LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksGood on yer, Brian is a fine man. You're way out in your first sentence though.Originally Posted by Hana
But please share your thoughts with us about 'trouble ahead'. You don't mean in this thread, do you?
Good on yer, Brian is a fine man. You're way out in your first sentence though.
But please share your thoughts with us about 'trouble ahead'. You don't mean in this thread, do you?
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them
Where are your statistics?
This is the man who vehemently opposed the Ennis bypass until just before the last General election when he promptly made an about turn?Good on yer, Brian is a fine man. You're way out in your first sentence though.
But please share your thoughts with us about 'trouble ahead'. You don't mean in this thread, do you?
And also an advocate of the Nanny state where planning is concerned, I hear?
Sure, overall visitor numbers were up slightly last year although growth rates were down; cheaper flights helped maintain a growth. With higher fuel prices predicted, cheaper flights will all but disappear. CSO statistics say American visitor numbers were down, Irish Hotels Federation says UK. Most significantly, though, trends are towards short urban breaks.Where are your statistics?
Though I'm aware of the danger of anecdotal evidence, one aquaintance in the west is complaining bitterly of decreasing numbers of American visitors (upon which his very large business has up until recently thrived) whilst observing Dublin's 'fun city' image and its increase of tourist numbers. His response to the increased tourism figures was, "But they're staying in Dublin. We're not seeing them." Also anecdotally, several B&Bs in Clare I know are feeling the pinch and a large festival in the west where it is usually extremely difficult to get accommodation suffered from a decline in numbers. It was easy to get a bed, though!
In the context of this thread, that of planning blight, tourism is declining in the areas which will be most hit by more liberal planning laws. Read this to see what I mean:
http://www.calvin.utvinternet.com/cj...d/tourism.html
What I'm asking is, how can people who should be concerned about such a major earner as tourism encourage despoilation - for scattered housing is exactly that - of exactly the sort of thing that brings those tourists?
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them
I'll ask Brian himself. Why not?This is the man who vehemently opposed the Ennis bypass until just before the last General election when he promptly made an about turn?Good on yer, Brian is a fine man. You're way out in your first sentence though.
But please share your thoughts with us about 'trouble ahead'. You don't mean in this thread, do you?
And also an advocate of the Nanny state where planning is concerned, I hear?
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them
Yes, that's exactly our alternative. We want to kill off the rural communities by banning people living there [as opposed to FFs policy, which is to kill them off by making their inhabitants commute to Dublin 20 hours a week to work] and herding people into overcrowed cities where services are strechted.The Green alternative is to have less people living in the countryside and by extension less business with a market to support.
So their solution is to herd people into towns and send a token 'travelling shop' out to the remaining plebs? Are you going to recommend that more people live in urban settings thereby driving up house prices once more in those areas, putting pressure on green fields sites etc.?
I've already detailed what our alternative is, get back to me when you've read it.
Yes they are. Second homes blight the countryside remaining unoccupied for months on end. Typical FF to just say 'that's not the issue'.The Greens want to reduce second homes? Are you going to recommend demolishing the existing ones? Second homes are not the issue here anyway.
'Long history of scenic landscape' since the dawn of time [well, for the last few thousand years anyway] that has been ruined by one off housing. Rural communities [again,around since about the 11th century] destroyed by forcing people to commute to Dublin for work, by spending billions on infrastructure in Dublin but leaving rural bus services to fall apart etc.An absolutely ridiculous statement. Let's have more specifics please. Lets see the 'long history'?
The County Councils are there for a host of reasons, one of which is to protect the environment. Of course for FF their only role is as a stepping stone for power hungry FF cllrs.The County Council is there to provide services to people within the country environs. As you know urban areas have their own representatives who handle budgets within their environs.
Yes, as well as protect the environment, encourage tourism etc.The Council, therefore, must serve all their citizen's be they village dwellers or isolated farmers.
Once in a while something is so painfully obvious it does need figures. PROVIDING SERVICES=EXPENSIVE. THEREFORE, PROVIDING SERVICIES FOR ONE OFF HOUSING WILL COST LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOTS OF MONEY. Can you give me figures to confirm it WONT be expensive?To say that their resources are drained building one-off houses is again puzzling. Have you facts and figures to back this up?
Or good for a budding cllrs political future.It is standard practice for the council to insist on the likes of Bio-Tanks for effluent treatment, the existence of a quality water supply, the proposed dwelling to be designed with regard for development plans, county house plan designs etc and as mentioned the required use of certain materials.
