Tell me how wrote: » Yawn. Again.
markodaly wrote: » Not at all. That word has entered the lexicon as other countries in the West want to adopt American type housing with gyms, games rooms, a movie theatre. In fact in Australia in some councils they have tried to ban these McMansions. If you are vain enough to want to be part of an episode of MTV Cribs then good luck to you. It does not mean that we, the tax payer should go on and subside your property for you and provide you with all the mod cons and services that are expensive to provide, such as fibre broadband to your house. Perhaps if you paid property tax on the Sq foot you had, perhaps you would change your tune? :rolleyes:
Luka Lemon Town wrote: » Honestly what are you talking about? Vain? No it's very not vain it's having the house I want, you might be happy spending a few 100k on a small house or poky apartment and making do with that so you can live in other things people's laps but for me that just doesn't cut it. Having the house I want with the space, layout and facilities I want is far more important than being able to walk to a cafe.
Luka Lemon Town wrote: » A large proportion of rural dwellers commute to urban areas to work so their salaries are comparable in general. Rural homes tend to have more cars, newer and often more expensive cars. Vrt and vat on cars is a big expense. They spend more on fuel as they drive more which is a big cash cow for tax, they pay for water which had vat (urban dwellers refused to oay), they higher electricity thus more vat.
Shurimgreat wrote: » Dublin is like a black hole sucking people in from outside of Dublin.
Shurimgreat wrote: » But for the sanity of Dubliners and to ease the accommodation crisis it needs to be done. There are only so many sardines you can squeeze into the tin.
cgcsb wrote: » Yes, cities do that, have done since the industrial revolution and will continue to do so at an ever quickening pace. Even in China the land of eternal supply of cheap labour, labour costs are going up and they are outsourcing some jobs to Bangladesh. Have you ever left this country? Dublin is very spacious, more green space per capita than any other European capital. The only problem is that government has made it very very expensive to develop apartments with rules: -4 floors max -underground car park for every apartment even in Central Dublin which is full of carless households. -dual aspect -feck all one bed units -studios banned. This can be changed tomorrow if politicians wanted it too. Ironically it's often left leaning politicians that insist on making housing expensive with dual aspect, underground parking, min 2 beds etc.
Idbatterim wrote: » nail on the head with the above, government insists on rip off property here. At local level, they do it to (as they see it) protect existing residents, to ensure they maintain their seats the next time there is a vote and at national level, they want to stymy Dublins development as much as possible, so it doesnt gain more influence. What the idiots are doing by this, is simply damaging Ireland Inc! They bitch about a lack of resources i.e. money and they wonder why! because they are strangling the golden goose! i hear this bull**** of rural life dying, the post office, the garda stations. If it means so much, why not increase the LPT? or is a an extra 50c or a euro a day, too much to ask? for better roads and increased services etc? buses to bring them to the pub, because the elderly here certainly arent lacking in cash, with the ridiculous generosity shown to them by the irish tax payer... The problem here is, its never problem solving, its problem dodging, point the finger. Infighting!
Idbatterim wrote: » nail on the head with the above, government insists on rip off property here. At local level, they do it to (as they see it) protect existing residents, to ensure they maintain their seats the next time there is a vote and at national level, they want to stymy Dublins development as much as possible, so it doesnt gain more influence. What the idiots are doing by this, is simply damaging Ireland Inc! They bitch about a lack of resources i.e. money and they wonder why! because they are strangling the golden goose! i hear this bull**** of rural life dying, the post office, the garda stations. If it means so much, why not increase the LPT? or is a an extra 50c or a euro a day, too much to ask? for better roads and increased services etc? buses to bring them to the pub, because the elderly here certainly arent lacking in cash, with the ridiculous generosity shown to them by the irish tax payer...The problem here is, its never problem solving, its problem dodging, point the finger. Infighting!
defrule wrote: » I think mentality is something that needs to really change on top of the all the tangible developments that should happen. As an example, where in Dublin do we have underground tunnels to cross roads? I never noticed we were missing these until I saw them in other cities. Instead of putting traffic lights everywhere, tunnels like these mean cars and pedestrians don't come into conflict. This mindset of really thinking about how to gain maximum utility from land including the vertical aspects is something we really need.
osarusan wrote: » Rather than going underground, something like this would be better. Pedestrian areas over the roads (and buildings have entrances both at the ground floor and the upper floor too).
AlmightyCushion wrote: » That's probably a hell of a lot more expensive. Looks class though.
Tell me how wrote: » The rest of your post is an example of that which you decry in the bold part.
