azimuth17 wrote: » It might better be spent on the area in which it is collected. It is interesting that the rates from Belview business represent nearly one seventh of KKCC rate take. That county always had, other than agricultural land which was derated in 1977, a very low commercial rate base. They spent very little in south Kilkenny and especially on the immediate hinterland of Waterford city over the years. I cannot remember even a single council house being built. Whether or which, a legal process has been completed. An independent boundary commission established by the Minister for the Environment (or Local Government as he was previously known) has reported and its recommendations will have to be examined. Who can say in this country of ours, where that might lead us?
road_high wrote: » Shock horror a county spending rates it collects as it sees fit...I don't comment on how or where Waterford council spends their rates because quite frankly I don't care because that's their right as an entitity to do as they see fit. Funny how they have a far higher debt burden when the populations are not a whole lot different despite the "very low commercial rates base". Waterford does not sound like a very enticing prospect if I was looking for increased services in south KK...jesus, is it really any of your business where it is spent? And have you detailed evidence as to how they spend every cent or is the usual anecdotes and hearsay?
Harry Palmr wrote: » Because it would make no practical sense - all that would happen is you'd end up with two campuses which are too far apart for proper co-operation and with competing county based political interests vis a vis money[/QUO Rubbish
Michael Kavanagh wrote: » If Waterford were that interested in becoming the central hub for the south east, why didn't Wit come together with Carlow it create a university for the south east.
Jamie2k9 wrote: » Carlow IT standards are lower than WIT's one big reason, I could guarantee had it been Cork IT and WIT it would of happened no problem.
Michael Kavanagh wrote: » Jamie2k9 wrote: » Carlow IT standards are lower than WIT's one big reason, I could guarantee had it been Cork IT and WIT it would of happened no problem. It was people like Padraig coffey and other poloticans from Waterford that put there say in.
Deiseen wrote: » Do you know anything about the situation other than being Anti-Waterford? Cause you quiet obviously don't. Generally when people don't know anything they tend to keep quiet for fear of making an eejit of themselves....
Michael Kavanagh wrote: » Deiseen wrote: » Do you know anything about the situation other than being Anti-Waterford? Cause you quiet obviously don't. Generally when people don't know anything they tend to keep quiet for fear of making an eejit of themselves.... What do you know it seems not a lot, insulting people which seems the lot down there. Waterford city and the people that lived in it had it good for a long time with Waterford glass and other industries that went due to the attidudes strikes etc . One example of the difference between kilkenny, Waterford, the smithwicks brewery site was baought back by the people of kilkenny to regenerate the area for the city County, I was down in Waterford a couple of years ago on the quays that old hotel on the hill which looked terrible broken windows sheet blowing on the front of it graffite every where why didn't the council do something about it. Waterford is gone down a long ways towards what it was but a lot of people would agree with me even worldwide there attidude is deplorable. May be if ye did something for yourselves get out of your shells the world has changed ye allways had a thing with kilkenny begrudging Waterford means very little to me Carlow, kildare, Wexford, even Tipperary I would have more dealings with them than Waterford.
O Riain wrote: » The bad attitude of all the counties in the South East swings both ways. Waterford must mean a lot to you if you get that worked up about the place.
Michael Kavanagh wrote: » There ye go blaming somebody else for yer own problems that were caused by the people of Waterford city there selves.
Suryavarman wrote: » 1. Doing so would leave WIT much further away from being a university because Carlow IT's standards are so low. 2. The idea is completely ridiculous. The main campuses of both colleges are 80km away from each other. Only the imbeciles in Dail Eireann could think it would be a good idea to amalgamate both.
cats pyjamas wrote: » But the argument from many (both in submissions and on Boards) was all about benefiting the whole SE region and not just Waterford. This has been shown to be complete bulls**t by the attitude of posters and politicians from Waterford. It is driven by naked self interest only and nowhere more obvious than the last couple of comments about rates from the Port. KK and Wat aren't really competing with each other to get jobs - there are very few manufacturing jobs in KK for example. The 140 jobs announced by Cartoon Saloon is one example of the way Kilkenny have been looking at alternatives to manufacturing jobs which, although they bring money into the area, can have many drawbacks in the medium to long term. But neither are the 2 counties working together to bring jobs either because every politician wants to bring jobs to their own constituency. Look at Dawn Meats, physically in Kilkenny but the postal address is Waterford just so a politically connected people could say that they brought X amount of jobs to Waterford. I can actually see some benefit of Ferrybank being controlled by Waterford but a lot of people are deluded if they think Waterford coco is going to do a whole lot more than Kilkenny did. We had posters here complaining about a lack of amenities in the area but, when asked (repeatedly), they couldn't say what they wanted. There is plenty of land available in the area so why the need to take in Slieverue and Belleview? You can excuse Kilkenny people feeling aggrieved and shove your condescending remarks about Kilkenny people (and the whole SE region for that matter) because this has nothing to do with Waterford driving the regional economy. It is all about money for Waterford and Waterford alone.
Michael Kavanagh wrote: » O Riain wrote: » The bad attitude of all the counties in the South East swings both ways. Waterford must mean a lot to you if you get that worked up about the place. There ye go blaming somebody else for yer own problems that were caused by the people of Waterford city there selves.
Michael Kavanagh wrote: » Manufacturing industries are in the past in this country it was as well Kilkenny didn't go down that road .
