Eoghan Harris on one-off housing

@Graham Hickey wrote:

When was the last time a person in a lower socio-economic bracket built a one-off house? When was the last time a person on the dole with few prospects in life built a one-off house?

A very valid point, Graham. Indeed, it is often the case that people who build and own one-off houses are net tax contributors to the economy and – as an obvious result – are more likely to contribute substantially to the maintanence of the country’s public infrastructure and health, social welfare and criminal justice systems in over the course fo their tax-paying lives than many urban dwellers are. Logically then, it appears even more niggardly for someone to criticise such net-contributors because they occasionally might have to have a pot-holed filled on the approach road to their house or the post-man might have to drive a bit further to deliver a letter.

In general I agree with your points on the compexity of Ireland’s social structure. I disagree, however, with the remark that ‘social failings in urban areas stem not from the nature of their settlement patterns’. To dismiss the well-established connection between physical and spatial environment and behavioural psychology is also laughable. Next time you wander past the bread counter at your local supermarket, just remember who is pulling your purse strings – the behavioural pyschologists have you well sussed out. The layout of physical space does influence our behaviour – this is unquestionable. Of course the picture is more complicated than that – crime, unemployment, drug addiction – none of these are influenced by spatial design alone, but this is exactly my point – it is simplistic in the extreme to condemn one-off houses because someone sensationalises the issue by bitching that some guy in Co. Mayo got a new road up to his house at the cost of the tax-payer. This is what I have been arguing all along – perhaps one-off houses have positive economic and social effects, just they cannot be seen because people are focussing on the superficial. Arguments for personal liberty with regard to where and how one lives are also not laughable – I am sure the itinerant community would agree with me on this.

If the ‘problems cities experience are not urban problems, or rural problems – they are society’s problems’, why then do so many people contribute to Ireland’s alleged ‘urban sprawl’ – see other thread on Archiseek on this issue. Why then do so many people WANT to leave the cities and live in the countryside whether it is in one-off houses or suburban estates. Why then are so many willing to face a two hour commute just so they can escape places like central Dublin? I am not foolish enough to believe the countryside is paradise, but neither am I foolish enough to ignore the reality of how many people perceive and experience urban life and who are willing to cough up a lot of money to try to escape it. The problems may be ‘society’s’ problems, but people implicitly identifiy those problems with urban life and lets face it estate agents, advertising agents and architects both know and exploit that fact. Lets not come over all coy on this one. Social reality is shaped by the way it perceives itself and perpetuates itself. Again returning to my original point – things are not as simple or binary as one would wish to see them. That is why I went to the trouble of attempting to tease out some of those complicating factors as many just hear one-off houses and think ‘selfish bastards’, in the same way that many seem to have some instinctually negative reaction to buildings over 7 storeys in height. I have no vested interest in one-off houses or indeed personal experience of living in one. I recognise, however, that some people may find them a preferred form of settlement and I do not think that anyone has the right to question or limit that right provided those people do not actively interfere with the rights of others. As regards economic factors – ya its crap that the filling of a pothole in a boreen somewhere near Kenmare costs someone in Drumcondra a few tax euros – just in the same way that it is crap that a farmer in Kiltimagh has to pay a few tax euros to fund a drug addiction clinic in Sherriff Street or whereever else for that matter. Life in a unified state that operates a centralized tax system is just shit, isn’t it?

I am not proposing anything. Every state functions more or less with a centralized tax system – it is normal. My point is – perhaps it is lost somewhere – that opponents of one-off houses should accept that in a state with such a tax system there will always be apparent economic inequalities. In reality, this might mean some one living in such a house may cost the state a couple of extra euros to have a pot-hole filled now and then, but the reality is that that person will also be subsidizing other structures, services, events, and so on in parts of the country that s/he can not and will not benefit from. That is life. Opponents of one-off housing should see that and stop whining about what X is getting and what they are not. I, for example, paid taxes in Ireland for long enough – did I ever benefit from my PRSI payments – no. Did someone on social welfare benefit from a free pair of specs paid from my PRSI dues – most likely yes. Do I whine about this – I hope not. That is the way the system works in a state.

I have a feeling that the message is not getting across. No drug clinic in Sherriff Street is funded by a few euros either! No statue to Phil Lynnott on Grafton Street or wherever is funded by a few euros either – but the point is we all contribute to the central pool of exchequer funds. Sometimes the expenditures benefit us directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes not at all. Consider the bigger picture and stop bashing a few individuals who manage to benefit from the tax system in a way which you cannot and do not. I am sure you benefit in other ways from their tax euros that they will never.

And if there are so many one-offs being built surely that will make them more economically viable as there will be more houses on a post-man’s route to service, one telephone cable will serve more houses….. remember that old argument about Dublin being a series of villages that gradually joined together – well there you have it. It seems that economically the more one-offs there are the better the situation might be!!!

great debate here people and a very complex issue. i have just a few comments ;

the arguments supporting one-off housing in rural areas often rely on the historical settlement patterns of the country – i.e. the fact that people have always lived in the countryside. however, is it not true that these patterns of settlement were intimately tied to socio-economic processes (an agriculturally based economy that operated at a relatively localised scale) which made rural settlement possible and necessary – the need for close physical and functional linkages to the countryside was the underlying factor in determining peoples’ place of residence – it wasnt a lifestyle choice – it was largely a manifestation of the workings of the rural economy.

today, that rural economy is a very different thing..it doesnt require intensive settlement to make it work – most of the demand for rural housing is urban generated one way or another – coming from individuals/families whose socio-economic ties are predominantly urban-based – i.e. non farming related work. therefore, for most people who want to live in the countryside, it is about choice not necessity – the key question here is – does anyone in the state have a right to build where they wish? – i think the answer is no – if you cannot build anywhere in a city or a town that you wish, is it not equitable that the same rules aply to rural areas? individuals have rights in a democracy but in a republic with a constitution those rights are superceded by the concept of the common good – and this is where sustainability and environmental issues arise.

in summary – a question – if the social and economic conditions which underpin the need for an intensively populated rural society do not exist what justification is there for supporting rural settlement at the scale we currently do?

@PDLL wrote:

I am talking generically. No I don’t know each and every house in the Sherrif Street area, nor do I know the location of each and every drug clinic in Dublin. The point was not about geographical specificity. In the same way, I don’t know if a pot-hole has been filled in a boreen somewhere near Kenmare in the last 100 years. I was trying to making an analogy to get a point across about the concept that tax-payers money goes in various directions, some of which may or may not directly benfit us.

Being relatively young and I hope healthy I do not benefit from either old age pension or from those with health problems but I have no objection to either group receiving state funds as such expenditure generally tends to be spread quite evenly on a per capita basis.

@PDLL wrote:

Fantastic – I am delighted for the family of Phil Lynnot. I have a feeling though that the handfull of croonies that may actually have visited the statue at its unveiling is not an indication that it will become a premier tourist attraction in its own right. We should maintain some perspective on this. Thin Lizzy was not exactly the Beetles or the Rolling Stones, so I don’t think Dublin tourism will benefit to the extent you might wish to imagine from this statue.

Lynnott is a significant popular culture icon and has made a large contribution to the development of the now internationally successful indigenous music industry whilst not on the scale of Liverpool the outlay of the statue represents the only civic investment in celebrating all the Internationally successful players such as U2, Enya etc and cost about what the average townland recieved for pot-hole filling prior to either the 2002 general or 2004 national elections. Unlike the potholes the statue will age positvely.

@PDLL wrote:

As regards angling, most river and lake pollution is caused by farming-related polution, and is not domestic in origin. By the way, where do you think the angling visitors stay – yip – one off houses serving as B&Bs – probably the mainstay of Ireland’s tourism product.

The vast majority of successful B & Bs tend to be located either within or directly at the edge of towns]And half the country didn’t benefit from the Millenium fireworks display on the Quays and I didn’t benefit from the Cork City of Culture and my friend in Monaghan has never seen the Modell Arts Centre in Sligo. I have never driven on the M1. My aunt didn’t benefit from the CAT scan machine in Galway Regional Hospital – where do you draw the line? Someone accused one-off house owners of being me feiners and selfish – Christ. [/QUOTE]

On a per capita basis all of those facilities can be justified as the pooled resources accross an entire region combine to make the contribution negligible. In the case of Cork it is evident that the organising committee delivered an excellent programme far in excess of what could be reasonably expected from their modest budget. Pireas the Greek host city for 2006 is planning half the events on a similar budget.

One offs cannot be justified except in very limited circumstances as no-one other than owners benefit in any way whatsoever

@PDLL wrote:

The tax system doesn’t just boild down to the pension, the health service and filling potholes. Who funds the books in your local library? Who paid for the pedestrian crossing down the street from you? Who provides lights for your street at night?

Local authorities who are finding it increasingly difficult to do so as so many of their resources are being eaten up in resurfacing roads and refuse collection as well as cleaning up the effects of defective septic tanks.

@PDLL wrote:

Who pays for the flights of some politician to Brussels last week? Who paid for the biros used by the Ombudsman in October 2004?

Again both justifiable on a per capita basis

@PDLL wrote:

Is health expenditure spread quite evenly across the country? You must live in Dublin to believe that! Lets keep it real, as the saying goes.