Idbatterim wrote: » nail on the head with the above, government insists on rip off property here. At local level, they do it to (as they see it) protect existing residents, to ensure they maintain their seats the next time there is a vote and at national level, they want to stymy Dublins development as much as possible, so it doesnt gain more influence. What the idiots are doing by this, is simply damaging Ireland Inc! They bitch about a lack of resources i.e. money and they wonder why! because they are strangling the golden goose!i hear this bull**** of rural life dying, the post office, the garda stations. If it means so much, why not increase the LPT? or is a an extra 50c or a euro a day, too much to ask? for better roads and increased services etc? buses to bring them to the pub, because the elderly here certainly arent lacking in cash, with the ridiculous generosity shown to them by the irish tax payer... The problem here is, its never problem solving, its problem dodging, point the finger. Infighting!
jmayo wrote: » Have you compared some of those apartments in Europe and what spaces are available nearby for kids with what has historically been on offer in Ireland ? Wait till your kid gets bigger or you have another one and I would bet tonight's lottery you will be on the move out of that apartment of yours.
blanch152 wrote: » Grand, but don't expect postal services, a decent road, fibre broadband, homecare when you are old, hospital services within a reasonable distance, schools, shops and pubs in walking distance, a bank within 50km, or any of the other services that are best provided in bulk in cities. As I have said before, feel free to live in a cave on top of a mountain if you want, nobody in a city has a problem with that. It is the expectation of comparable services that is rejected.
blanch152 wrote: » Thank you for making one of the best arguments against rural living seen on this thread. The higher car ownership among rural dwellers is contributing disproportionately to Ireland's problems with meeting climate change targets. I think that a higher car tax on rural dwellers is more than justified in light of your post. In the meantime, if we increased the excise duty on diesel it would make a good start.
cgcsb wrote: » Politicians want us to all live in 3 bed semi-ds in the suburbs and commute in, even if we are a one person household and would much rather a tiny space to ourselves in a central location with no need for a car. Forcing young people to share in the burbs puts the cost of those semi-ds even higher because the single folks and smaller households have nowhere to go.
nuac wrote: » I am now elderly. Could you please tell me where I can access this "ridiculous genorsity"? E.g. during the financial emergency some of my modest pension pot was taken to plug some hole in state finances. AFAIK hasn't been refunded. Worked hard to raise and educate children during years of high taxation and high interest. Have i missed a memo somewhere?
BonnieSituation wrote: » The thing is, not one person in "rural" Ireland has the gumption to realise what we're on about here. I want small viable towns dotted around the country as do so many here and in this thread. But the insistence on ripping the heart out of these to ensure they have their road frontage and their big McMansion is mind blowing. Subsidising small towns to thrive and survive is something larger cities have always done and something we would all like to continue especially for some from a quality of life and even an internal tourism aspect. But you'd swear we put a fatwa on rural living given the lack of understanding in here. As long as there is no disincentive to one off housing or an incentive to build in or beside a town then we've lost the battle. Critical mass is key. But it needs to be spelled out clearly that if you want a gaff miles from anyone for no good reason other than vanity then off you pop. But you're gonna pay for it. The cities should not be involved in this argument at all. We're dragged into it and the issue really isn't our problem. This isn't urban v rural in the strict sense. This needs to be framed as rural town v rural country [sic]. And those people living in our dying smaller towns and villages need to be woken up and face the fact that their neighbours are killing their way of life with selfishness and vanity. It's not Dublin, Cork or Limerick at fault we're keeping the lot on life support.
jmayo wrote: » Remind me again how many cars are crawling through city centres today spewing out pollution and carbon ? But I suppose you will claim they are all people from the country.
LeinsterDub wrote: » But you're unwilling to pay the actual value for the services you require to live here.
cgcsb wrote: » Grand pay for it so.
pilly wrote: » Given the whole subject of this thread is Ireland 2040 plan which will do away with the type of the house you're talking about I'm not sure of the point of your posts other than a hollow boast?
jmayo wrote: » Remind me again how many cars are crawling through city centres today spewing out pollution and carbon ?
jmayo wrote: » You see this is where you are dead wrong. It is not politicians that want that, but the actual people themselves.
Tell me how wrote: » A lot in Rural locations have been paying much more for years for water supplies and sewage treatment than those in urban schemes but are being told here that they are being fully subsidised on everything.
cgcsb wrote: Well that's just not true, one off houses have septic tanks, that's not paying for your sewage treatment, that's paying a small fraction of your sewage treatment. Septic tanks only provide primary treatment, the discharge is very low quality and pollutes the water table which the government has to clean up or get fined for or both. Septic tanks are supposed to be a 'better than nothing' option used where needs must. In Ireland we have 300,000 of them.
Luka Lemon Town wrote: » I assume you are both very very strongly against all forms of social housing, given that it esentially means a free or subsidised to almsot nothing cost to fairly significant number of people. Rural people do pay for their homes and while the actual building itself naturally costs less due to alreading owning the land or land costs being lower they do pay more to run the house in having water charges, paying to manage their own sewage, higher electricty costs, most likley BB costs will be higher also. Nobody in this country pays the "actual" cost for their services, that's not how a functioning society works and the sooner people raelise this and that they can't impose their way of living on other people the better.
Tell me how wrote: » Do you think it's better to have it flow directly into waterways and seas like it does from several urban schemes? This idyllic view suggesting of city living to counter the reality is bemusing.
cgcsb wrote: Urban schemes have primary, secondary and some have tertiary treatment and effluent is typically of high quality. There are occasionally spills, sometimes during storm events for example but many urban schemes now have overflow tanks to account for that and more overflow tanks are being built. Even after a spill from an urban scheme typically that water will have at least completed primary treatment and much of it's secondary treatment. So to answer your question, yes even if one takes into account the occasional overspill due to storms effluent from water treatment schemes is ALWAYS better than primary-only septic tanks.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b1975299c8e5d4897a60061c4f145b7.svg)
