Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can anything stop Rural Decline?

2

Comments

  • #32
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,917 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    The allowance of one off housing is probably the single greatest policy mistake of this country. It's not hyperbole to state that you can trace almost all of the big issues effecting the state back to it.

    Effectively one off housing forces the state to spread it's resources thin in order to achieve wide geographic coverage. This this spread mean that services are often low quality. In practice for example it means it can take an hour for an ambulance to reach a heart attack victim.

    I have to agree with you.

    You only have to see how Ireland has the highest density of roads for our distributed population, requiring huge maintenance and a cost in terms of safety, the highest number of small schools in Europe, the cost of providing rural broadband, and as you mention, the effect on the cost of the health service too.


  • #33
    juneg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭juneg


    In an ideal world it would be good to have trains serving the major cities from the hinterland but that's never going to happen.
    Think of the London commuter , 45 mins on a train is nothing to them but we wouldn't consider it.


  • #34
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,732 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    ongarite wrote: »
    As said before nothing can stop urbanisation, it's the prevailing trend of the 21st century.
    Not just the 21st century - it's been going on for 10,000-15,000 years.
    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    The whole Decentralization plan from the early 2000s was a typical FF stunt to come up with a headline in an otherwise unattractive budget, it was never thought out to any great degree.
    Actually, it was thought out very carefully, targeting places that were marginal constituencies susceptible to improved employment.


  • #35
    Wildlife Actor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 491 ✭✭Wildlife Actor


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    The allowance of one off housing is probably the single greatest policy mistake of this country. It's not hyperbole to state that you can trace almost all of the big issues effecting the state back to it.

    Effectively one off housing forces the state to spread it's resources thin in order to achieve wide geographic coverage. This this spread mean that services are often low quality. In practice for example it means it can take an hour for an ambulance to reach a heart attack victim.

    Can't say I agree with the ambulance example. That's an argument against rural dwelling, not one-off housing. They are two different things. Estates of houses (or "clusters" as planning officials like to euphamise) are just as difficult to reach unless they're in towns.

    The main arguments would seem to be the lack of economies in installing fixed line services (water, sewerage, esb etc) and the perceived visual damage to views. Both of these can readily be managed. The lazy assumption is that one off houses is a creature of the 60s to today but where I grew up, one off housing was the norm for 200 years. There were more inhabitants but probably fewer houses as they packed more people into each house.

    So in my view the problem of one off housing is not one off housing per se. Installation costs can be passed on to the house owners as a development contribution at planning stage and with a little less corruption and a little better management the aesthetic of wild areas can be protected.


  • #36
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,044 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    juneg wrote: »
    In an ideal world it would be good to have trains serving the major cities from the hinterland but that's never going to happen.
    Think of the London commuter , 45 mins on a train is nothing to them but we wouldn't consider it.

    If you offered most London workers a 45 minute commute, they'd have your hand. Trains from places 90 minutes away are always packed and that's before one factors in walking and commuting across the city itself.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    You have to ask though why allergan are in Westport. The answer is simple - Government support has allowed them to turn what would be a naturally less profitable location into one that is. Take away Government support and you see industry moving to urban areas. So the question really is is it sustainable for government to keep providing these incentives to locate FDI in rural areas? Could we get better value if those incentives were spent elsewhere? What is the point or overall goal in keeping rural towns alive?
    ...and, if you zoom out, you get to ask the same questions about structural funds and whether it's sustainable to provide incentives to develop poorer regions of the EU instead of just letting business gravitate to Germany where it belongs.

    Your argument is fundamentally circular. You're basically stating that if we stopped spending money on disadvantaged areas, they'd stay disadvantaged and the money would flow to the rich areas where it belongs. If you accept the basic concept of social democracy, where a portion of the national wealth is redistributed from the well off to the less well off, then you have to accept that it's necessary to operate on a similar principle when it comes to regional development.

    I'm not really sure why Dublin people are so keep to live in a mega-city with a population of four or five million surrounded by a vast, empty wilderness in the first place. What's the attraction, beyond "stop wasting my tax money on those stupid culchies"?
    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    The allowance of one off housing is probably the single greatest policy mistake of this country. It's not hyperbole to state that you can trace almost all of the big issues effecting the state back to it.
    Yes. Accepted. Now what?

    Everyone knows that we shouldn't have allowed a massively dispersed population of one-off houses to happen. So, what do we do about it?

    Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that we elect a government on a platform of correcting the one-off housing problem. What policies should that government implement? Should it be illegal to sell or bequeath a one-off house? Should postal services to one-off houses be withdrawn? Should ambulances refuse to operate outside of urban centres?

