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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

One off housing

  • 05-12-2010 10:09pm
    #1
    FF and proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 92 ✭✭


    Considering that dispersed settlements has been the Irish way for the last 10000 years why do have them an taisce people and the planning people telling us that we cant live in the country anymore and should instead focus on towns and cities. I mean what exactly is gong on here, you wouldnt believe the amount of people I know that have been turned down permission because of these busybodies sticking their noses into the affairs of our parish and what gets built there.

    Im sorry but isnt this country not supposed to be a democracy, so why do we allow some people to dictate to others where they can and cant live. Rural Ireland is been depopulated and decimated thanks to them people down the offices and their draconian red tape rules.

    Is it time to fight back and make this a political, social and human rights issue and bring it to the political fore and fight back against the elite who want to dictate our living arrangments and destroy ancient Irish living patterns in rural places.
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Chuchoter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Chuchoter


    Because everybody building anything they want leads to huge infrastructure problems. Maybe if An Taisce planned things better we wouldn't be left with ghost estates filling up half the country.


  • #3
    reverenddave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 805 ✭✭✭reverenddave


    FF and proud wrote: »

    i hope your username doesn't suggest what i think it suggests


  • #4
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    note: he got banned from this thread on same subject...


  • #5
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    FF and proud wrote: »
    you wouldnt believe the amount of people I know that have been turned down permission because of these busybodies sticking their noses into the affairs of our parish and what gets built there.

    Yeah, planning is a disaster in this country - one look at all the ridiculous Bertie Bowl and Dublin Docklands projects, as well as all the "development land" sold just off what were supposed to be ring roads and you'll see that.

    As for busybodies sticking their noses into stuff that they have no right to, Anglo & Lenihan spring to mind, but that's probably a subject for a different topic.

    You do have to wonder who gained from all of these developments; in most cases the towns and communities didn't.

    A lovely, strong-community village in Clarina in Co. Limerick was ruined by a half-assed (now unfinished and abandoned) development that now has a roundabout that goes nowhere, ugly metal supports for an unwanted hotel and a shell of a "retail and office space" building that has never been occupied, while the people who did buy a few houses there have incomplete roads.

    Yes, god knows who stuck their noses in to ensure that got the go-ahead, but it wasn't someone with a brain or a sense of community.


  • #6
    FF and proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 92 ✭✭FF and proud


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    note: he got banned from this thread on same subject...

    I dont know where you get that from because I wasnt banned from that thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    FF and proud wrote: »
    I dont know where you get that from because I wasnt banned from that thread.

    sorry you were warned


  • #8
    Kiki10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Kiki10


    Your right Mr FF & proud about the planning. They want to stop the ordinary local lad from putting a nice roof over his family's head while allowing some jackeen to build 500 apartments in country village they know nothing about.
    The good news is soon all them overpaid uncivil servants will be unemployed so they wont be on anyones back.
    The other thing is you caused the problem your complaining about by voting proudly for the people who put these laws & quangos into place
    I hope your proud of that;)


  • #9
    Avns1s
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,422 ✭✭✭Avns1s


    FF and proud wrote: »
    Considering that dispersed settlements has been the Irish way for the last 10000 years why do have them an taisce people and the planning people telling us that we cant live in the country anymore and should instead focus on towns and cities. I mean what exactly is gong on here, you wouldnt believe the amount of people I know that have been turned down permission because of these busybodies sticking their noses into the affairs of our parish and what gets built there.

    Im sorry but isnt this country not supposed to be a democracy, so why do we allow some people to dictate to others where they can and cant live. Rural Ireland is been depopulated and decimated thanks to them people down the offices and their draconian red tape rules.

    Is it time to fight back and make this a political, social and human rights issue and bring it to the political fore and fight back against the elite who want to dictate our living arrangments and destroy ancient Irish living patterns in rural places.

    Well your shower of wasters have been in government for a decade and a half, so why the hell didn't ye change things and get rid of an Taisce!

    (It would be one of a few things I would have found myself in agreement with FF on!)


  • #10
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Lets keep it civil lads


  • #11
    dory
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,516 Mod ✭✭✭✭dory


    You should come to Kosovo and have a look at the countryside here before complaining about planning. Everytime you look at a rural landscpe it's all houses scattered here and there. A lot of bricks and concrete where we have beautiful fields. I'd take the planning crazies any day.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Are you arguing in favour of one off housing?

    A German tourist told me less than 8 weeks ago that he wouldn't be coming back - landscape has been destroyed by one off housing in the most god awful places.


  • #13
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    I have a feeling I may be feeding a troll here, however...

    One off housing is a bad idea for a number of reasons, which, if i remember correctly, were outlined and detailed perfectly in that thread on Infrastructure.

    Firstly, they ruin the countryside that they are in. Ireland has beautiful scenic countryside, however an awful lot of it has been destroyed by the construction of one off housing in the most inappropriate of places. The countryside is an asset, one that needs to be protected from one off housing.

    Secondly, it costs an awful lot more to provide services such as broadband, waste collection, etc. etc. to one off houses. It makes much more sense for clusters of housing, i.e. build your house in a town where the services are already in place. Personally, I am of the opinion that people building one off houses in the middle of nowhere should be taxed and taxed heavily for the privilege.

    Thirdly, the environment. Public transport is not an option for someone living in one off housing in countryside, so this leads to an over dependence on cars, which in turn leads to higher emissions... I'm sure you know where the process goes from here.

    Those are the main three reasons, there is others, however those are the three primary ones, and quite frankly those ideas are enough on their own to counter you argument, in my opinion.

    Ironically, I am of the opinion that An Taisce are a nuisance as well, however my opinion is at the total opposite end of the spectrum to yours. I believe that An Taisce don't oppose enough rural one off developments, and they oppose far too many Urban high density developments, but that's an argument for another thread.


