Eoghan Harris on one-off housing
- This topic has 182 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Devin – Your two posts are right on the nose. The original farmhouse in your attached image would make a magnificent home with some time and effort (and money of course). Why this obsession the country over with nauseous yellow bungalow shrapnel?
All – For a longer (rather too long) and even more depressing account of the rape of our green and presant land I would recommend Frank McDonald’s ‘Choas at the Cross Roads’. As with his previous books (on Dublin) this latest publication is a sad and sorry tale of our venal, philistine, clientist political class and of our collective disregard of the environment (both urban and rural) as citizens. In a hundred years times I could imagine a definition of unsustainable – see Ireland.
http://www.lovingarchitecture.com/index.php?294&tx_mjseventpro_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=158
I agree with the article wholeheartedly. The land of Ireland, as specifically stated in the Constitution, belongs to the people of Ireland.
All of us.
Obviously a thriving rural economy and thriving countryside regions are what we would all like to see in Ireland. All the money shouldn’t be staying in the Pale and other financial outposts. So I’ve always been of the opinion that new housing in and around existing urban settlements is the way to go down the country.
The one-off housing is destroying our little island. Selfish, ugly, thoughtless bungalows, being strewn across the fields of Ireland will do irreperable damage environmentally, socially and economically (tourism..).I was hiking in Kerry this time last year. Some friends and I were climbing near Mangerton, just south of Killarney National Park.
As far as the eye could see, one-off housing proliferated. I’m not exagerrating when I say that in one direction it was one-off housing to the horizon.It’s deeply depressing, and I don’t mean that in a hand-wringing urban liberal sort of way.
On a broader note and momentarily putting aside issues such as sustainability, economic viability and aesthetics, to deny people the right to build one-off houses on land which they legally possess in a democratic state has deeper implications for personal freedom in Ireland. It is comparable, in some respects, to other debates concerning state control vs. personal freedom (e.g. previous debates over abortion, contraception, pornography and so on). This is also a matter of how much power the state should have over the people. Should, for example, a person who has a genuine desire to live on their own land in relative seclusion and with a modest budget be denied what some would see as a basic constitutional right? Should the state be allowed to deny what many would see as a reasonable lifestyle choice. What then of the itinerant community and their personal choice to live in the manner in which they do. Should the settled community also not enjoy the right to chose where and how they live within the bounds of the law? Greater issues are at stake here – issues which I have a feeling some planners simply have not considered in a more philosophical sense.
@PDLL wrote:
On a broader note and momentarily putting aside issues such as sustainability, economic viability and aesthetics, to deny people the right to build one-off houses on land which they legally possess in a democratic state has deeper implications for personal freedom in Ireland.
How can you put aside every relevant determinate of the process and start again? Would you wish to see the entire traffic code ditched for drunk drivers or fire regs dumped for the leisure sector?
@PDLL wrote:
It is comparable, in some respects, to other debates concerning state control vs. personal freedom (e.g. previous debates over abortion, contraception, pornography and so on).
What about the right to have a tax base that doesn’t involve subsidising those who wish to build houses of 2000 – 4000 sq feet and ofetn have no link to the land in question whatsoever
@PDLL wrote:
This is also a matter of how much power the state should have over the people.
The responsibilty of the State is to govern in accordance with all the laws ans EU directives which this type of development pattern flaunts in abundance
@PDLL wrote:
Should, for example, a person who has a genuine desire to live on their own land in relative seclusion and with a modest budget be denied what some would see as a basic constitutional right?
There is nothing to stop anyone living on the land within the constraints of the existing planning designation]Should the state be allowed to deny what many would see as a reasonable lifestyle choice. [/QUOTE]
If they buy the sanctioned product they get the lifestyle; I’ve always wanted a particular house in Dublin 4 but until I have the resources it is an unattainable aspiration which I am only denying myself.
@PDLL wrote:
What then of the itinerant community and their personal choice to live in the manner in which they do. Should the settled community also not enjoy the right to chose where and how they live within the bounds of the law?