    Yes, we all know we shouldn't have allowed a dispersed rural population to happen. But we have one, and that means we have a choice: we either design our society around our existing settlement patterns, or we implement policies to change those patterns. Instead, we choose the Irish solution: grumble about how if others had done things differently, we wouldn't have to deal with all this crap.


  • #38
    djPSB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,299 ✭✭✭djPSB


    Don't see any problems with one off housing.

    You have someone who is committing to living in a house for the rest of their lives and committing to paying mortgage on same. They are building the house in an area that they are obviously happy to commit to live in. It's up to the banks to control the credit being provided for these in a prudent manner.

    Much better than the situation we saw during the bust with ghost estates being built by developers in the back arses of nowhere. This is high risk, building 30 or 40 houses in a small rural village with absolutely no idea if they'll be sold or not. With all the debt resting on the developer and ultimately the taxpayer. In any kind of a recession, these developments are screwed.

    With singular houses, the debt is spread better more evenly to individuals who are committing to a house that meets their specifications in which they are committing to live in long term. It's up to the banks to manage the provision of credit and councils to manage planning applications to ensure houses are being built in the correct areas.


  • #39
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    What exactly is the problem with one-off housing?

    Providing them with infrastructure is expensive
    Providing services is expensive and difficult
    They gut small towns
    They ensure a reliance on cars
    They can be a blight on the landscape
    Social cohesion is more difficult


  • #40
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,044 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I don't want to bog down the thread with this but I find it interesting being from rural Ireland and having never heard the term until very recently. How much of rural areas' decline can be attributed to one-off housing.

    In the UK, this is much more tightly controlled with the result being that homes are now investors' playthings instead of places for people to live meaning that property prices are spiralling out of control and have been for quite a while now. At least with the one-off housing, people are actually living in them.
    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Providing them with infrastructure is expensive

    Should the property owner not foot the bill for this rather than the taxpayer?
    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    They gut small towns

    How so?
    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    They ensure a reliance on cars
    They can be a blight on the landscape
    Social cohesion is more difficult

    Cars are getting greener and it's cheaper than ensuring that buses service these places. NIMBYism over here has left me completely apathetic to people complaining about landscape as it's just a cheap excuse to stifle any development at all.
    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Social cohesion is more difficult

    Has Ireland ever had a serious social incohesion problem?

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #41
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Social cohesion is more difficult
    How has rural Ireland got a social cohesion problem? 0_o

    I'm sorry, but while I can accept that there are arguments to be made pro and con your other points, as a culchie born and bred who has spent most of his adult life living / working in a city, and who therefore has ACTUAL experience of living in both the country and the city, that one has me goggle-eyed!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    randylonghorn wrote: »
    How has rural Ireland got a social cohesion problem? 0_o

    I'm sorry, but while I can accept that there are arguments to be made pro and con your other points, as a culchie born and bred who has spent most of his adult life living / working in a city, and who therefore has ACTUAL experience of living in both the country and the city, that one has me goggle-eyed!
    How often have you heard poor auld Johnny should be allowed to have 2 pints and drive home. It's his only outlet.


  • #43
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    How often have you heard poor auld Johnny should be allowed to have 2 pints and drive home. It's his only outlet.

    ...because driving while drunk has never, ever happened in a city.

    I'll reiterate: we all know the reasons why we shouldn't have allowed one-off housing to flourish. But we did, and we face three choices: we either design our country around the fact that we have a distributed population; or we carry on pretending really really hard that we don't; or we implement a forced urbanisation policy.

    We're currently somewhere between the first and second options, in that any effort to recognise and account for the facts on the ground is met with carping about how we shouldn't have to if only we'd done things differently over the past couple of hundred years.


  • #44
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    How often have you heard poor auld Johnny should be allowed to have 2 pints and drive home. It's his only outlet.
    Often, and if you define social cohesion purely as opportunities for recreational / social interaction in groups, you have a point, especially for older people living alone.

    That's only a tiny part of social cohesion though.

    People know their neighbours in the country, they don't always agree with them but they still look out for them and rally round when something goes wrong. If poor old Johnny gets sick, the neighbours will pitch in if he doesn't have family, or in conjunction with the family if he does. When poor old Johnny gets past bringing his own turf home, the neighbours will pitch in and do it for him. When poor old Johnny can't drive, the neighbours will pitch in and bring him to mass / for his pension / to do his shopping.

    I'm not saying that kind of thing never happens in the city, especially in long-established communities, but in my experience, it's a lot less common / naturally occurring.