  • #14
    Kiki10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Kiki10


    dory wrote: »
    You should come to Kosovo and have a look at the countryside here before complaining about planning. Everytime you look at a rural landscpe it's all houses scattered here and there. A lot of bricks and concrete where we have beautiful fields. I'd take the planning crazies any day.
    whats the population of Kosovo?


  • #15
    desaparecidos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭desaparecidos


    crayolastereo wrote: »
    Because everybody building anything they want leads to huge infrastructure problems.

    I don't see how.

    People dig their own wells and pump their own water, so water infrastructure is not an issue.

    The electricity and telecom infrastructure isn't depleted because of extra cable length really. So that's not an issue.

    No extra roads were ever built to cater for a once off house, so roads aren't an issue.

    It seems there is a bitter resentment to once off housing on boards, for whatever reason I don't know. Must be some kind of town based jealousy.


  • #16
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    desaparecidos wrote: »

    It seems there is a bitter resentment to once off housing on boards, for whatever reason I don't know. Must be some kind of town based jealousy.

    The vast majority of posters are town/city based, and are renters/live with mammy.
    It's as plain as the nose on John Gormelys face.

    The big giveaway is when something like "it costs an awful lot more to provide services such as broadband, waste collection" is posted.
    A stay in the country would let them see that these are usually not provided, so no, the town pockets have not been dipped into to provide these.


  • #17
    MT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭MT


    FF and proud wrote:
    Considering that dispersed settlements has been the Irish way for the last 10000 years why do have them an taisce people and the planning people telling us that we cant live in the country anymore and should instead focus on towns and cities. I mean what exactly is gong on here, you wouldnt believe the amount of people I know that have been turned down permission because of these busybodies sticking their noses into the affairs of our parish and what gets built there.

    Im sorry but isnt this country not supposed to be a democracy, so why do we allow some people to dictate to others where they can and cant live. Rural Ireland is been depopulated and decimated thanks to them people down the offices and their draconian red tape rules.

    Is it time to fight back and make this a political, social and human rights issue and bring it to the political fore and fight back against the elite who want to dictate our living arrangments and destroy ancient Irish living patterns in rural places.


    I don’t know whether you’re trolling or not... but I’ll bite.

    I think you will find that during the course of the last 10000 years dwelling patterns have not been constant but have, in fact, evolved. But I believe people have always lived in some sort of nucleated settlement; the fast and easy modes of transport by car and train are only relatively recent. Since farming moved beyond subsistence you would have to be within fairly easy reach of a marketplace or at least your neighbours to trade. Not easy to do if you’re living miles from everyone prior to the advent of mechanised transport. So I think there’s something of a myth in this notion of historic, dispersed settlements.

    However, settlement patterns have changed greatly too in that time; and, crucially, society has changed in tandem. Nucleated settlements became villages, these, in turn, became towns, and ultimately cities. And it was in these great concentrations of humanity that society itself underwent the profound experiments and developments in thought and organisation that gave us the thinking that underpins the modern world.

    Democracy, republicanism, the idea of the individual, the philosophies that have attempted to explain our existence never arose in the wilderness of the isolated farm. They came instead from the city, the font of civilization. The clues are in the names: city and civilization come from the Latin civitas – the union of citizens found in, yep, you guessed it, the cities of the ancient world.

    So why are so many Irish people – with the connivance of Irish society as a whole – so keen to turn their backs on the concentrated mode of settlement that gave birth to and sustained civilisation and all its accompanying advances? Why do so many one-offers seem to have such a bitter resentment of the lifestyle that produced the modern world?

    As in any complex issue I think there are probably a number of reasons but key among them, I suspect, is a notion of identity. Indeed, I think there’s something of a foundation myth behind fervently adamant declarations that Irishness itself would be threatened by an end to one-off housing.

    Does this go back to back to Ireland’s experience of colonialism, and more importantly for the present, its attempts decolonise itself? I think 19th century nationalism implicitly encouraged the notion that towns and cities were unIrish: alien impositions thrust on the country by the baleful foreign presence over many centuries. We had the Vikings and the first recognisable towns; then the Anglo-Normans and the Pale with urban Dublin at its core; then the Elizabethan reconquest and a resumption of English dominance in the towns and the creation of plantation towns throughout Ulster. Each of these eras was accompanied by strenuous efforts to keep the native Irish out of these settlements.

    I think the implication for Gaelic rivalist nationalism was clear: towns were foreign, not of us. They enriched them, kept us out, and ultimately, kept us down. They were home to the Norse, the English or Scots Presbyterian planters. True Gaels would never submit to the ways of the oppressor; they would live free in the wild. I’m not sure, but I think the ‘subversive’ term Hillside-man that became popular amongst Fenians (the ideological movement not those on the receiving end of the sectarian term of abuse) carried connotations of this urban rejection. Indeed, I believe it’s even reflected in that other bulwark of the Gaelic revival, the GAA. At variance with the development of football grounds throughout pretty much the rest of Europe, I can’t count the number of times where I’ve encountered GAA grounds miles outside the towns that the clubs in question draw so many of their players from. I can’t help but wonder if there’s some unwitting ‘escape to the hillside’ thinking behind these locations.

    Sadly, one of the other bad things about imperial rule and colonialism – interestingly, one that’s rarely brought up in Ireland – is that the colonised come not just to resent the rule and misgovernance of the foreigner but everything about them. Certainly, the inevitable nationalism that seeks to shake off the ‘yoke’ seems to crystallise around the idea of total rejection. That and the victimised delusion that all was good and right before they came.