Ironically the group who scream loudest for a free for all are also the same people who tend to be most anti unsettled person and often appear to be the first to cry for the police and courts when ‘the knackers’ arrive.
@PDLL wrote:
Greater issues are at stake here – issues which I have a feeling some planners simply have not considered in a more philosophical sense.
Planners are technicians who are employed to oversee local, regional, nationaland European Law and regulations they are not agony aunts.
@Thomond Park wrote:
How can you put aside every relevant determinate of the process and start again? Would you wish to see the entire traffic code ditched for drunk drivers or fire regs dumped for the leisure sector?.
I was not suggesting that they should be permanently ruled out of consideration, merely that they should be ‘momentarily’ put aside for the sake of elaborating another possible element for consideration.
@Thomond Park wrote:
What about the right to have a tax base that doesn’t involve subsidising those who wish to build houses of 2000 – 4000 sq feet and ofetn have no link to the land in question whatsoever ?.
I still reject this simplistic view of Dubliner subsidizing one-off house country dweller argument. Lets consider other factors: take a working class high density housing estate in Tallaght or whereever and compare it to an area comprising 100 one-off houses in Co Mayo. Yes, the one-off houses cost a little more in terms of services (telephone cabling, postal deliveries etc). However, how much do you think the corpo houses in Dublin cost the irish tax payer, how much does the tax payer pay for the consequences of ghetto style housing areas in cities (higher crime rate, higher drugs rate, higher unemployment, increased cost of policing, increased cost of social workers, increased cost of maintanence due to vandalism etc. lets face it, take the whole thing as a package and the expense to the tax payer per head of capita is probably similar when comparing large urban areas to one-off housing.
@Thomond Park wrote:
The responsibilty of the State is to govern in accordance with all the laws ans EU directives which this type of development pattern flaunts in abundance
The state also has the responsibility to allow people to choose their lifestyle within the bounds of reasonable laws. Have you been to any former Soviet State lately?? Lets just stick everyone in 10 huge big tower blocks along O’Connell street and we would have the most sustainable and cost-effective city in the world. People should not have the right to live as they chose? Sounds a bit totalitarian to me. Ireland is a free state – if a person is free to buy an over-powered car, then they should be free to live in a one-off house. Lets deal with all of the problems related to the excesses of personal freedom before we start focussing on just one. That is what I meant when I said that this is not just about sustainability – it is about broader issues of personal freedom and the relationship between the person and the State.
@Thomond Park wrote:
‘Constitution’ the major function of which is to give the government power to legislate for the benefit of the common good to the exclusion of vested interests.
people could argue that living in higher densities is not for the common good of the people – it often brings increased crime, drug abuse, unemployment and so on as noted above. All of these cost the tax payer in terms of policing, accident and emergency, lost productivity, unemployment money etc. Lets see the bigger picture.
@Thomond Park wrote:
Planners are technicians who are employed to oversee local, regional, nationaland European Law and regulations they are not agony aunts.
Bureaucrats who think in a utilitarian robotic manner?
I guess, in a sense, the argument comes down to whom you believe has a more important stake in the land of Ireland. The landowners themselves, who either own it as long as they choose or as long as the lease holds out. Or the wider community, the entire population of Ireland, who deserve for their country to be treated as well as possible, given the constraints of a growing population, the rights of the occupier and the need for greater transport links throughout the country.
@PDLL wrote:
I was not suggesting that they should be permanently ruled out of consideration, merely that they should be ‘momentarily’ put aside for the sake of elaborating another possible element for consideration.
Not possible
@PDLL wrote:
I still reject this simplistic view of Dubliner subsidizing one-off house country dweller argument. Lets consider other factors: take a working class high density housing estate in Tallaght or whereever and compare it to an area comprising 100 one-off houses in Co Mayo. Yes, the one-off houses cost a little more in terms of services (telephone cabling, postal deliveries etc). However, how much do you think the corpo houses in Dublin cost the irish tax payer, how much does the tax payer pay for the consequences of ghetto style housing areas in cities (higher crime rate, higher drugs rate, higher unemployment, increased cost of policing, increased cost of social workers, increased cost of maintanence due to vandalism etc. lets face it, take the whole thing as a package and the expense to the tax payer per head of capita is probably similar when comparing large urban areas to one-off housing.