The Committee’s considerations are summarised as follows: 1. The public consultation invited by the Committee as part of its work elicited 19,131 submissions, not including those from Waterford Local Authority and Kilkenny County Councils themselves. Of these, 19,096 opposed any change in the existing boundary. The overwhelmingly singular basis upon which such opposition was based related to the potential loss of identity with Kilkenny County. 2. Notwithstanding the high level of recognition that the Committee gives to the significance of “county identity” in the cultural and social life of Irish people, the review had, due to its terms of reference, to consider all relevant matters, particularly practical issues related to the most effective administration of the functions of local government in an area that is proximate to the principal centre of population for the entire South-East region – this being formally identified at national level through its designation as one of the principal “Gateway” locations in the country. 3. In relation to delivering efficiencies through re-designation, there has already been significant reform. A focus on the most efficient means of service delivery by local government was a direct consequence of the threat to the financial stability of the state precipitated by the international financial crisis. Both local authorities in this case have demonstrated a high level of commitment to their respective communities, and it is the Committee’s view that there is very limited, if any, scope for delivery of further efficiencies in day-to-day service delivery costs through a range of reconfiguration of boundaries that it has examined. The investigation carried out by the Committee has identified a high level of collaborative engagement between authorities in the delivery of day-to-day services by each authority to its constituent populations. The dedication of the elected Councillors in each area was abundantly in evidence; they are real servants of their respective communities notwithstanding the complex boundary between them. In this regard, the fruitful consultation with those Councillors, and the extent to which each Council provided extensive amounts of the baseline information requested by the Committee (supporting their respective positions and responding to detailed questions), is greatly appreciated by the Review Committee. Notwithstanding this, it is our analysis that collaboration between the two authorities is significantly less in evidence at strategic level than it is at operational. For example, no joint Retail Strategy has been developed between the authorities, and there is no implementation plan or joint working group to deliver the jointly-adopted Planning and Land-Use Study since its initiation in 2004. 4. The Committee views the current configuration, designated at times of far lower economic activity and lesser population growth and with little or no provision for future expansion within its boundaries, as a practical hindrance to day-to-day service delivery and a real anomaly where it comes to dealing with the immediate hinterland of Waterford as the principal regional settlement. Waterford’s relative lower level of economic performance in comparison with other designated Gateways requires that it has the capacity most fundamentally to consolidate the core of the city to the greatest extent possible. This must include control over any matter that poses a threat to that consolidation. Waterford city’s success in terms of the promotion of its individual identity around the city centre in recent years is acknowledged. It requires every support to turn this initiative into economic success, through implementation of a successful Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) recently designated on the North Quays. All these regionally strategic initiatives to promote the primacy of the city are supported by Waterford’s partner local authorities in the South-East region, particularly Kilkenny.
The summary of the Committee’s recommendation to the Minister is as follows: A. The Waterford Boundary Review Committee recommends the abandonment of the existing impractical boundary designation in favour of the designation of an area to Waterford that gives it effective control of the immediate hinterland of the city that has expanded on the north bank of the Suir. This designation includes provision for the expansion of that area to cater for the forecast population and economic growth of the regional centre. B. The Committee recommends a Boundary Extension of Waterford County into Kilkenny County Council to include the area proximate to the suburban area in Ferrybank. It has chosen to recommend the designation of a new Boundary between the Authorities that will move the entire Electoral Area of Kilculliheen and those parts of the Electoral Areas of Aglish and Dunkitt contained within the Area of Interest that lie south of the of the N25 bypass to the control of Waterford Council. This revision would have the effect of retaining the entire Electoral Area of Rathpatrick to the east in county Kilkenny, thereby retaining the village of Slieverue and the port at Belview and its hinterland in that county. The Boundary as recommended follows those electoral area boundaries that follow the line of an existing stream, a minor tributary of the Suir. C. In deciding a recommendation on the extent of such re-designation the Committee recognises the extent to which Kilkenny County Council has, over successive decades, invested very significant strategic focus on this area at its southern end. Kilkenny has successfully promoted and developed Belview as the new location for the Waterford-based shipping industry. In so doing, it has followed many international precedents where the changing nature of maritime trading, and resulting re-configuration of land-side ports, has rendered historically city-oriented ports obsolete. The argument for a physical connection with the city is rendered weaker by these practicalities; the current location of Belview port is unhindered by city traffic and highly accessible from the national motorway network, making it an effectively regional facility. In addition, Kilkenny has largely preserved the green belt of agricultural-use land between the port and area of residential settlement that enhances the range of uses that can be located in the port area. Similarly, in relation to the local village settlements, the Committee accepts the advantage offered by Kilkenny that these places accrue from their individual identity. D. For practical purposes the designation of the boundary was primarily based on the 2004 Planning Land Use and Transportation Strategy (PLUTS) designation of land-use and future land-use blocks and follows Townland and natural boundaries (the stream that is a very minor tributary or run-off to the Suir) to the greatest extent possible. It is recognised that other boundaries, such as parish boundaries, will not fall so naturally on one side or the other of the recommended line, but there is a limit to what can be equitably divided. E. Kilkenny County Council will suffer a loss of Commercial Rates and Residential Property Tax income arising from this boundary change that is immediately and accurately identifiable. It will have to be compensated by Waterford County for such loss of income, such loss being discounted by the relief from the requirement to provide day-to-day services in the area in question. The Committee is conscious that such saving will not be significant due to Kilkenny Council’s requirement to maintain its compliment of service infrastructure and manpower in the south county despite the lesser population and area to be served. F. The population living within the proposed boundary extension area in County Kilkenny is estimated at about 4,500. The effect of transferring this area to Waterford is likely to be an increase of one councillor in Waterford Metropolitan District and a reduction of two councillors in the Piltown Municipal District of Kilkenny County Council. As this would result in the membership of the Municipal District dropping below the statutory minimum of six elected members, it would be necessary to reconfigure all of the Municipal Districts within County Kilkenny.