    While wreaking destructive havoc in Ireland, the Imperial power in question, like many of Europe’s leading – and self-governing nations – underwent the cataclysms in thought and action that continued the progression of Western civilization. Unfortunately, I think that some of the flawed ideologies of the Romantic era that gave rise to renewed Irish nationalism and the natural outworking of the movement’s thinking itself resulted in not only a desire to reject the English but also to get back to the purity of Irishness before it was traduced over 800 long years. Unfortunately, that 800 year period saw some of the most profound change (or at times rediscovery) in how best to organise society. Indeed, there’s a profound irony in the desire for democracy and republicanism with the concurrent rejection of other advances eg. divorce, secularism, etc.

    Tragically, this seems to have induced at least a sentimental suspicion, that alongside the rottenness of their rule, a whole host of developments in English society were also rotten to the core. Perhaps this was inevitable as a foundation myth that will inspire the revolutionary re-birth of a nation can’t consist of lily-livered academic balance and reasoning. But I think it has been deeply damaging in many ways for the Irish society that emerged.

    And as mad as it may sound, I think these foundation myths and our reborn identity actually give rise to a sort of vague, muddleheaded suspicion of modern land use planning. It has at its core that old foreign thing, the town. What’s worse is that in the mindset of Irish nationalism the town is utterly suffused with the identity of the worst possible foreigners: the awful, oppressive English. So we must return to something different and original. And in that time of blissful purity, before the foreign encroachment, the Gael lived freely and simply in his isolated, rustic homestead. Or so we need to believe.

    So people building urban generated field houses aren’t so much as living the dream but recovering the Irish identity. When it comes to settlement, they are the true Gaels. Living as we’re lead to believe we did before our world was so cruelly interrupted.

    But the world has learnt, rediscovered and changed so much in those intervening 800 years. Next thing you know we’ll be replacing democracy with dynastic clans... oh, wait!


  • #18
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    dannym08 wrote: »
    I have a feeling I may be feeding a troll here, however...

    One off housing is a bad idea for a number of reasons, which, if i remember correctly, were outlined and detailed perfectly in that thread on Infrastructure.

    Firstly, they ruin the countryside that they are in. Ireland has beautiful scenic countryside, however an awful lot of it has been destroyed by the construction of one off housing in the most inappropriate of places. The countryside is an asset, one that needs to be protected from one off housing.

    Secondly, it costs an awful lot more to provide services such as broadband, waste collection, etc. etc. to one off houses. It makes much more sense for clusters of housing, i.e. build your house in a town where the services are already in place. Personally, I am of the opinion that people building one off houses in the middle of nowhere should be taxed and taxed heavily for the privilege.

    Thirdly, the environment. Public transport is not an option for someone living in one off housing in countryside, so this leads to an over dependence on cars, which in turn leads to higher emissions... I'm sure you know where the process goes from here.

    Those are the main three reasons, there is others, however those are the three primary ones, and quite frankly those ideas are enough on their own to counter you argument, in my opinion.

    Ironically, I am of the opinion that An Taisce are a nuisance as well, however my opinion is at the total opposite end of the spectrum to yours. I believe that An Taisce don't oppose enough rural one off developments, and they oppose far too many Urban high density developments, but that's an argument for another thread.

    Another two reasons danny:

    1) They cut away the population densities from all towns and villages, stripping them of their economic potential. This is one of the most important arguments against one-off houses.

    2) One-off housing is economically unsustainable. When fuel for travel and heating is no longer affordable, one-off houses won't be either.

    That said, this is a politics thread and what I've written doesn't have much to do with politics, other than framing a context. Sorry mods if my post is OT.


  • #19
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Furet wrote: »
    When fuel for travel and heating is no longer affordable, one-off houses won't be either.

    Gonna be a lot of crops left unharvested so.


  • #20
    Tech3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    FF and proud wrote: »
    Considering that dispersed settlements has been the Irish way for the last 10000 years why do have them an taisce people and the planning people telling us that we cant live in the country anymore and should instead focus on towns and cities. I mean what exactly is gong on here, you wouldnt believe the amount of people I know that have been turned down permission because of these busybodies sticking their noses into the affairs of our parish and what gets built there.

    A change in the right direction perhaps. The cost of running services to every little dotted area on the country is expensive and populating the main urban areas would be very beneficial to the country. Funds cannot be provided to improve infrastructure to every inch of the country. Growth will come largely from the urban areas such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. We need to focus more on centralization rather than the opposite which has been a failed excercise over the last decade.
    Im sorry but isnt this country not supposed to be a democracy, so why do we allow some people to dictate to others where they can and cant live. Rural Ireland is been depopulated and decimated thanks to them people down the offices and their draconian red tape rules.

    Rural Ireland is indeed being depopulated at present but what are we going to do with all the empty houses across the countryside? These developments have ruined what were once beautiful villages and the countryside in rural areas. It also has a negative effect on building future infrastructure. For instance current national primary roads cannot be upgraded online due to the spead of one-off housing along the network thus a new route through fields via compulsory purchase order is the only way and comes at a cost.
    Is it time to fight back and make this a political, social and human rights issue and bring it to the political fore and fight back against the elite who want to dictate our living arrangments and destroy ancient Irish living patterns in rural places.

    No. We have destroyed some of the most beautiful landscapes in this country due to one-off housing and planning laws need to be changed to stop this recklessness. Most houses in the boom which are being unoccupied will be knocked eventually.


  • #21
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    crayolastereo wrote: »
    Because everybody building anything they want leads to huge infrastructure problems. Maybe if An Taisce planned things better we wouldn't be left with ghost estates filling up half the country.

    Ahh FFS here we go.
    The ordinary joe soap or mary soap building a home on their daddy's land was not the problem that resulted in ghost estates.
    Most of the ghost estates are in villages and towns, not simply in the middle of nowhere.

    What huge infrastructure problems do one off houses create ?
    They are usually alongside a road that in all likelihood have powere and phone lines already.
    They provide their own water source or use a local community group water scheme, they provide their own septic tank and do not just add to Ringsends treatment plants of this world.
    So stop the cr** about how one off houses are the end of the planet and they are sucking all the infrastructure from the ill planned cities like dear ould Dublin.

    An Taisce does not do planning, they only do objections.
    The planning is the remit of the local authority.
    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Are you arguing in favour of one off housing?

    A German tourist told me less than 8 weeks ago that he wouldn't be coming back - landscape has been destroyed by one off housing in the most god awful places.

    I hope you got the German tourist to leave a few quid to help us pay off our debts.
    Of course at a low interest rate would be preferable.

    I do agree places like Achill are a holy disgrace, even worse they could have helped blend in the houses (with natural stone colours, etc) that are built in exposed areas, but instead for some reason they have to be white and stand out. :mad:

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Advertisement
  • #22
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    dannym08 wrote: »
    Firstly, they ruin the countryside that they are in. Ireland has beautiful scenic countryside, however an awful lot of it has been destroyed by the construction of one off housing in the most inappropriate of places. The countryside is an asset, one that needs to be protected from one off housing.
    .
    Firstly, they ruin the countryside that they are in. 
Ireland has beautiful scenic countryside, 
however an awful lot of it has been destroyed 
by the construction of [B]giant windmills/pylons[/B] 
in the most inappropriate of places. 
The countryside is an asset, one that needs 
to be protected from [B]giant windmills/pylons[/B].

    :D

    damn you progress/humanity, maybe we should neuter and gas those pesky people for having the audacity to try to live their life.

    i think we should round up all those petty one off dwellers and relocate them to a ghetto in inner Dublin city where they can enjoy same pollution, crime and needles as the rest of us mere D4'ers


  • #23
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,345 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I think a compromise would be better - only allow new housing to be built adjacent to existing housing. That way the use of the countryside is restricted and people still have a certain amount of freedom to live outside urban areas.


  • #24
    Mal-Adjusted
    Registered Users Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Mal-Adjusted


    dannym08 wrote: »
    Firstly, they ruin the countryside that they are in. Ireland has beautiful scenic countryside, however an awful lot of it has been destroyed by the construction of one off housing in the most inappropriate of places. The countryside is an asset, one that needs to be protected from one off housing.
    hold on, ruin it for who?certainly not the people already living there. unless you consider the views town people and some tourists get more important than the liveleyhoods of the locals (like has happened in connemara)
    dannym08 wrote: »
    Secondly, it costs an awful lot more to provide services such as broadband, waste collection, etc. etc. to one off houses. It makes much more sense for clusters of housing, i.e. build your house in a town where the services are already in place. Personally, I am of the opinion that people building one off houses in the middle of nowhere should be taxed and taxed heavily for the privilege.
    you clearly have never been in the countryside. otherwise you'd know that waste collection services don't exist. as another poster said, most houses in the countryside are either self sufficient or on a group scheme with neighbours.
    dannym08 wrote: »
    Thirdly, the environment. Public transport is not an option for someone living in one off housing in countryside, so this leads to an over dependence on cars, which in turn leads to higher emissions... I'm sure you know where the process goes from here.
    oh, now you're just taking the piss. tell me, does nobody in a town own a car or use it regularly?


  • #25
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    A German tourist told me less than 8 weeks ago that he wouldn't be coming back - landscape has been destroyed by one off housing in the most god awful places.

    Sorry but that actually sounds funny.
    Then again, Frankfurt is such a picture.


  • #26
    Liberalbrehon
    Registered Users Posts: 215 ✭✭Liberalbrehon


    “I Think That I Shall Never See A Billboard Lovely As A Tree. Indeed, Unless The Billboards Fall, I'll Never See A Tree At All.”

    ~ Ogden Nash



    just change to

    “I Think That I Shall Never See A Once-off house as Lovely As A Tree. Indeed, Unless The Once-off house Falls, I'll Never See A Tree At All.”

    If people want to ruin the view of the countryside, diminish the tourism value of beautiful landscapes for their local communities, then let them.
    If people want to spend hours of their lives driving, around countryside to get to services located in villages and towns, then let them.
    If people want to live on sides of busy main routes, where cars can crash into their loved ones, then let them.
    If people want to live down roads that only have space for 1.5 car width and no safe space on road for children to walk down, then let them.
    If people want to raise families, so when they are teenagers and young adults they have to drive to social events and get killed on way home, then let them.
    If people want to raise families where kids have to travel hours in expensive school buses, to poor local schools, then let them.
    If people want to be stuck in middle of nowhere when they get older and can't drive to essential services, or get marooned in bad weather, then let them.
    If people want to pay for the economic price for utilities to be brought to them, then let them. (unlike eircom having to spend €14k to bring phone line down a country lane and rest of eircom customers subsidizing it)
    If people want to be stuck miles from doctors and hospitals, pharmacies when sick, then let them.
    If people want one-off houses, then they shouldn't be allowed to object to lots of other one-off houses beside them, negating the isolation of the one-off house in the first place.
    If people want one-off houses, then they can not object to wind-turbines, pylons behind them, no planning restrictions means anything can go anywhere.
    If people want to live in one-off housing, that creates security risks for them and their families, especially when they are older, then let them.

    Freedom of choice for everyone. Once people sign that they understand the long-term consequences of their choices, and don't expect the wider society to subsidize their choices, then let them.
    Cities, towns and villages for ever.
    Only people that need to live in the countryside are people that work in the countryside. i.e. farmers and their families. everyone else is just getting in the way of them doing their work.


  • #27
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    First off I am one of those people who couldn't live in a town or village (shudder at the mere thought).
    The only extra infrastructure here are a couple of hundred feet of phone & electricity cables, not something that is going to cost anyone a single cent.
    The Irish countryside is not primarily something for tourists and "townies" to come and look at on a sunday afternoon, it is a place where people live and have lived for thousands of years.