This rural snobbery is quite disgusting]The state also has the responsibility to allow people to choose their lifestyle within the bounds of reasonable laws. Have you been to any former Soviet State lately?? Lets just stick everyone in 10 huge big tower blocks along O’Connell street and we would have the most sustainable and cost-effective city in the world. People should not have the right to live as they chose? Sounds a bit totalitarian to me. Ireland is a free state – if a person is free to buy an over-powered car, then they should be free to live in a one-off house. Lets deal with all of the problems related to the excesses of personal freedom before we start focussing on just one. That is what I meant when I said that this is not just about sustainability – it is about broader issues of personal freedom and the relationship between the person and the State. [/QUOTE]
Nobody is stopping you from buying a one off house; however the Department of Transport would stop you driving a car that hadn’t undergone the relevant checks for safety and road appropriateness.
@PDLL wrote:
people could argue that living in higher densities is not for the common good of the people – it often brings increased crime, drug abuse, unemployment and so on as noted above. All of these cost the tax payer in terms of policing, accident and emergency, lost productivity, unemployment money etc. Lets see the bigger picture.
That is a highly offensive description of urban emlements and can only be described rural snobbery providing services to a dispersed area is simply more expensive
@PDLL wrote:
Bureaucrats who think in a utilitarian robotic manner?
Entirely unfair but better than a lot of the thrash who pass for local politicos in this state.
PDLL – where are these working class high density estates in tallaght anyway?? there are no high density estates in tallaght that i’m aware of.
Thank you Thomond Park.
In examining any issue or argument it is usually possible to segregate certain elements for specific focus. That does not mean that the other elements do not have influence the entire argument or that they are not important – it just means that one topic becomes ‘momentarily’ (as specified) the focus of critical analysis.Snobbery involves making a value judgement on others based upon their socio-cultural status. I did not make a value judgement on anyone. If you read my post, I stated sociological facts. It is a fact, however distasteful it may be to some, that large working-class estates in and around Dublin (and other cities and towns) have, statistically, higher crime and drug abuse rates than most rural areas in Ireland. In addition, they also tend to have significant problems with anti-social behaviour, vandalism, unemployment, car-related crime and so on. I am not saying that these things do not happen in rural Ireland – of course they do. I am saying that it is a social fact that these phenomena tend to increase in extent and intensify in magnitude in areas of greater housing density. As a result, such urban manifestations bring with them a myriad of expenses to the tax-payer, including but not limited to the following:
– need for social workers;
– need for drug-rehabilitation workers;
– need for prison places resulting out of drug-related crime;
– need for replacement public service vehicles due to vandalism;
– joy-riding (costs to consumer – insurance, police-related costs etc);
– reduced productivity due to bus-drivers unwilling to drive in certain areas;
– costs of policing;
– costs of school-liaison officers;
– costs of CCTV systems;
– breakdown in social bonds;The list goes on – these are the hidden costs that often underpin increased housing density. Not always, granted, but you cannot escape sociological reality either.
Who has to cough up to pay for all of these invisible costs? Ya – the Irish tax payer – rural and urban alike; housing-estate dweller and one-off house dweller alike. Indeed, it could be described as Dublin arrogance to suggest that one-off housing is subsidised by Dublin – it could also be argued that the rural tax-payer has to take up much of the bill for the social problems in many areas in Dublin. Costs of postal delivery to one-off houses begin to fade into insignificance in comparison. There are always two sides to a story. If you only present the information on one-side then off course one-off housing looks selfish and unsustainable. I would hardly describe much of suburban Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, Athlone etc as a social utopia.