    My father has a long-term debilitating illness. Even though I live nowhere near him, nor does he have any other family in the area, we were able to keep him at home as long as was possible or indeed medically advisable because the neighbours pitched in.

    He's in a nursing home now in the nearest (smallish) town. He can regularly have 2-3 visitors a day, as people going into town for shopping or whatever, or passing back through from work, will call in for half an hour. They might not stay very long, but they still break the day for him, keep him up to date with the latest news, and make him feel cared for and still part of his community. For those calling primarily to see him, they'll take a couple of minutes to stick their head round the door of the other 2 locals in the same home; similarly, people calling primarily to see one of them will stick their heads round his door for a couple of minutes.

    His sister lived in Dublin for her whole adult life, most of it in the same house in Crumlin. She has the same disease, and is in the same position, she is also now in a nursing home. Apart from family, she's lucky if she has two visitors a month.

    Again, I'm just looking at one side of social cohesion really, there are many other factors which could be compared, but I would definitely say that while there are definite disadvantages to living in a rural area, a lack of social cohesion isn't the one that would spring to my mind!


  • #45
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    .
    Should the property owner not foot the bill for this rather than the taxpayer?
    Yes but they don't and never will the cost is too high for an individual to ever cover
    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    How so?
    People drive to the bigger towns and bypass their local town and village. Which leads to a decline so more people don't go...


  • #46
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,044 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    People drive to the bigger towns and bypass their local town and village. Which leads to a decline so more people don't go...

    Eh? There's nothing whatsoever stopping them going to the local towns and villages.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #47
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    randylonghorn wrote: »
    People know their neighbours in the country...

    In contrast, my OH lived in the same apartment in a small block in a London suburb for thirteen years. Of the other people who lived in the building, she got to the point of nodding "hello" to one of them in all that time. The others refused to acknowledge her greetings, and she gave up.

    When she moved to Westport, she went to the local Supervalu on her first day, and came home wide-eyed with wonder because people had spoken to her.


  • #48
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Providing them with infrastructure is expensive
    Providing services is expensive and difficult
    They gut small towns
    They ensure a reliance on cars
    They can be a blight on the landscape
    Social cohesion is more difficult
    The infrastructure is already in place.
    Roads provided free by the local farmers by way of rights-of-way which were paved by the government to facilitate the delivery of goods and services to and from the rural areas.
    Power, again across farmland from generating stations nowhere near urban centers.
    Water, again from rural areas along the previously mentioned roadways. The majority of rural water supplies were provided not by government but by the local community forming group water schemes which again were taken over by the government after the capital to provide them was supplied by the rural dwellers.
    Broadband, plans already in place to provide large areas with reasonable, not top of the range by any stretch of the imagination, broadband.

    As others have questioned, gutting small towns how? The vast majority living in the rural areas also work in that area thus minimising commuting.

    There is a reliance on car transport in urban areas also despite much investment in roads, rail, Luas and bus options. Perhaps taking steps to reduce urban car use may be a better place to start seeing as there are options available there that don't seem to be properly utilised.

    Blight on the landscape with once-off housing is merely an opinion, it could also be argued that urban planning leaves as many questions to be asked as to the suitability of many developments for the areas they currently occupy. Just taking my own locality, the majority of eyesores seem to be from those outside the locality building a statement residence but again, that's just my opinion.

    As for social cohesion, that did make me laugh. There is much more social cohesion in this locality that any urban area I have lived in bar a comparable sense I experienced in the center of Dublin. Some days our house is full of kids doing homework and playing and other days just our own and sometimes none here at all. It takes a community to raise a child is the saying in the locality and different people step in to take kids when others may have to drop out at short notice. The elderly are regularly visited by local kids(mostly for chocolate:D) and have their own social scene with local transport picking them up every week for a meal and some cards and regular trips to other parts of the country on days out.
    We were born here, we live here and we will die here.


  • #49
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...because driving while drunk has never, ever happened in a city.

    I'll reiterate: we all know the reasons why we shouldn't have allowed one-off housing to flourish. But we did, and we face three choices: we either design our country around the fact that we have a distributed population; or we carry on pretending really really hard that we don't; or we implement a forced urbanisation policy.

    We're currently somewhere between the first and second options, in that any effort to recognise and account for the facts on the ground is met with carping about how we shouldn't have to if only we'd done things differently over the past couple of hundred years.

    A) I never claimed drink driving didn't happen in Dublin and B) we don't have a forced urbanisation policy it's just the way the winds are blowing in every major western nation


  • #50
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Eh? There's nothing whatsoever stopping them going to the local towns and villages.

    But most of the time they won't. They are already getting in the car because they live 5km outside the village, why not drive to the nearest giant supermarket on the outskirts of the nearest big town.