    The biggest problem with one off housing is not the fact they are being built but the quality of the design. There are some god awful designs out there, with some huge monstrosities having popped up in recent years.

    To people who insist we should all live in urban areas with gangs of hoodlums ;) hanging around every corner, exhaustless cars roaring around at all hours, dogs barking, rapists, muggers and drug addicts....... ok I'm being a bit melodramatic here.
    I say to you **** ***.


  • #28
    desaparecidos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭desaparecidos


    Liberalbrehon wrote: »
    “I Think That I Shall Never See A Billboard Lovely As A Tree. Indeed, Unless The Billboards Fall, I'll Never See A Tree At All.”

    ~ Ogden Nash



    just change to

    “I Think That I Shall Never See A Once-off house as Lovely As A Tree. Indeed, Unless The Once-off house Falls, I'll Never See A Tree At All.”

    If people want to ruin the view of the countryside, diminish the tourism value of beautiful landscapes for their local communities, then let them.
    If people want to spend hours of their lives driving, around countryside to get to services located in villages and towns, then let them.
    If people want to live on sides of busy main routes, where cars can crash into their loved ones, then let them.
    If people want to live down roads that only have space for 1.5 car width and no safe space on road for children to walk down, then let them.
    If people want to raise families, so when they are teenagers and young adults they have to drive to social events and get killed on way home, then let them.
    If people want to raise families where kids have to travel hours in expensive school buses, to poor local schools, then let them.
    If people want to be stuck in middle of nowhere when they get older and can't drive to essential services, or get marooned in bad weather, then let them.
    If people want to pay for the economic price for utilities to be brought to them, then let them. (unlike eircom having to spend €14k to bring phone line down a country lane and rest of eircom customers subsidizing it)
    If people want to be stuck miles from doctors and hospitals, pharmacies when sick, then let them.
    If people want one-off houses, then they shouldn't be allowed to object to lots of other one-off houses beside them, negating the isolation of the one-off house in the first place.
    If people want one-off houses, then they can not object to wind-turbines, pylons behind them, no planning restrictions means anything can go anywhere.
    If people want to live in one-off housing, that creates security risks for them and their families, especially when they are older, then let them.

    Freedom of choice for everyone. Once people sign that they understand the long-term consequences of their choices, and don't expect the wider society to subsidize their choices, then let them.
    Cities, towns and villages for ever.
    Only people that need to live in the countryside are people that work in the countryside. i.e. farmers and their families. everyone else is just getting in the way of them doing their work.

    What a load of insufferable ****e.

    Show me one instance where town folk subsidize people who live in the countryside? And no eircom sending a bit of copper down the road isn't something they do at a loss, it's a commercial decision to get more customers.


  • #29
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Liberalbrehon wrote: »
    Only people that need to live in the countryside are people that work in the countryside. i.e. farmers and their families. everyone else is just getting in the way of them doing their work.

    I look forward to your views on the city dwelling dole-ites.


  • #30
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    Liberalbrehon wrote: »
    “I Think That I Shall Never See A Once-off house as Lovely As A Tree. Indeed, Unless The Once-off house Falls, I'll Never See A Tree At All.”

    I would actually fight to have the right to wake up in the morning to this,

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVgA5Gacal-P-ucGTSY6Ty8OQ8UVHuY0HYuEXBY1u_xeqDXqUXTQ

    As opposed to this,

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZSgnMGv8iVFGnhdmwIfDoVwdL7f3_2pkWGoQvowaDu37XOzlH


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    mikemac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,986 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    I built a one off house on family land, it was one of my dreams since young to do it, ah bless :o

    So for those subsidizing me:
    A survey was done, well located, installed, pipes and pump installed, pump is serviced annually.
    The council will be getting no water meter on this property!

    Septic tank installed, complies with all current standards so the council are not involved here.

    The road was there since before I was born so it's nothing something new.

    There is a main ESB line along the road and many, many thousands were paid to the ESB to setup a connection. The ESB certainly know how to charge.

    What else?

    We were paying for waste collection and the wheelie bin for years while I watched Joe Higgins on the news in Dublin go to jail over it. :rolleyes:
    Broadband is satellite so nobody subsidizing that. There will never be cable TV in this area.
    And the Eircom line is nearby, not big deal to get a connection if that will be done someday.

    If you wish to talk about wasteful housing in rural areas, it's in the villages and not one off houses.
    Our village (and many others) had a developers buy a parcel of land, try to cram as many houses on it as possible. Houses that nobody was ever going to buy, the biggest local employer is the Spar shop.
    They have since gone bust and the estate is locked up, nobody knows what will happen them


  • #32
    flutered
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,695 ✭✭✭flutered


    there has been one off houses built in this country since adam was a rugrat, the house that i am in is a one off house, circa 1880, broadband is wireless, never down, privately run, admittadly not 20 gig, the well out the back was there probably before the house was built, no esb pole placed on the site, the roadway has been there since before the famine, security, well i am old i am not worried, i have my own system in place, i have seen a trailer for tonights, today to night, now there are security issues, the pub is 100 yards away, the post officce is less than a half mile away, as is the local shop, plus one of the largest hardware outlets in munster, the only time i will be in a town is to visit the watchmaker, am i happy you bet.


  • #33
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Yeah, planning is a disaster in this country - one look at all the ridiculous Bertie Bowl and Dublin Docklands projects, as well as all the "development land" sold just off what were supposed to be ring roads and you'll see that.

    As for busybodies sticking their noses into stuff that they have no right to, Anglo & Lenihan spring to mind, but that's probably a subject for a different topic.

    You do have to wonder who gained from all of these developments; in most cases the towns and communities didn't.

