Re: Re: Government-by-numbers
The link you posted does not work.
I am just making observations from what I read and hear from various sources. I am by no means a subscriber to the commonly held view that An Taisce object blindly to any form of rural development, compliments to reading material and articles on this site and others. The neatly tailored (I would imagine) PR contained on the An Taisce website was not one of those sources. This posting on this very thread was.
@Thomond Park wrote:
……..The An Taisce argument as given from various media reports centres on Four Strands:
1. Sustainability which through the absolute ban on ribbon development eliminates most one-off developments that are car dependent as any applicant would require a regularly shaped site of at least 10 acres to not constitute ribbon development.
2. Preservation of scenic locations where permissions are to be granted only in very exceptional cases, so that point in the AT submission was taken on board although an outright ban would have been better, particularly in sensitive coastal and upland areas.
3. Efficiency of local government, this point is one that is not just made by AT but was very well quantified by Eamon Gilmore when he displayed that local charges have increased by 16 times the rate of inflation since 2000. If the ESB is ever privatised I can see rural dwellers requiring insurance on the last mile of cable.
4. Water quality, I don’t think the fact that 28% of wells in Ireland being contaminated by the run-off from septic tanks can be ignored, would this be tolerated anywhere else? Roche was nailed here and his evasive style cannot get him away from the fact that this is a major problem as experienced not just by rural dwellers but also by many residents in Carlow Town who are currently boiling water to make it safe.