    When everyone wants to live a few km out of town there there is no town.

    Which is inefficient, but whatever. The problem is when all these people who want to live away from everyone else start complaining that the roads aren't good enough, that their nearest hospital is too far, that the don't have good enough broadband. Not to mention that any attempt to stop them drink driving is tantamount to forcing them in to solitary confinement.


  • #51
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Eh? There's nothing whatsoever stopping them going to the local towns and villages.

    Except the evidence proves they arent. Towns like Enniscorthy are on their knees as people are going to Wexford or Gorey.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    juneg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭juneg


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    If you offered most London workers a 45 minute commute, they'd have your hand. Trains from places 90 minutes away are always packed and that's before one factors in walking and commuting across the city itself.


    Ah no, I meant a 45 min commute on Southern Railways before you get in to one of the central stations and take the tubes :D


  • #53
    juneg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭juneg


    Buford T. Justice V wrote: »



    The elderly are regularly visited by local kids(mostly for chocolate:D) .

    This. When you're driving along in the car and the kids have an irresistible urge to visit Granny! :D:D


  • #54
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    But most of the time they won't. They are already getting in the car because they live 5km outside the village, why not drive to the nearest giant supermarket on the outskirts of the nearest big town.
    You have a point, but this happens in Dublin / the other cities / big towns as well, leading to the decimation of the local "corner shop".

    It's a modern retail phenomenon more than specific to a conversation about rural / urban.


  • #55
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,917 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    djPSB wrote: »
    Don't see any problems with one off housing.

    .


    Apart from being the single biggest mistake in Irish planning history?


    djPSB wrote: »

    You have someone who is committing to living in a house for the rest of their lives and committing to paying mortgage on same. They are building the house in an area that they are obviously happy to commit to live in. It's up to the banks to control the credit being provided for these in a prudent manner.

    Much better than the situation we saw during the bust with ghost estates being built by developers in the back arses of nowhere. This is high risk, building 30 or 40 houses in a small rural village with absolutely no idea if they'll be sold or not. With all the debt resting on the developer and ultimately the taxpayer. In any kind of a recession, these developments are screwed.

    With singular houses, the debt is spread better more evenly to individuals who are committing to a house that meets their specifications in which they are committing to live in long term. It's up to the banks to manage the provision of credit and councils to manage planning applications to ensure houses are being built in the correct areas.

    Banks should be banned from financing new one-off housing, that would solve the problem fairly quickly.


  • #56
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,917 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...because driving while drunk has never, ever happened in a city.

    I'll reiterate: we all know the reasons why we shouldn't have allowed one-off housing to flourish. But we did, and we face three choices: we either design our country around the fact that we have a distributed population; or we carry on pretending really really hard that we don't; or we implement a forced urbanisation policy.

    We're currently somewhere between the first and second options, in that any effort to recognise and account for the facts on the ground is met with carping about how we shouldn't have to if only we'd done things differently over the past couple of hundred years.

    The first option is too costly and expensive and depends on a diesel car-driving culture that will be impossible within a decade and a half.

    The second option is the current one.

    The third option isn't possible either, people can't be forced.

    However, there is a fourth option, as being implemented in Japan and other countries, is a managed rural decline, with a concentration on development in Cork, Limerick, Galway and the other major cities outside Dublin, correcting the mistakes made in Dublin and ensuring good public transport, high-density housing and top quality public services.


  • #57
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The first option is too costly and expensive and depends on a diesel car-driving culture that will be impossible within a decade and a half.
    On what planet is a diesel car the only option when living in a small town?

    My OH still has the petrol BMW she owned from new when she lived in London. She's strongly considering trading it for an electric car. I have a colleague whose 2-car family consists of a diesel Audi for long runs and a Leaf for daily pottering.
    The third option isn't possible either, people can't be forced.

    However, there is a fourth option, as being implemented in Japan and other countries, is a managed rural decline, with a concentration on development in Cork, Limerick, Galway and the other major cities outside Dublin, correcting the mistakes made in Dublin and ensuring good public transport, high-density housing and top quality public services.
    The fourth option is just a passive-aggressive version of the third. It consists of people in cities demanding that people outside of those cities be deprived of services until they have no choice but to move to a city where they don't want to live or work.

    The difference between options three and four is the same as the difference between unfair and constructive dismissal.

    But, let's pursue the idea. Let's imagine that government policy is to starve the regions of investment until the roads disintegrate, the post doesn't get delivered, nobody can get broadband. People are forced to abandon their homes and move to cities. Thriving businesses like Allergan, faced with the prospect of moving to Dublin or Cork, pull plant and move to India instead. The cities are filled with underemployed culchies increasing the demand for social housing.