It would be quite easy for a county council to modify these requirements to produce more environmentally sensitive houses, but as we all know going for the green option is not always financially viable.
Danny, Second hand homes are not the issue. The issue here is whether people who want to build a house on their own land should be permitted to do so - with of course reasnoble restrictions at the councils behest.
On the subject of landscapes, let me recall your statement:
Now you have modified this to-There's also a long history of beautiful landscapes known the world over-ruined by FF. There was also a history of sustainable rural communities-ruined by FF. We had a history of untouched Rivers and lakes-ruined by FF.
Therefore, since the 11th century FF have been ruining scenic landscapes? A fine achievement for a party that has only governed in this century.'Long history of scenic landscape' since the dawn of time [well, for the last few thousand years anyway] that has been ruined by one off housing. Rural communities [again,around since about the 11th century] destroyed by forcing people to commute to Dublin for work, by spending billions on infrastructure in Dublin but leaving rural bus services to fall apart etc.
Do you consider O'Brien's castle on the Cliffs of Moher one such development?
Do you consider Muckross House a blight on the landscape?
Have you any idea why the most remote of landscapes, which normally coincide with natural beauty, are also the most underpopulated save a few delapidated stone famine houses?
You appear to be looking at this from the perspective of the greater Dublin area. This issue affects the West of Ireland and that is the perspective I am taking.
The council can protect the environment, as I said, by insisting , as many already do, on better self-services such as bio-tanks, water filtration.
Encouraging Tourism is not a primary duty of the County Council. As a green candidate, you should be arguing that Tourism puts more pressure on services and therefore should be also be contolled.
Your disdain for FF councillors is not surprising but is hardly objective.
Many of the councils obtain payments to subsidise the provision of some services. To say one-off houses will cost the councils 'lots of money' without even providing a shred of back up evidence is simply ridiculous.
The services under the councils remit are Water, sewerage and road transport. Water and sewerare I have mentioned already. Road maintenance has always been a council duty and should the increased tourism you seem to crave come to pass then it will be required.
In essence Danny you are using this a stick to beat FF and now approaching this from a Green perspective. Maybe you should talk to some real Greens - the ones who have populated some of these rural areas, live off the land, use dog leaves instead of tissue and live in sustainable houses. They will teach you about the environment.
Properly-managed (with regard to waste products) and architecturally-blended-in one-offs can be no problem whatsoever. What I think is worrying is the quantity of new housing which is being talked about. 'support our growth and social fabric of our rural communities' was how John Moloney put it. I don't think so. We're just talking about people with plenty of money who want to 'get away from it all' until there's nowhere left to go.
One-off houses in the country in many cases - I know this is subjective - can be ugly. This is related to the fact that the people building them tend to have more money and are always trying to be different.
Other problems which ensue from a liberal planning environment include:
- very, very few 'open spaces' free of man-made structures;
an increased dependency on cars;
light pollution;
a higher burden of cost to councils in road maintenance;
more litter in the countryside;
more noise, through construction and car use;
more drink driving (honest!);
increased use of resources, for instance, terracing saves on building materials, heating requirements, lighting etc;
all the energy needs required for these houses and the people in them have to be transported much further, as in the 'food miles' situation; this may seem unimportant at first but, collectively over the whole of a country, it may add very significantly to that country's contribution to environmental degradation;
road safety is a real issue: these people who move to the country always seem to be late for work, always have to get somewhere fast and we all know male suv drivers tend to be more arrogant than other drivers; I always say, country roads were made for ass and cart, not ass and car.
I'll stop there for the mom. There are votes to be had in weakening planning laws and it's not going to stop there. But it is a fact that in the long term, the more people there are, the more laws and restrictions there have to be, in order to keep everybody happy.
If and when there comes a recession and emigration takes hold again (why shouldn't it?) the only major industry will once again be tourism but there'll be no rural Ireland left. Just thousands of empty trophy houses going for a song.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them
The country as a whole isn't a tourist destination. If you took that attitude we wouldn't have any development. That would be great for tourist who want to see the ass and cart but not so great for the people of this country.
We are the least densly populated country in Europe. We should have a strong policy to encourage rural communities.
There are ways of dealing with every enviormental issue that comes with being in a modern progressive society. The solution is not to have everybody live in a shoebox apartment, cycle to work and pretend to be happy.
I work in Tourism in the West of Ireland. We are curently enjoying a Bumper year.
"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative."
Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote