max Powers wrote: » I thought it read simple enough, the region needs a strong urban centre to fight for the region, anything Waterford gets benefits the region, e.g. improved hospital, university, attracting jobs etc etc that the region might lose to likes of limerick or cork if we don't have an urban centre to go up against it.this is basically what everyone is saying including coveney and most non bias planners would say same too.
Squidvicious wrote: » boundary extension application certainly doesn't help feelings of solidarity between Waterford and Kilkenny.
Squidvicious wrote: » I fail to see the benefit of Cork's success for my locality or for the South-East. Wexford people might have similar reservations about Waterford's growth.
TheQuietFella wrote: » There was never any signs of solidarity from the latter!
road_high wrote: » Whereas it's all been love and support in the other direction...of course. The idea of a south east "region" is akin to flogging a dead horse now. Not a lack of solidarity it just that None of the other counties are very interested. Carlow as pointed out is pulled towards Dublin/Kildare. Its also not surprisingly the fastest growing, has been over a series of censuses. This growth has nothing to do with Waterford as a regional centre. Kilkenny and Wexford less so but still influenced that direction. Tipperary a bit like Carlow, doesn't fit readily into the south east and now is more linked to cork or limerick. Which really only leaves Waterford, kk and Wexford.
Max Powers wrote: » most of your posts were about cooperation in the region.only thing that can save the region now would be strong growth and the best way for that and to reverse the trend you highlighted in your post is a stronger Waterford to fight other regions for resources, jobs, investment.
road_high wrote: » There's nothing wrong with the trend though. Dublin is the engine of Ireland's economy and the closer links the better as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure Carlow and Tipp especially are very happy with their locations and the benefits being close to Dublin or cork bring. And that doesnt mean just daily commuting at all. There's a load of good businesses around Carlow (and indeed kk) that do a huge bulk of their trade with the Dublin region. It's just naturally evolved that way especially with the motorway now. I've noticed it in Waterford too, particularly the hotels "an hour and half to Dublin" etc. and they're dead right. Take advantage of your location which is almost equidistant to Dublin or cork. It shouldn't be a threat.
Dr Brian Hughes, an urban and regional economist and adviser to the Government on population, says the Buchanan plan was never implemented, and this has had profound consequences, particularly for the west. The region has been left without a sizeable city, and this has led to fewer job opportunities and increased emigration. Dr Hughes believes Buchanan's plan to develop the regional cities was scrapped because of political pressure from parish pump politicians, who thought they would benefit their own town and country areas by encouraging development there. In fact their short-sightedness had the opposite effect, according to Dr Hughes."Healthy regions depend on a sizeable city. Without that, a region cannot thrive. "If the cities grow, they attract more population to that region, and the area as a whole benefits."
azimuth17 wrote: » This argument has been made for Waterford and the south east on many occasions and is part of the university logic as well as the acute hospital logic. It is not clear the extent to which people in Kilkenny, north of Ballyhale buy into it ? Mr Coveney's forthcoming initiative on spatial strategy will be interesting when seen in the light of a boundary extension. The biggest positive for the south east will perhaps be the New Ross bypass which will reinforce existing east/west linkages to complement north /south M 9 linkages. South east could be great if it wished to be?
JMT2016 wrote: » Article in today's independent Bit in bold is important! Dr Brian Hughes, an urban and regional economist and adviser to the Government on population, says the Buchanan plan was never implemented, and this has had profound consequences, particularly for the west. The region has been left without a sizeable city, and this has led to fewer job opportunities and increased emigration. Dr Hughes believes Buchanan's plan to develop the regional cities was scrapped because of political pressure from parish pump politicians, who thought they would benefit their own town and country areas by encouraging development there. In fact their short-sightedness had the opposite effect, according to Dr Hughes."Healthy regions depend on a sizeable city. Without that, a region cannot thrive. "If the cities grow, they attract more population to that region, and the area as a whole benefits."