On foot of the Hanly report all health services are to be built around centres of excellence inline with international best practice] Why then are so many rural B&Bs of the type that appear to cause so much controversy. That is the much maligned large obtrusive modern structures that lack any relationship to the landscape (not my description). Such structures are not paid for without good custom – it seems reasonable to assume therefore that these B&Bs are doing ok. As I know you like to see supporting statistical evidence on such issues, I would be grateful if you could give me a reference to some publicly available information on the economic succes of urban B7Bs in comparison to rural B&Bs. Just a web-site link would satisfy me. [/QUOTE]

I would like to see all such facilites audited to see just how many of them are genuine B & Bs on a standalone basis and how many are PPRs masquerading to recieve EU and National funds not to mention writing off the costs of their 4 x 4s as ‘business vehicles.

@PDLL wrote:

As regards your outcomes – there is a third possibility, although it may not be obvious from the Irish perspective. Some tourists leave their B7Bs in the evening, have a meal somewhere, do not drink alcohol or – as many do – drink within the allowed limits and then drive safely back to the B&B. Or, they might even have a designated driver for each night of their holiday. They might also buy food that day in a local supermarket or shop on the way to the B&B and eat it there that night. Maybe I am strange, but I love to stay at out-of-the way B&Bs in France and pensions in Germany and Austria. For people who live in Europe’s cities this is often the primary objective of their holiday – to escape urban life.

This type of tourist has steadily declined over the past decade witrh recent research indicating that typical visitors are travelling more often and staying in urban locations such as Cork Belfast or Dublin. Even tho9se who have a designated driver will see diminished consumption and as a result lower income.

@PDLL wrote:

Yes, the pooled resources across an entire country combine to make the contribution negligible. That is why the filling of pot-holes in rural Ireland probably costs you personally about 10 cent per annum, probably about the same as it costs to buy tents for the army in 2003.

€1bn per annum equates to €112.50 per average taxpayer that is only non-national road expenditure.

@PDLL wrote:

Maybe you are unique and you get a detailed tax -bill break down indicating how many thousands of euros you have contributed to the boreen network of Ireland. I never got this. What the Cork organizing committee did or din’t do is also irrelevant. The point is that we all contribute to a central pool of funds, some of which we benefit from, some of which we don’t. I, for example, saw no point in the Spire in Dublin. It has hardly become a major symbol of Ireland and doesn’t really reflect anything ‘Irish’. If it is a national symbol, then it could have been put somehwere ‘down the country’. I have not benefited from it directly or indirectly. It probably cost as much as the repair bill for a thousand boreens for 4 years. Do I whine about it and complain about those me feiners in Dublin that have the joy of catching a brief glimpse of it every morning from the bus. No.

Still haven’t heard any comment on getting rid of cottages, those particularly functionless, energy wasting, blights on the landscape.

Your point is?

And yes, many tourists come here to see that as that is what they understand Ireland to be – rural houses, solitude, peacefullness.

You have got to be kidding PDLL if you think tourists enjoy looking at once-off houses dotted all over the countryside. Tourists are voting with their feet and are more and more of them are sticking with visiting cities. The stats are there to prove it. Of course, the O’Cuiv type professional whingers will immediately blame Dublin-centric development as the reason and will demand that Bord Failte et al. do more for them instead of facing the fact that by building all over areas of natural beauty they are killing the golden goose themselves through short-sighted greed.

@PDLL wrote:

Reasons why tourists may (still haven’t seen any absolute facts to support it) be turning away from rural tourism:
What type of tourism is becoming more popular in the cities: the Temple Bar form of tourism?

Reason: Ireland has lost the attractions that high end desinations such as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and Chile possess >>>>>>>>>>> intact landscape

@PDLL wrote:

Ireland is also much more expensive now. .

True but Ireland is still cheap in relation to either Norway or Switzerland and certainly cheaper than long-haul flights to Santiago and connecting flights to Puerte Monte

@PDLL wrote:

As regards intact landscapes and one-off houses, Switzerland has more than its fair share of one-off houses – they dot the alpine regions quite liberally. .

In fertile areas CH has equivelnt densities to Meath c1970 no high ground or poor land is regularly developed there unlike planners being overuled by county mangers in relation to percolation test suitability.

@PDLL wrote:

Only difference is they are normally inifinitely more attractive than just about anything ever built in Ireland – oh, and people take pride in their properties so they don’t look like shit-holes. And if you think one-off houses in Ireland are economically unsustainable, then what happens when the postman has to drive half way up a mountain to deliver a letter! It happens.

I agree that the typical Swiss punter has better visual appreciation but I cannot understand what point you are trying to make in regards to driving half way up a mountain; it doesn’t typically happen in CH they protect their landscapes away from the resorts.

An example – not small.