Section 23 success or failure?
- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
Lazy question – what do you consider it’s (sic) objectives to be?
If you consider its objective to be part of an overall strategy to enable the rich in this country to pay little or no tax, then I’d say it has been a resounding success.
-
”a mechanism for leveaging private sector investment into areas of dereliction and decline” according to Bobby Molloy TD in 1998.
The new scheme launched that year accepted that some aspects of the scheme at that point had not been successful. The new scheme he stated would be required to ”take full account of the social needs in and effects on areas targeted for regeneration. It will therefore be an important objective under the new scheme to ensure that physical renewal contributes to social renewal. Architecture, design and conservation opportunities under the scheme must yield optimum results.”Personally I think Section 23 and the Living over the shop scheme have been abject failures.
-
Barry Hall wrote:” Architecture, design and conservation opportunities under the scheme must yield optimum results.”
[QUOTE]
On that basis it’s been an abject failure
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