If such observations are ‘highly offensive’ then it is a good job you do not work as a sociologist in Dublin – could be a bit upsetting.
@PDLL wrote:
Thank you Thomond Park.
In examining any issue or argument it is usually possible to segregate certain elements for specific focus. That does not mean that the other elements do not have influence the entire argument or that they are not important – it just means that one topic becomes ‘momentarily’ (as specified) the focus of critical analysis.You cannot eliminate planning practice at any stage from the decision making process and call it planning]Snobbery involves making a value judgement on others based upon their socio-cultural status. I did not make a value judgement on anyone. If you read my post, I stated sociological facts. It is a fact, however distasteful it may be to some, that large working-class estates in and around Dublin (and other cities and towns) have, statistically, higher crime and drug abuse rates than most rural areas in Ireland. [/QUOTE]
Firstly I never singled out Dublin; I referred to Urban Ireland which includes any settlement with a population in excess of 1,000 people whilst you made broad sweeping generalisations that had no statistics to back them up and even declared that Tallaght had ‘high density’ local authority housing. The only medium density housing in Tallaght has been provided by the private sector and has sold extremely well where attractions such as Luas and The Square as well as proximity to essential facilities such as the Hospital and IT are proving both attractive to purchasers but also efficient for Local Government.
@PDLL wrote:
In addition, they also tend to have significant problems with anti-social behaviour, vandalism, unemployment, car-related crime and so on. I am not saying that these things do not happen in rural Ireland – of course they do. I am saying that it is a social fact that these phenomena tend to increase in extent and intensify in magnitude in areas of greater housing density. As a result, such urban manifestations bring with them a myriad of expenses to the tax-payer, including but not limited to the following:
– need for social workers]
It is more equitable to address the causes of social problems through investment in social supports than to keep every borreen with two bungalows with a road surface in a safe condition to collect a child on the heavily subsidised school bus. To strip every town in Ireland of its leaders and significant earner will in time lead to exactly what you have described above in many if not most small towns.
@PDLL wrote:
Who has to cough up to pay for all of these invisible costs? Ya – the Irish tax payer – rural and urban alike]
@PDLL wrote:
If such observations are ‘highly offensive’ then it is a good job you do not work as a sociologist in Dublin – could be a bit upsetting.
What experience do you have of urban living?
@Thomond Park wrote:
if you want to talk about social engineering or psuedo sociology then an architecture / planning forum is hardly the place to do it.
If ‘social engineering’ or pseudo-sociology’ has nothing to do with planning, then is it any wonder things are in a mess. Oddly enough, I would have thought that the way we PLAN our society is very much related to planning – could be wrong on this of course.
@Thomond Park wrote:
no statistics to back them up and even declared that Tallaght had ‘high density’ local authority housing.
Statistics – please go to Central Statistics Office website and the annual reports of the Gardai. You will find more than ample information there to support what I have stated. Of course, much of these statistics are based on ‘generalizations’, so I hope that doesn’t put you off. Shameful, that, the way sociologiy bases itself on generalised statistics, especially when those statistics don’t support the vision of the world that you might like to project. As regards ‘high density’ in Tallaght or anywhere elese for that matter – a housing estate with anything over 10 houses is arguably high density by Irish standards.
As regards the economics of one-off houses – quite a number of one-off houses function as B&Bs and therefore play an important role in the tourist infrastructure of the country. On that basis alone, those one-off houses that are B&Bs more than contribute to the State’s economy and in their own way help subsidise such urban renewal projects as at Ballymun through the taxes they pay.
@Thomond Park wrote:
What experience do you have of urban living?
Not that it is relevant, I have lived in towns and cities both in Ireland and abroad for every single day of my life. I currently live in a city considerably bigger and better planned than Dublin. I have never lived in a rural one-off house, nor – oddly enough – would I like to. In the same way, however, that I would support the building of high-rise in Dublin, I support the retention of one-off rural houses as I believe that they have a place in Irish society and culture and have had since the very first settlers arrived here. To remove them from the countryside will leave the country looking like Britain. Urbanism is only one concept of human settlement and, in the broad span of human history, a relatively recent one. Trying to force everyone to fit the same concept of settlement sounds singularly communist to me.
@PDLL wrote:
If ‘social engineering’ or pseudo-sociology’ has nothing to do with planning, then is it any wonder things are in a mess. Oddly enough, I would have thought that the way we PLAN our society is very much related to planning – could be wrong on this of course.
I agree we should plan our society along the lines of broadly accepted sociological theory such as our Taoiseachs favourite author/guru Robert Putnam
@PDLL wrote:
Statistics – please go to Central Statistics Office website and the annual reports of the Gardai. You will find more than ample information there to support what I have stated. Of course, much of these statistics are based on ‘generalizations’, so I hope that doesn’t put you off. Shameful, that, the way sociologiy bases itself on generalised statistics, especially when those statistics don’t support the vision of the world that you might like to project. As regards ‘high density’ in Tallaght or anywhere elese for that matter – a housing estate with anything over 10 houses is arguably high density by Irish standards.
With the greatest of respect if you wish to make a point that relies on statistics you should display the specific statisitics or if you can’t supply them withdraw your remarks] As regards the economics of one-off houses – quite a number of one-off houses function as B&Bs and therefore play an important role in the tourist infrastructure of the country. On that basis alone, those one-off houses that are B&Bs more than contribute to the State’s economy and in their own way help subsidise such urban renewal projects as at Ballymun through the taxes they pay. [/QUOTE]
The problem with B& B ‘s miles from the social centres are that tourists either can’t get to the bars and restaurants to spend money or have to drink and drive wheras if the same facility were located in the town they could comfortably stroll to and from the same revenue generating establishments thus generating more revenue in a more relaxed fashion.
@PDLL wrote:
Not that it is relevant, I have lived in towns and cities both in Ireland and abroad for every single day of my life. I currently live in a city considerably bigger and better planned than Dublin. I have never lived in a rural one-off house, nor – oddly enough – would I like to. In the same way, however, that I would support the building of high-rise in Dublin, I support the retention of one-off rural houses as I believe that they have a place in Irish society and culture and have had since the very first settlers arrived here. To remove them from the countryside will leave the country looking like Britain. Urbanism is only one concept of human settlement and, in the broad span of human history, a relatively recent one. Trying to force everyone to fit the same concept of settlement sounds singularly communist to me.
No one is saying that one off houses should be demolished; simply that they should be limited to circumstances where they are required to support existing agricultrual enterprises. The free for all must end
Thomond Park wrote:With the greatest of respect if you wish to make a point that relies on statistics you should display the specific statisitics or if you can’t supply them withdraw your remarks]Given the quantity of data available to support the points I have presented, it is also unreasonable of you to expect me to present thousands of percentage figures to back up each detail. I have to work too! If one wants to know about the percentage of crime committed in Irish cities compared to that committed in rural areas, for example, it is quite easy to find: Consider, for example, the Garda Annual Report which clearly states that ‘crime per 1,000 population’ for the Dublin Metro Region was 40.74 while for the Western Region it was 14.89 (pages 16 and 19 of the Report). There is infinite amounts of detail clearly provided in the Report to give further evidence of that. The Garda Annual report is clearly structured and there is a clear link to the Annual Reports on the Garda Website: http://www.garda.ie.
Link to the Report:
http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics/report2004/annreport2004.pdfIf you are prepared to come out with statements concerning the micro-economic drawbacks of one-off houses, you should be prepared to inform yourself of the full range of micro-economic factors that should be considered. If you are so easily put off by fairly clearly laid out websites such as that of the CSO, it does not strengthen your case. Why should I be convinced by an argument from someone who simply couldn’t be bothered examining the statistics that could prove that their argument has no foundation whatsoever. It seems you are easily dissauded from actually examining the micro-economics and micro-demographics that shape the settlement patterns in Ireland.
That is the Garda Annual Report for 2004 – I should have mentioned this above.
@PDLL wrote:
That is the Garda Annual Report for 2004 – I should have mentioned this above.
There is no seperation between urban and rural in this nor does the report detail the types of offence nor the causes of the crime and certainly makes no commentary as to the societal or settlement pattern related factors behind the single statisic. That could equally be attributed to day trippers from North Wales on the HSS or stag party weekenders from Northern England.
http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics/report2004/stats2004.pdf
This will give you all the statistics you could want and then some. No – it doesn’t discuss societal patterns or settlement patterns and this is exactly my point. The consequences – good, bad or indifferent – of one-off houses can not be simply reduced to ‘it costs a lot to tarmac a boreen or to deliver post to a house – therefore its cheaper to live in an estate on a bus route’. This is a simplistic and reductive understanding of how settlement patterns affect our society and economy.
Any debate about prefered forms of settlement should consider the bigger picture (and that includes such ‘abstract’ issues of personal liberty, as I mentioned earlier). The answer will not lie in one or two statistics or neat percentages, but collectively these might actually give a broader picture of how things really function. Yes, people see a boreen being tarmaced and the anti-one-off brigade start whining because it allegedly costs those living in somewhere like Crumlin a few extra tax euros. Perhaps, though, the owner of that house on the boreen is more comfortable living in the country, feels less stressed, is more family orientated, is more content with his/her existence and is, therefore, more productive in his job (personal contentment being a recognised pyschological factor underpinning productivity). As he is more productive, he doesn’t cost the state so much in unemployment allowances, in health care, etc, rather he can make a net contribution in taxes that will help subsidise some individual hooked on alcohol in a crappy overcrowded house in a decrepid estate in Tallaght. He doesn’t feel imprisoned in a confined estate, he doesn’t feel estranged from his neighbours, he doesn’t feel like an anonymous unit because he has no relationship to the society around him. He doesn’t therefore, feel the need to try drugs, to drink to excess, to commit acts of vandalism. Yes, all of these factors are interconnected and planners need to start thinking that way. It is not about shifting little boxes on a computer screen and labelling one ‘shopping centre’, the other ‘recreational utility’ and so on. It is, however, easier to wag the aggrieved finger at a boreen being re-tarmaced and come out with the old lines of begrudgery.
Yes, you will not get the answers by looking at one or two statistics, but by considering the whole picture, there are other issues at stake. Has anyone carried out a study of the socio-economic consequences of makingthe planning laws on one-off housing so restrictive that people who wish to live in the countryside can no longer do so? Theres a PhD topic for someone.
PDLL, your “bigger picture” is just a bunch of stereotypes of an idylic countryside existance. You make no mention of 2 and half hour commutes. You make no mention that children have to be driven everywhere in cars and have extremely limited social lives outside of school as they are not in a position to independently meet friends. You do not mention the extremely high rate of suicide and depression in the parts of Ireland which have the most dispersed pattern of settlement. Or the fact that sustaining a social life almost necessitates driving while under the influence of alchohol. I always liked this piece which while perhaps overly negative, tallies with some of my own experiences growing up in a once-off.
@jimg wrote:
PDLL, your “bigger picture” is just a bunch of stereotypes of an idylic countryside existance. You make no mention of 2 and half hour commutes. You make no mention that children have to be driven everywhere in cars and have extremely limited social lives outside of school as they are not in a position to independently meet friends. You do not mention the extremely high rate of suicide and depression in the parts of Ireland which have the most dispersed pattern of settlement. Or the fact that sustaining a social life almost necessitates driving while under the influence of alchohol. I always liked this piece which while perhaps overly negative, tallies with some of my own experiences growing up in a once-off.
I’m not so sure if it is just a bunch of stereotypes. Why then is the crime rate in Dublin is more than twice that in the west per 1,000 of population as is indicated in the statistics noted above. If this is a stereotype then it is one based on fact.