    This is better than what we have now... how?


  • #58
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,917 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    On what planet is a diesel car the only option when living in a small town?

    My OH still has the petrol BMW she owned from new when she lived in London. She's strongly considering trading it for an electric car. I have a colleague whose 2-car family consists of a diesel Audi for long runs and a Leaf for daily pottering. The fourth option is just a passive-aggressive version of the third. It consists of people in cities demanding that people outside of those cities be deprived of services until they have no choice but to move to a city where they don't want to live or work.

    The difference between options three and four is the same as the difference between unfair and constructive dismissal.

    But, let's pursue the idea. Let's imagine that government policy is to starve the regions of investment until the roads disintegrate, the post doesn't get delivered, nobody can get broadband. People are forced to abandon their homes and move to cities. Thriving businesses like Allergan, faced with the prospect of moving to Dublin or Cork, pull plant and move to India instead. The cities are filled with underemployed culchies increasing the demand for social housing.

    This is better than what we have now... how?

    Fristly, option four isn't starving the regions of investment, it is about creating counter-weights to Dublin in the regions.

    Secondly, a two-car household is unsustainable in the medium term, so if one of them is Leaf, so what? Anyway, your anecdotal example means nothing when the vast majority of cars sold outside Dublin are diesel, a polluting menace.

    Thirdly, other than agriculture and tourism, there is no long-term development prospect outside of cities because the rest of the world, including our EU competitors won't have the burden of financing unviable rural areas as they are already moving away from this unsustainable model.


  • #59
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Fristly, option four isn't starving the regions of investment, it is about creating counter-weights to Dublin in the regions.
    Someone who has been forced through economic hardship to move to social housing in Limerick isn't going to be particularly grateful that at least they didn't have move to Dublin.
    ...the vast majority of cars sold outside Dublin are diesel, a polluting menace.
    I wonder what social policy we could imagine to deal with that. We could either incentivise a move away from diesel to electric cars, or we could pressure everyone to move to a city to increase pressure on already inadequate public transport.

    Decisions, decisions...
    Thirdly, other than agriculture and tourism, there is no long-term development prospect outside of cities because the rest of the world, including our EU competitors won't have the burden of financing unviable rural areas as they are already moving away from this unsustainable model.
    It grinds my gears when city-dwellers talk about financing unviable areas. How about we remove all subsidies from all public transport and let people pay the full economic cost? That way, if any part of the city is too expensive to commute from, people can just move to a part of the city that's viable. While we're at it, maybe we should get rid of social housing - why should we finance unviable urban areas?

    If that sounds ridiculous to you, you now know how it feels as a rural dweller listening to an urbanite pontificating about how any lifestyle other than his own is undesirable.


  • #60
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    randylonghorn wrote: »
    You have a point, but this happens in Dublin / the other cities / big towns as well, leading to the decimation of the local "corner shop".

    It's a modern retail phenomenon more than specific to a conversation about rural / urban.

    The difference is those jobs still exist in the locality. They are still driving the local economy. Towns and cities can afford for the local corner shop to become the German multiple up the road . Small towns can't afford too lose the local shop.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,917 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Someone who has been forced through economic hardship to move to social housing in Limerick isn't going to be particularly grateful that at least they didn't have move to Dublin. I wonder what social policy we could imagine to deal with that. We could either incentivise a move away from diesel to electric cars, or we could pressure everyone to move to a city to increase pressure on already inadequate public transport.

    Decisions, decisions... It grinds my gears when city-dwellers talk about financing unviable areas. How about we remove all subsidies from all public transport and let people pay the full economic cost? That way, if any part of the city is too expensive to commute from, people can just move to a part of the city that's viable. While we're at it, maybe we should get rid of social housing - why should we finance unviable urban areas?

    If that sounds ridiculous to you, you now know how it feels as a rural dweller listening to an urbanite pontificating about how any lifestyle other than his own is undesirable.


    I am not saying that a rural lifestyle is undesirable, I am saying that it is unsustainable. That is a very different conclusion.

    As for the financing, the point being made is that the cost per rural dweller is of a magnitude greater than the cost per urban dweller, and the level of service received by the rural dweller will still be a magnitude lower.

    A few years ago I was prepared to accept that if rural dwellers are prepared to accept a long-term situation of lower quality public services from education to health to broadband and will pay higher local taxes for those public services, then what was the problem. The difference since is that I have come to realise that apart from the tax burden to sustain the rural dwellers that the environmental cost is too high.


Advertisement