    A lovely, strong-community village in Clarina in Co. Limerick was ruined by a half-assed (now unfinished and abandoned) development that now has a roundabout that goes nowhere, ugly metal supports for an unwanted hotel and a shell of a "retail and office space" building that has never been occupied, while the people who did buy a few houses there have incomplete roads.

    Yes, god knows who stuck their noses in to ensure that got the go-ahead, but it wasn't someone with a brain or a sense of community.

    Planning is the domain of the Local authority. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that some of the counties with the worst planning decisions with regards to zoned land were Fine Gael controlled ones.

    For once you cannot solely blame the bogeymen in FF for bad planning decisions across the country.


  • #34
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    feelingstressed wrote: »
    I built a one off house on family land, it was one of my dreams since young to do it, ah bless :o

    So for those subsidizing me:
    A survey was done, well located, installed, pipes and pump installed, pump is serviced annually.
    The council will be getting no water meter on this property!

    Septic tank installed, complies with all current standards so the council are not involved here.

    The road was there since before I was born so it's nothing something new.

    There is a main ESB line along the road and many, many thousands were paid to the ESB to setup a connection. The ESB certainly know how to charge.

    What else?

    We were paying for waste collection and the wheelie bin for years while I watched Joe Higgins on the news in Dublin go to jail over it. :rolleyes:
    Broadband is satellite so nobody subsidizing that. There will never be cable TV in this area.
    And the Eircom line is nearby, not big deal to get a connection if that will be done someday.

    If you wish to talk about wasteful housing in rural areas, it's in the villages and not one off houses.
    Our village (and many others) had a developers buy a parcel of land, try to cram as many houses on it as possible. Houses that nobody was ever going to buy, the biggest local employer is the Spar shop.
    They have since gone bust and the estate is locked up, nobody knows what will happen them

    You don't understand the issues at all. Yes the infrastructure is already there such as roads and electricity. You're neglecting the fact that that infrastructure has to be maintained. The next time your power goes out in a storm it won't be you thats getting a bill for the repair. The next time your local road is resurfaced you won't be getting a bill for it yet if there were no people living in the countryside these costs wouldn't arise... costs which are being carried by the taxpayer to afford some the luxury of living in one off houses.


  • #35
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Planning is the domain of the Local authority. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that some of the counties with the worst planning decisions with regards to zoned land were Fine Gael controlled ones.

    For once you cannot solely blame the bogeymen in FF for bad planning decisions across the country.

    Huh ? :confused:

    Where did you see me blame FF (other than the Bertie Bowl and the Dub Docklands) ?


  • #36
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    The next time your local road is resurfaced you won't be getting a bill for it yet if there were no people living in the countryside these costs wouldn't arise... costs which are being carried by the taxpayer to afford some the luxury of living in one off houses.

    I hope you remember that comment the next time you have to travel on a country road.
    People in the country do pay taxes you know.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    cailinardthair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 278 ✭✭cailinardthair


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    You don't understand the issues at all. Yes the infrastructure is already there such as roads and electricity. You're neglecting the fact that that infrastructure has to be maintained. The next time your power goes out in a storm it won't be you thats getting a bill for the repair. The next time your local road is resurfaced you won't be getting a bill for it yet if there were no people living in the countryside these costs wouldn't arise... costs which are being carried by the taxpayer to afford some the luxury of living in one off houses.

    So you mean to say that whenever your road gets resurfaced or the power goes out, someone comes to your house with the bill for it? :confused:
    I pay taxes and so do people in my area so we are entitled to the same needs provided by the state as everybody else is


  • #38
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I hope you remember that comment the next time you have to travel on a country road.
    People in the country do pay taxes you know.

    But cities and towns generate more wealth. The only reason small country boreens have to be maintained is because of one off housing. Many L designated roads would have long been abandoned or turned into agricultural access only but for one off housing.

    I can't understand why so many one off houses got permission in the first instance and were not blocked on the grounds of bad taste. To call them one-offs is a bit wrong because they're far from one offs. Many rural houses that have been recently built all have a pretty similar design, a glorified concrete box, with nothing making them architecturally interesting or distinctive. They should have been prohibited on the grounds of bad taste if nothing else.


  • #39
    desaparecidos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭desaparecidos


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    You don't understand the issues at all. Yes the infrastructure is already there such as roads and electricity. You're neglecting the fact that that infrastructure has to be maintained. The next time your power goes out in a storm it won't be you thats getting a bill for the repair. The next time your local road is resurfaced you won't be getting a bill for it yet if there were no people living in the countryside these costs wouldn't arise... costs which are being carried by the taxpayer to afford some the luxury of living in one off houses.

    There's plenty of services paid or subsidized with the public purse which are exclusive to towns, which people in one off houses do not benefit from, yet pay for anyway.

    Water and sewerage infrastructure is an example.

    Also, roads around my home haven't been resurfaced for years.


  • #40
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    But cities and towns generate more wealth. The only reason small country boreens have to be maintained is because of one off housing. Many L designated roads would have long been abandoned or turned into agricultural access only but for one off housing..

    Not true, most roads connect villages or have established old farms and houses built many years ago. These roads are where many of these new houses are built.
    Would you advocate moving people out of these old established sites to save your precious tax money and if so and the roads left to decay, how would the food you eat get to your local shop, By air??
    The argument you are giving is practically Stalinist in its nature.


  • #41
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    cailinardthair wrote: »
    So you mean to say that whenever your road gets resurfaced or the power goes out, someone comes to your house with the bill for it? :confused:
    I pay taxes and so do people in my area so we are entitled to the same needs provided by the state as everybody else is

    What if taxes were imposed that reflected the costs of providing services to people in rural areas? You will find that rural roads cost more to maintain (due to the amount of them) and electricity more to provide (greater distance to travel and greater exposure to damage from the elements) in addition to serving fewer people.

    Think of it like this. There is a town at the bottom of a mountain and one of the residents decided hes had enough of town life. He decides to build his house at the top of the mountain. He then expects the other people in the town to pay to upgrade the dirt track to the top of the mountain to a tarmac road, not only that they expect them to maintain it. He wants electricity for his house so he pays the ESB to bring a line to him. A storm comes and breaks the long line to his house, he expects the other residents in the town to pay for the repair.

    After a while the town residents get fed up of paying for the expensive maintenance of the services to the house on the mountain. They also want to invest in a new next generation broadband system for their town. They look at their budget and they see that the road maintenance bill is mostly for this road to the man on the hill, consequently they cannot afford the new broadband which might attract investment to the town. They decide not to fix the road... the man on the hill gets angry demanding they do because he paid his taxes and is entitled to it.

    The long and the short of it is that the maintenance of any network (road/comms) over a large geographic area to serve relatively few people is very expensive. This expense prohibits upgrading. For example if broadband didn't have to be brought to every backwater in the country the money used for that could have been spent in the cities to bring high speeds to a more concentrated number of people. This would stimulate growth in the urban economy. Instead we're left with a thinly spread often inadequate broadband that really serves the needs of no one.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    For example if broadband didn't have to be brought to every backwater in the country the money used for that could have been spent in the cities to bring high speeds to a more concentrated number of people. This would stimulate growth in the urban economy. Instead we're left with a thinly spread often inadequate broadband that really serves the needs of no one.

    Firstly, broadband isn't available "in every backwater in the country".

    Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that you and I pay the same taxes but you've gotten your townie sewerage system included in that tax while I have to pay for installing a septic tank, pay for maintaining it, pay for emptying it, and will now have to pay some government lackey to sign off that I've done the above.

    If it leaks, I'll have to pay for it too.

    Likewise with our local water scheme, which the council took over after years of investment by the locals, including paying for maintenance and fixing leaks.

    Who pays for leaks to your sewerage or water system ?


  • #43
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    desaparecidos wrote: »
    There's plenty of services paid or subsidized with the public purse which are exclusive to towns, which people in one off houses do not benefit from, yet pay for anyway.

    Water and sewerage infrastructure is an example.

    Also, roads around my home haven't been resurfaced for years.

    You will find that if you look at the numbers that the amount of tax generated by urban areas more than pays for the services they use such as sewage and water. The surplus from this tax take is then used to subsidise rural services as rural dwellers do not generate enough taxes to cover the costs of even the limited services they use.


  • #44
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Add in the following : the fact that our taxes paid for "ring roads" that some planning idiot (from some party or other) later zoned as development land, creating junctions on that road and further urban sprawl, necessitating yet another "ring road" outside that.

    I mean, how many lanes does the M50 have now ? And why are Dublin city areas like Tallaght and Clondalkin and Swords - and even more sprawling "retail parks" OUTSIDE that ?


  • #45
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Firstly, broadband isn't available "in every backwater in the country".

    Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that you and I pay the same taxes but you've gotten your townie sewerage system included in that tax while I have to pay for installing a septic tank, pay for maintaining it, pay for emptying it, and will now have to pay some government lackey to sign off that I've done the above.

    If it leaks, I'll have to pay for it too.

    Likewise with our local water scheme, which the council took over after years of investment by the locals, including paying for maintenance and fixing leaks.

    Who pays for leaks to your sewerage or water system ?

    I may have got my townie sewage and water included in my taxes but you've got your own long expensive highway maintenance, and the long power line maintenance in your taxes. As I've said the taxes I pay more than cover the services I use while the taxes rural dwellers pay don't even break even on the even limited services they use.

    Wrt to broadband, if the government weren't committed to rolling out a national broadband network to make 1mb available to all that money could have been invested in bringing a higher speed to urban areas where the faster speed would have the potential to create growth. What we got is an inadequate network spread thinly over the country when it would have been more beneficial to have a high speed network concentrated in towns for the same money.


  • #46
    cailinardthair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 278 ✭✭cailinardthair


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    What if taxes were imposed that reflected the costs of providing services to people in rural areas? You will find that rural roads cost more to maintain (due to the amount of them) and electricity more to provide (greater distance to travel and greater exposure to damage from the elements) in addition to serving fewer people.

    Think of it like this. There is a town at the bottom of a mountain and one of the residents decided hes had enough of town life. He decides to build his house at the top of the mountain. He then expects the other people in the town to pay to upgrade the dirt track to the top of the mountain to a tarmac road, not only that they expect them to maintain it. He wants electricity for his house so he pays the ESB to bring a line to him. A storm comes and breaks the long line to his house, he expects the other residents in the town to pay for the repair.

    After a while the town residents get fed up of paying for the expensive maintenance of the services to the house on the mountain. They also want to invest in a new next generation broadband system for their town. They look at their budget and they see that the road maintenance bill is mostly for this road to the man on the hill, consequently they cannot afford the new broadband which might attract investment to the town. They decide not to fix the road... the man on the hill gets angry demanding they do because he paid his taxes and is entitled to it.

    The long and the short of it is that the maintenance of any network (road/comms) over a large geographic area to serve relatively few people is very expensive. This expense prohibits upgrading. For example if broadband didn't have to be brought to every backwater in the country the money used for that could have been spent in the cities to bring high speeds to a more concentrated number of people. This would stimulate growth in the urban economy. Instead we're left with a thinly spread often inadequate broadband that really serves the needs of no one.

    your fictional argument sounds ridiculous. people in real life don't act the way you are describing. i wonder are you a troll, or have just never been to rural Ireland.
    my road hasn't been resurfaced in 9 years and there's no signs that it will be anytime soon, hardly crippling to a community, is it? you also do realize that house owners will pay by the pole to bring electricity to their house, as well as the connection fee?
    you mention that the road network serves a relatively small population. what planet are you living on? if only people who had a house on it used it, maybe, but many. many people will use it.
    you're making up theoretical situations to suit your argument. if you lived in a rural area then maybe you'd know what you were talking about, but i doubt you do.
    you're basically saying that even though i pay just as much tax as you do, i'm not entitled to the same services just because i'm not from a town or city


  • #47
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    I may have got my townie sewage and water included in my taxes but you've got your own long expensive highway maintenance

    Yeah, right!

