Fast-Track Infrastructure legislation
- This topic has 78 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
*sigh* Here WE go again.
No.1: ‘We’ refers to the citizens of Dublin, not the members of Archiseek. It is not a ‘royal “we”‘ in that it is a simple statememt of fact that any newly arrived citizen has to be accommodated (I don’t mean in the sense of housed, I mean in the sense of creating space) by the existing citizens.
No.2: ‘We’ here is used as a constituent of what I see as your belief, viz. ‘your belief that we’re constantly attacking the little man’. So again, not a royal one.
No.3: See No.2.
No.4: A figure of speech. Admittedly, this one is closest to the possibility of ‘the royal “we”‘, but ‘closest’ and ‘bang on the money’ are, well, not the same thing.
@PDLL wrote:
Now I’m no expert
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Finally, something we can agree on.
I find it interesting that you have not passed any comment, either positive or negative, on the five points with which I concluded my last post, lending further credence to my belief that you come here to pick fights rather than to debate. But I fear I’m treading on TP’s patch here. He’s the troll hater.
Lastly, having had close second-hand experience of real schizophrenia and thus being aware of what it actually entails, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t use a medical condition as a convenient short-hand slur.
I have to admit, they still sound quite regal to me. I have discussed all of the points you have mentioned at the end of your last e-mail on numerous occasions in other posts – that is why I didn’t bother going through the labor of debating them again. So that is what TP meant by ‘troll’ – it must have been his invention of a new verb which threw me. As regards schizophrenia – I posed it as a possibility for the inconsistency in your use of the royal we. I consider all possibilities when analysing people’s arguments. If I see extreme examples of obvious inconsistency, then I have to examine all of the possible reasons for that.
a ‘Troll’ is someone who either knowingly argues a point to provoke a reaction as opposed to holding that opinion; it is part of the cyberspace lingo
Thomond Park wrote:a ‘Troll’ is someone who either knowingly argues a point to provoke a reaction as opposed to holding that opinion]I think the word you are looking for is debater and stems from the concept of debating – an often amicable exchange of views that derives its momentum from a frank difference of opinion on an issue. This form of discourse is common in democratic societies and is usually despised by people who have a tendency towards an autocratic and homogenous vision of the world. If you think that there is any particular opinion I do not hold, then please let me know. As regards provocation, I refer you back to ctesiphon’s earlier missive against me (please see above). It appears that he was ‘provoked’ by me because I expressed the opinion (which I hold) that there is an imbalance in Archiseek in terms of how the development of the 25 counties outside of Dublin is taking place infrastructurally. Further to that, if you have any doubt about the inherent pro-Dublin biases within this discussion group, please look at the list of the last 100 threads. Most of them relate to Dublin, despite the fact that only one-third of the State’s population lives in the greater Dublin region. Those threads that do not refer to Dublin by and large tend to berate the countryside in an intolerable manner with little more than flimsy stereotypes being used to justify points and stimulate discussion (please see recent Ballymun thread and One-off housing thread). If ‘trolling’ is presenting a voice of opposition to such often ill-disguised rants against rural people and highlighting factual inaccuracies, stereotype-based jingoism and downright intolerance, then I will happily accept the title of troll.
You see this is the problem with ‘debates’ like these, and you’re as much to blame as anyone PDLL. Even if as in your view rural stereotypes are generated here (which I don’t accept), instead of being mature about it and contesting the alleged stereotyping etc, you just chuck it straight back in the form of urban stereotypes – and so the cycle continues.
It’s ridiculous and gets no one anywhere – not unlike certain infrastructural projects come to think of it…
Yes there is a Dublin bias here, but only numerically in relation to members – not a favouritism over other areas of the country. Indeed one would have to wonder about the 288 active members of the Forums section – out of all of those people, surely a sizeable chunk of who come from all areas of the country, not one apparently sees the need to speak out and defend their countryside and the planning policies being pursued by the current administration.
If anything one could quite easily get the impression that it’s mostly Dublin people on Archiseek who seem to care about the countryside…..I fully sympathise with the lack of investment in infrastructure in the West, particularly rail, but I wouldn’t necessarily come to the conclusion that it is due to an Eastern bias. It must be considered that nowhere received much infrastructural investment up until quite recently – it is logical and to be expected that the critical routes along the east coast linking the capital with Belfast both by road and rail would be the first to be developed, as would primary routes encircling the country’s greatest centre of population.
But agreed that ‘bias’ if one could even describe it as such, ought to have worn off years ago – it hasn’t, as the capital is still choking. So whilst regional centres are crying out for critical initial funding, so too is the capital for ‘second phase ‘ funding in spite of the resources already received. It is this state of affairs that is generating understandable tensions.In spite of what you say PDLL, as you probably well know, pretty much everyone here is reasonable. Pretty much everyone wants to see balanced regional development. Pretty much everyone wants to see the regions expanding and sustaining themselves through increased funding allocated to viable projects (as in Dublin). And pretty much everyone wants the pressure taken off the capital
It is simply the pettiness of language that is pulling things apart.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Even if as in your view rural stereotypes are generated here (which I don’t accept), instead of being mature about it and contesting the alleged stereotyping etc, you just chuck it straight back in the form of urban stereotypes – and so the cycle continues.
Graham, I respect your balanced response, but I would disagree with you with regard to the use of stereotypes of rural people. I refer you to the Ballymun thread. Some of the material the therein being little more than rampant invective. I can provide you with ample quotes if it helps focus things a little.
As regards my throwing back urban stereotypes and doing little more, allow me to make one observation. I have made systematic efforts to construct arguments that overthrow some of the unsubstantiated generalizations that are thrown around here. In the Eoghan Harris thread, I challenged anyone to give me concrete economic data that proves that the average one-off house dweller is more of a net financial burden on the state than an average city/town dweller (this being one of the primary accusations made against one-off housing dwellers). I am still waiting to see such a definitive data. Despite all of the expertise that ctesiphon claims exists, not one person has given a definitive and substantiated answer to this. In the meantime, the stereotype continues to be propagated ad nauseum.
In a similar vein, the steroetype of the one-off house dweller as an SUV driving road hog was also challenged – I rpovided evidence that in the UK at least, it is actually the urban dweller who is more likely to possess an environmentally unfriendly SUV. Given the socio-cultural similarities between here and the UK, it is a fair assumption to assume a similar pattern of vehicle ownership exists in the Republic. Did anyone acknowledge that this somewhat debunks the stereotype vitriolically thrown around in the Ballymun and Eoghan Harris threads. No.
So am I doing little more than propagating urban stereotypes or am I trying to highlight the inadequacies in some of the commentaries so frivolously bandied about here? Am I trying to set the record straight by expressing opinions that seem alien to a number of contributors but are nonetheless valid.
For some to accuse me of ‘trolling’ and of not actually believing in what I say is rich given that it is well known that some commentators have spawned multiple identities (6 in one particular instance) in archiseek in order to generate a number of opinions in a duplicitous manner. If it is petty to defend myself in that regard, then it seems I cannot win. Whether my opinion is popular or ‘politically correct’ in 21st centruy planning circles is irrelevant, it is an opinion that has sought to validly expose a number of falacious discrepancies and imbalances in a number of posts made here.
I presume you are referring to me what are the six profiles you are talking about?
Reading your more recent posts it is patently obvious that you are making no effort whatsoever to engage with anyone here but purely argue blindly with little statistical backup and plenty of generalisation. You have repeatidly ignored those who have stated that this is not a Dublin vs the ‘real Ireland’ with Dublin soaking up all the resources which it doesn’t by a long way.
The only solution to this Countries economic and planning future is to build up places such as Galway, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Sligo. For you to attempt to argue that one off housing is more efficient or cost effective is simply not realistic, one off housing suits otwo groups of people alone firstly those securing planning permissions and then selling sites off to blow ins usually from the cities you decry as junky infested hell holes and secondly families who have a son or daughter who want a free or subsidised site.
It is that simple one group wants cheap property or the ability to make money and a lot of people are seriously concerned about what this is doing economically, environmentally and to the general landscape situation.
