plannerman wrote:That spreading these depts in an attempt to revitalise other regions is a bad idea.
I think its more that its a meaningless gesture. Moving departments in this manner makes no meaningful contribution to revitalising other regions. Its simply puts up the cost of government and makes it less coherent.
plannerman wrote:That selling off valuable land in Dublin City Centre which can be used in other areas is not worth attempting.
but we already know that there is no immediate saving to be made in property costs, plus this seems to elevate property values over all other considerations. If property in Dublin is more expensive than elsewhere, its simply reflecting the fact that its a good location to locate it.
Can I suggest that, if you expect support for the programme on rational grounds, there would need to be a substantial study done which showed (inter alia) what the cost of moving is, what the ongoing costs will be, and compares that to some detailed evaluation of expected benefits. Through what mechanism do we expect the location of jobs in Ballinasloe to have any impact on the immediate area, given that whether 100 people do their shopping in Tesco in Ballinasloe or Tesco in Ballymun has a negligible impact on either location. And, bear in mind, what I'm saying is we need more than a superficial assertion that the movement of 100 jobs must have some impact.
I think you can take it from the fact that such a study has not been done means people can guess the outcome. There is no significant benefit arising from the programme, other than that some people will be able to move their publically funded job to the location of their choice. I simply cannot see why that is a priority at this time.
I suppose it is appropriate to notice that the OECD, in passing, were clearly left stunned at the lack of thought put in to what they insisted on calling 'administrative relocation' and the lack of any clear picture of what this was supposed to achieve.