Your 2.5 hour commute is based on the principle that all people who live in one-off houses have to drive for 2.5 hours to get to work. Is this a reasonable generalisation. I think not. Why also do so many people living in very built up parts of suburban Dublin also spend two hours each day in their cars – you do not have to live in a one-off to have that. I accept your points about the social difficulties facing some children, however, in real terms what is the difference between someone having to drive their child from one one-off to another a few miles away and a parent having to drive their child from one estate to another in Tallaght? Fine, if all of your schoolfriends live in the same estate (which is relatively unlikely), but usually they will be spread out over a greater area even in Dublin. Yes there is a problem with suicide and depression, especially in the North West and Border counties. Why? Could the fact that the country is so heavily biased in favour of Dublin in virtually every conceivable way imaginable have something to do with this? Could the fact that the NW and Border counties have been starved of real investment for so long that it makes life their increasingly difficult? Restricting the possibilities of people actually being able to live in such areas will not exactly stimulate economic growth in the countryside and so the cycle continues.
@PDLL wrote:
http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics/report2004/stats2004.pdf
This will give you all the statistics you could want and then some. No – it doesn’t discuss societal patterns or settlement patterns and this is exactly my point. The consequences – good, bad or indifferent – of one-off houses can not be simply reduced to ‘it costs a lot to tarmac a boreen or to deliver post to a house – therefore its cheaper to live in an estate on a bus route’. This is a simplistic and reductive understanding of how settlement patterns affect our society and economy.
At page 55 the statistics dealing with the number of Children cautioned under the garda JLO scheme is at 0.1617% of young people marginally ahead of the Southern Region at 0.1316% and the South East at 0.1320%. This indicates that the resources being diverted to An Post €] Any debate about prefered forms of settlement should consider the bigger picture (and that includes such ‘abstract’ issues of personal liberty, as I mentioned earlier). [/QUOTE]
If personal liberty was genuinely being challenged why have we not witnessed an action to the Supreme Court?
@PDLL wrote:
The answer will not lie in one or two statistics or neat percentages, but collectively these might actually give a broader picture of how things really function. Yes, people see a boreen being tarmaced and the anti-one-off brigade start whining because it allegedly costs those living in somewhere like Crumlin a few extra tax euros. Perhaps, though, the owner of that house on the boreen is more comfortable living in the country, feels less stressed, is more family orientated, is more content with his/her existence and is, therefore, more productive in his job (personal contentment being a recognised pyschological factor underpinning productivity).
Dublin has the lowest per capita unemployment rate in the state and has had for a decade http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/current/lregan.pdf
@PDLL wrote:
As he is more productive, he doesn’t cost the state so much in unemployment allowances, in health care, etc, rather he can make a net contribution in taxes that will help subsidise some individual hooked on alcohol in a crappy overcrowded house in a decrepid estate in Tallaght. He doesn’t feel imprisoned in a confined estate, he doesn’t feel estranged from his neighbours, he doesn’t feel like an anonymous unit because he has no relationship to the society around him. He doesn’t therefore, feel the need to try drugs, to drink to excess, to commit acts of vandalism. Yes, all of these factors are interconnected and planners need to start thinking that way. It is not about shifting little boxes on a computer screen and labelling one ‘shopping centre’, the other ‘recreational utility’ and so on. It is, however, easier to wag the aggrieved finger at a boreen being re-tarmaced and come out with the old lines of begrudgery.
I have no problem with anyone derving contentment from their abode once it has cleared the planning process and once said person makes a fair contribution to all the costs of their property.
@PDLL wrote:
Yes, you will not get the answers by looking at one or two statistics, but by considering the whole picture, there are other issues at stake. Has anyone carried out a study of the socio-economic consequences of makingthe planning laws on one-off housing so restrictive that people who wish to live in the countryside can no longer do so? Theres a PhD topic for someone.
I know a person (an intercounty senior GAA player) who started that thesis only to change their opinion of dispersed development patterns mid-thesis and conclude that that form of development required more regulation having considered the evidence.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