@PDLL wrote:
I challenged anyone to give me concrete economic data that proves that the average one-off house dweller is more of a net financial burden on the state than an average city/town dweller (this being one of the primary accusations made against one-off housing dwellers). I am still waiting to see such a definitive data.
The theory is that when people live in more dispersed patterns, the average distance between their dwellings increases. If you wish to provide a service whether phone, electricity, policing or transport to people who live close together it costs less than it does to provide those services to people who live far apart.
If you have a job like forester or farmer, then fair enough you have to live in the country and few would argue that you should have to pay more for a phone connection than a city dweller even if it costs the phone company 10 times more to provide and maintain that service for you. However if you are working in a city and you choose to live in the country because you prefer the lifestyle, then you impose higher costs on society than an urban dweller. You use more cable and poles to get your electrical and phone services, the council needs to build and maintain more roads to meet your needs. It costs more to get you to hospital by ambulance if you fall sick and more to get a fire engine to your house should you need it. You cover more miles driving to work and going shopping so you are more likely to kill and injure people.
In short, you have saved money by paying less for your house and but cost more money to the state. If a few people make this choice it’s no problem but what happens when hundreds of thousands of people choose to live outside the city they work in and externalise their costs to society?
When you ask for definitive data, are you asking someone to prove that connecting a terrace of 20 houses whether in a city, town or village to a set of services costs less than connecting 20 houses to those services in a 200 acre area?
If you have a job like forester or farmer, then fair enough you have to live in the country and few would argue that you should have to pay more for a phone connection than a city dweller even if it costs the phone company 10 times more to provide and maintain that service for you
if they used a mobile would it be ok? Rural people pay more for traditional phones as there is less people in their local zone compared to urban areas and they have to call urban areas for most offical calls: long distance to them, local to Dubliners.
@asdasd wrote:
if they used a mobile would it be ok? Rural people pay more for traditional phones as there is less people in their local zone compared to urban areas and they have to call urban areas for most offical calls: long distance to them, local to Dubliners.
Huh? Most calls are lo-call regardless of origin, certainly state services like the taxman and social welfare are lo-call (with a Dublin number provided if the office is in Dublin or whatever).
Moving on, people in the West can in some cases be terribly blind to anything that is built. Shannon Airport and the Shannon Free Zone, Shannon town itself is Ireland’s only ‘new town’ in the UK style. The Limerick Southern Ring, the N18 Newmarket on Fergus Bypass, the Ennis Bypass currently under construction. There’s heaps of money spent on the west, way more per person than in Dublin city, and the Dublin city infrastructure happens to serve the nation as well as us Dubs! If you take a train to Dublin, are you not availing of the investment in Heuston Station etc.? Some people need to wake up. There was a proposal to build an Eastern Bypass of Dublin. Even though I’m a dub, I’d rather they spent the money on buses or light rail in Cork. Sometimes investment in anything isn’t a good thing.
@Thomond Park wrote:
I presume you are referring to me what are the six profiles you are talking about? .
I never mentioned your name, TP. Just pointed out that I hold one opinion with one identity. Some have the luxury of having multiple identities with which they can post multiple opinions.
@Thomond Park wrote:
Reading your more recent posts it is patently obvious that you are making no effort whatsoever to engage with anyone here but purely argue blindly with little statistical backup and plenty of generalisation.
I am working within the same parameters of argumentation that many here use – namely, lack of statistical evidence and generalisation. When I did provide some statistical evidence you either ignored it or disagreed with it – such as when you disagreed with the statistics on drug addiction in Tallaght (statistics issued by the Tallaght Drugs Force, I might add!!!).
@Thomond Park wrote:
The only solution to this Countries economic and planning future is to build up places such as Galway, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Sligo.
I agree completely with you.
@Thomond Park wrote:
For you to attempt to argue that one off housing is more efficient or cost effective is simply not realistic, one off housing suits otwo groups of people alone firstly those securing planning permissions and then selling sites off to blow ins usually from the cities you decry as junky infested hell holes and secondly families who have a son or daughter who want a free or subsidised site.
I never said that they were more cost-effective. What I have argued all along is that no body can show me complete and verifiable economic data to prove that one-off dwellers are more of a net-draw on the State’s economy than the average urban dweller. By this, I don’t mean a simple calculation based on the number of telegraph poles needed, but rather one that factors in all factors such as how much the one-off dweller contributes to the economy in taxes and services in comparison with the average urban home owner] It is that simple one group wants cheap property or the ability to make money and a lot of people are seriously concerned about what this is doing economically, environmentally and to the general landscape situation.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what I mean about stereotypes. So country people are more greedy when it comes to property than urban dwellers? Ya right. So the cheap crappy houses being sold around our cities for ridiculous prices are only so expensive because of greedy farmers and nothing else? City people have not exploited the property market and milked it for all they can get out of it? This is what I mean by stereotypes and demonization. Implicit in your logic is that all country people are interested in nothing but money and city people are only interested in building environmentally and economically friendly housing. Is this what you mean TP – please. If this is the basis of the expertise available here, it is worrisome.
@Frank Taylor wrote:
The theory is that when people live in more dispersed patterns, the average distance between their dwellings increases. If you wish to provide a service whether phone, electricity, policing or transport to people who live close together it costs less than it does to provide those services to people who live far apart….However if you are working in a city and you choose to live in the country because you prefer the lifestyle, then you impose higher costs on society than an urban dweller. You use more cable and poles to get your electrical and phone services, the council needs to build and maintain more roads to meet your needs. It costs more to get you to hospital by ambulance if you fall sick and more to get a fire engine to your house should you need it. You cover more miles driving to work and going shopping so you are more likely to kill and injure people.
Regarding the economic elements of your argument, Frank, I have address the complexities of these issues in the Eoghan Harris thread where I attempted to show as calculating the price of a few telegraph poles or the infill for a few potholes. I would refer you to the many posts in this thread which I think expose some of the additional complications in working out whether the net cost of one-off houses to the state is greater than the net cost of urban houses to the state. Regarding your comments on driving – this has more to do with a lack of proper driving skills and education and an ignorance toward alcohol than it has to do with one off houses. You cannot blame the houses for the way people drink to excess because they think it is ‘cool’. Indeed, implying that country people are somehow more dangerous on the roads and generally more hazardous behind the wheel of a car is also stereotyping people negatively – indeed, demonizing them. It makes no reference to the fact that joy riding and car theft related crimes tend to be higher in urban areas (please see Garda annual reports for statistical evidence) than in rural areas. Again, this doesn’t factor in the cost of insurance prices due to such crimes (one of those additional economic complications which cloud the picture of how much things really cost). Training people to drive properly and with respect fro alcohol will improve road safety – blaming one-off houses won’t. Again, this is about taking responsibility for one’s actions and not blaming them on an inanimate object. Why not blame the car for having four wheels and an engine.
As regards the environmental impact of driving, it is known that stop-start driving in traffic jams is much more damaging to the environment than continuous free driving (such as that enjoyed on country roads). In short, traffic in cities is much more environmentally devastating than that in the countryside so this too is an argument that can be dispelled.
The picture is much more complicated than it seems. If people could get over the demonization of rural dwellers and examine the economics of the issue in a complete and all-encompassing way might actually get to the root of the problem.
@Thomond Park wrote:
I presume you are referring to me what are the six profiles you are talking about? .
I never mentioned your name, TP. Just pointed out that I hold one opinion with one identity. Some have the luxury of having multiple identities with which they can post multiple opinions.
@Thomond Park wrote:
Reading your more recent posts it is patently obvious that you are making no effort whatsoever to engage with anyone here but purely argue blindly with little statistical backup and plenty of generalisation.
I am working within the same parameters of argumentation that many here use –] The only solution to this Countries economic and planning future is to build up places such as Galway, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Sligo. [/QUOTE]
I agree completely with you.
@Thomond Park wrote:
For you to attempt to argue that one off housing is more efficient or cost effective is simply not realistic, one off housing suits otwo groups of people alone firstly those securing planning permissions and then selling sites off to blow ins usually from the cities you decry as junky infested hell holes and secondly families who have a son or daughter who want a free or subsidised site.
I never said that they were more cost-effective. What I have argued all along is that no body can show me complete and verifiable economic data to prove that one-off dwellers are more of a net-draw on the State’] It is that simple one group wants cheap property or the ability to make money and a lot of people are seriously concerned about what this is doing economically, environmentally and to the general landscape situation.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what I mean about stereotypes. So country people are more greedy when it comes to property than urban dwellers? Ya right. So the cheap crappy houses being sold around our cities for ridiculous prices are only so expensive because of greedy farmers and nothing else? City people have not exploited the property market and milked it for all they can get out of it? This is what I mean by stereotypes and demonization. Implicit in your logic is that all country people are interested in nothing but money and city people are only interested in building environmentally and economically friendly housing. Is this what you mean TP – please. If this is the basis of the expertise available here, it is worrisome.
Frank Taylor wrote:The theory is that when people live in more dispersed patterns, the average distance between their dwellings increases. If you wish to provide a service whether phone, electricity, policing or transport to people who live close together it costs less than it does to provide those services to people who live far apart…]Regarding the economic elements of your argument, Frank, I have address the complexities of these issues in the Eoghan Harris thread where I attempted to show that calculating the real economics of the issue is more complicated than calculating the price of a few telegraph poles or the infill for a few potholes. I would refer you to the many posts in this thread which I think expose some of the additional complications in working out whether the net cost of one-off houses to the state is greater than the net cost of urban houses to the state. Regarding your comments on driving – this has more to do with a lack of proper driving skills and education and an ignorance toward alcohol than it has to do with one off houses. You cannot blame the houses for the way people drink to excess because they think it is ‘cool’. Indeed, implying that country people are somehow more dangerous on the roads and generally more hazardous behind the wheel of a car is also stereotyping people negatively – indeed, demonizing them. It makes no reference to the fact that joy riding and car theft related crimes tend to be higher in urban areas (please see Garda annual reports for statistical evidence) than in rural areas. Again, this doesn’t factor in the cost of insurance prices due to such crimes (one of those additional economic complications which cloud the picture of how much things really cost). Training people to drive properly and with respect fro alcohol will improve road safety – blaming one-off houses won’t. Again, this is about taking responsibility for one’s actions and not blaming them on an inanimate object. Why not blame the car for having four wheels and an engine.
As regards the environmental impact of driving, it is known that stop-start driving in traffic jams is much more damaging to the environment than continuous free driving (such as that enjoyed on country roads). In short, traffic in cities is much more environmentally devastating than that in the countryside so this too is an argument that can be dispelled.
The picture is much more complicated than it seems. If people could get over the demonization of rural dwellers and examine the economics of the issue in a complete and all-encompassing way might actually get to the root of the issue. Before we listen to the rantings of the likes of Eoghan Harris, we should fully inform our selves of what is at stake.
Huh? Most calls are lo-call regardless of origin, certainly state services like the taxman and social welfare are lo-call (with a Dublin number provided if the office is in Dublin or whatever).
It is only recently that the numbers were free for government offices, or cost the local call. Most calls for people in rural Ireland are not local as they would have family dispersed all over the place, and the nearest place of business may not be in the local area code- even a call to a mere 10 miles away could easily be outside the local zone. While the 01 area is intact, the other area codes ( 02, 05 etc) are divided up. And if you live in the 0504 area you live with seven people and a sheep, and most of your calls are non-local. People who live in area codes with a few thousand people pay more, it stands to reason, than someone who lives in an area code with 1.25 million people. There is no subsidy.
Telecom Eireann always had overflow areas from say North Cork into West Limerick and East Galway in to Roscommon etc. The engineering costs were always much higher but the users got their hinterland on a common rate beyond the county jersey politics. This was the correct stance in my opinion; why should Tuam to Claremorris be a long distance call?
However the real issues is not phone rates but instalation and repair costs on ‘the last mile of cable’ from the road to the house and it is not just telacoms but also electricitiy.
@asdasd wrote:
It is only recently that the numbers were free for government offices, or cost the local call. Most calls for people in rural Ireland are not local as they would have family dispersed all over the place, and the nearest place of business may not be in the local area code- even a call to a mere 10 miles away could easily be outside the local zone. While the 01 area is intact, the other area codes ( 02, 05 etc) are divided up. And if you live in the 0504 area you live with seven people and a sheep, and most of your calls are non-local. People who live in area codes with a few thousand people pay more, it stands to reason, than someone who lives in an area code with 1.25 million people. There is no subsidy.
This is exactly what I mean about economic complexities. The most obvious way to ‘calculate the cost’ of one-off houses is to drive around and estimate how many telegraph poles each house needs in comparison to the
.000568 telegraph poles per person in Drumcondra. It does not take into account ALL of the many miniscule little complicating factors involved in working out how much things really cost. And ultimately, if this boils down to an argument of ‘Paddy gets X in Co. Clare and we here in Ranelagh don’t get X’, then believe me, city dwellers get a lot lot more Xs provided by the State than anyone living ‘down’ (!) the country whether it be in a one-off house or an apartment building in Salthill.@Thomond Park wrote:
However the real issues is not phone rates but instalation and repair costs on ‘the last mile of cable’ from the road to the house and it is not just telacoms but also electricitiy.
By this logic, people living in Dublin city centre should be rightly pissed off with Maynooth people for living so far out (all that extra cabling, all of that extra commuting, all of that unnecessary road infrasture, all of that unnecessary pollution, all of that unnecessary travel for service vehicles from the city centre etc etc). Why do we not here this as such a big issue???? Is it because they are not ‘down’ the country or because living in semi-ds near Dublin is acceptable even though, according to the anti-one off logic, semi-ds are also destructive as we should be living in settlements that are based solely on the calculus of minimalism (minimal amounts of cabling, minimal amounts of commuting etc). Or dare I say it, maybe its ok because they give Dublin that sense of ‘the urban’ which it so desperately seems to need and anything that bolsters Dublin’s sprawling metropolitan urban persona is not a problem or a blight on the landscape.
@PDLL wrote:
This is exactly what I mean about economic complexities. The most obvious way to ‘calculate the cost’ of one-off houses is to drive around and estimate how many telegraph poles each house needs in comparison to the
.000568 telegraph poles per person in Drumcondra.So are you saying that analysing cost base is irrelevant?
@Thomond Park wrote:
So are you saying that analysing cost base is irrelevant?
No. Of course not. I have been arguing for this all alone. What I am saying is that this is greater than just counting metres of cable or sewage pipes. It also includes many intangible issues that are difficult to calculate by simply driving alone a country road and measuring the distrance between each house. Cable and sewage pipes are a factor – I accept that and if someone can factor in all of the myriad little variables that need to be calculated in and show me that the net cost of a one-off is, in th egreater scheme of things, gretaer than the net cost of a town house, then I will happily accept the facts. In the meantime, though, it would be great if we could at least seperate the issue from some sort of arrogant urban approach to those who chose to live in the countryside for familial, social, or employment reasons.
If one choses to live in the country for employment reasons one is to be praised as it has never been more difficult to make money from the land than it is now; if one choses to live in the country to be with ones family that is also a good thing once both groups cluster their dwellings together. What is totaly off the beam is the mass exodus from many country towns around this land to the countryside with all the negative aspects that brings such as landscape destruction, groundwater pollution, childhood obesity, social isolation etc
@Thomond Park wrote:
landscape destruction, groundwater pollution, childhood obesity, social isolation etc
Landscape destruction – I have yet to see an urban settlement that doesn’t involve ‘landscape destruction’;
Groundwater pollution – if it is a problem, it is easily solved by improving technologies – if this is expensive, then of course those who use it should pay themselves;
Childhood obesity – ???? a rural problem?? Surely the distance between a one-off house and a fast-ffod restaurant would be a helath bonus. The easy accessibaility of Mc Donalds etc in cities would surely suggest that the opposite is actually the case and urban kids are more exposed to the possibility of childhood obesity?
Social isolation – nobody forces someone to live in a one-off. They choose it themselves. If it is lonely, then that is a choice they made. Tough shit, basically. Mind you, large scale urban settlements are also infamous for social isolation so population density is not necessarily a solution for social isolation. Indeed, many would argue that social isolation is more of a phenomenon in an urban setting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