    There's about 150 houses on the road, so it's far from "my own expensive highway" :rolleyes:

    It was also there for the last 100 years, and since it passes 3 of the local farms it's probably the same highway that would be there to ensure that you get your milk.
    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    and the long power line maintenance in your taxes.

    ESB is a commerical company, and charges appropriately.

    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    As I've said the taxes I pay more than cover the services I use while the taxes rural dwellers pay don't even break even on the even limited services they use.

    Again, yeah, right. There's no LUAS or even buses here, so I'm paying a fortune in fuel taxes alone.
    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    it would have been more beneficial to have a high speed network concentrated in towns for the same money.

    Only if that's where people who use it were located. Also, if you're suggesting forcing everyone to move to Dublin, bear in mind the laws of supply & demand on accommodation.......us living here probably saved you half the cost of your mortgage.


  • #48
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    cailinardthair wrote: »
    your fictional argument sounds ridiculous. people in real life don't act the way you are describing. i wonder are you a troll, or have just never been to rural Ireland.
    my road hasn't been resurfaced in 9 years and there's no signs that it will be anytime soon, hardly crippling to a community, is it? you also do realize that house owners will pay by the pole to bring electricity to their house, as well as the connection fee?
    you mention that the road network serves a relatively small population. what planet are you living on? if only people who had a house on it used it, maybe, but many. many people will use it.
    you're making up theoretical situations to suit your argument. if you lived in a rural area then maybe you'd know what you were talking about, but i doubt you do.
    you're basically saying that even though i pay just as much tax as you do, i'm not entitled to the same services just because i'm not from a town or city

    Thats not what I'm saying.

    In relation to your other point, roads should be resurfaced every 15 years. You road might not have been done but it will get its turn yet as some other part of your county got it this year. You will find that most roads are in rural areas even if you exclude roads linking principal towns.

    F1g9i.png

    As for who uses rural roads think about it for a minute. Rural dwellers do. Take a look at the map above (Longford). This is a typical scene in Ireland, the vast network of local roads only exists in order to maintain access for one off houses. If the houses were not there they could be abandoned as agricultural vehicles can negotiate rough terrain. In addition each of those roads has electricity, telephone and water.

    Just for a second here imagine that the only thing the government did was make laws and provide security. In this country taxes are very low. However absolutely every other service from roads to health etc was provided for by a private company, however this hypothetical private company is not out to make a profit, it just wants to break even. Like you would expect every service you use is charged for by the amount of demands you place on the system. Ambulance trips are charged per km, cost of repair to storm damage to electricty lines is divided by the number of people the outage effects.

    In this environment you'll find that a person living in a rural area will pay a lot more than someone living in a town. So much so that it would not be economically viable to live rurally. Fortunately (or unfortunately) we have a system of government that doesn't impose taxes according to use of services but rather the ability to pay. This means that urban dwellers (on the whole) subsidise rural dwellers (on the whole). In fact almost all economic activity takes place in towns so there is no reason for people to live in the countryside at all generally other than the fact that they want to.


  • #49
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    In fact almost all economic activity takes place in towns so there is no reason for people to live in the countryside at all generally other than the fact that they want to.

    Interesting.

    I work from home for a number of reasons - it suits me, it's environmentally friendly and it's cheaper than renting an overpriced office in an urban centre.

    But hey - I guess me working and getting paid isn't "economic activity"....and that's just me, not to mention the farmers and landscapers and plumbers and mechanics and shopkeepers and pub owners that service myself and others.


  • #50
    desaparecidos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭desaparecidos


    oppenheimer1 wrote:
    A In addition each of those roads has electricity, telephone and water.

    No. Electricity and telephone are provided by profit making companies, who charge users for the liberty of connection.

    Water paid for by tax does not exist in the countryside. How many times does this have to be said? People pay thousands to source and maintain their water supply. Similarly the waste treatment on their land.
    oppenheimer1 wrote:
    In this environment you'll find that a person living in a rural area will pay a lot more than someone living in a town.

    They do. It costs substantially more to live in rural areas as it does in a city.
    oppenheimer1 wrote:
    In fact almost all economic activity takes place in towns so there is no reason for people to live in the countryside at all generally other than the fact that they want to.

    Not living close to scummers is also a reason.

    I grew up in a rural area and but have been renting for the past year in a city far away from home because that's where I got a job. I have to say I hate living in a city. The noise of neighbours, the constant noise of cars, the horrible yellow glow in the night sky, scummers everywhere. Give me lovely views and the dead of night silence looking up at the visible stars any day.


  • #51
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    desaparecidos wrote: »
    No. Electricity and telephone are provided by profit making companies, who charge users for the liberty of connection.

    Water paid for by tax does not exist in the countryside. How many times does this have to be said? People pay thousands to source and maintain their water supply. Similarly the waste treatment on their land.
    Eh yes it does. I know the area in that map personally and I know it is connected to the council mains. In addition my parents also live rurally - in a one off house and their water is provided by the council.

    Yes electricity and telephone are provided by profit making companies, but these companies are in a highly regulated environment where legislation mandates them to provide connections. It doesn't matter whether its government or private companies, the end result is the same, the other users of the system must subsidise the cost of providing services to these rural dwellers. It doesn't matter to me who takes the euro out of my pocket whether it be the tax man the esb or eircom all I care about is the fact is that its not in my pocket any more.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement