Decentralisation

ishmael whale

oscarbravo wrote:

Whether it's a "reasonable share" or not is up for discussion.

Indeed, and defining what constitutes a reasonable share could probably exercise us in fruitless discussion for days. We could get lost in terminology, is the West’s share ‘reasonable’, ‘no more than should be expected’, ‘just about adequate, but less than its due’. But I expect we could at least agree that claims the West is utterly neglected are unwarranted.

oscarbravo wrote:

If, instead, you measure the local, social consequences of refusing to invest in the regions, you may come to a different conclusion.

Indeed, but I think you may have a different objective to other regional development advocates. Usually the success/failure of regional policy is judged, for example, on the extent to which regions achieved a rate of employment growth comparable to Dublin. Hence, the National Spatial Strategy focus on things like how employment might be diverted away from Dublin by concentrating on a small number of regional centres to create scale.
You seem to be querying this whole approach, i.e. that quantifiable things is not necessarily at the core of what we are trying to achieve, but rather unquantifiable things relating to quality of life. This is fair enough if that’s where you’re coming from. But does this mean that you are happy enough with Dublin continuing to grow significantly faster than the West and, consequently, that Dublin will then require the necessary material in terms of public transport, schools, whatever to cater for that population?
Raising another context, I don’t doubt that you’re well versed in the debate on one-off housing and concerns that we're ignoring physical limits to this kind of development. This extract from County Galway’s settlement plan puts what I’d want to say better than I can.

http://www.galway.ie/planning/developmentplan/settlement/word/Executive%20Summary.htm
5.0 The strategic threats
1. A continuation of the current trend in which most of the housing growth in the county is in the form of single houses in the countryside is not sustainable. In the short term the costs may not be noticeable but in the long term some of the costs could be catastrophic. These potential costs include damage to major aquifers and a decline in the status of Connemara as a tourist destination. Also there is a danger that, if an increasing proportion of the county’s new housing stock takes the form of isolated housing, it will result in a growing proportion of the county’s households becoming relatively isolated from essential services such as health provision and educational and financial services.

2. The efficiency of the delivery of services and facilities by both the public and private sectors is affected by the character of the settlement structure. To an increasing degree corporate investment is being concentrated on fewer locations. If there is not a more structured pattern of residential development in the county, involving a greater concentration of growth in towns in villages, an irreconcilable gulf will develop between, on the one hand, the desire to provide services and facilities, and, on the other hand, the ability to make provision because of the high costs of servicing an increasingly dispersed population.

My final quibble is simply to say rural living doesn’t have a monopoly on intangible benefits. Dublin, and our other cities, can also claim benefits that don’t appear on a spreadsheet. That’s why, strange as it may seem to KieranusTyranus, living West of Maynooth, never mind West of the Shannon, simply isn’t on my agenda at any price. I’m not alone in feeling a shiver of recognition at the lines

http://homepage.eircom.net/~abardubh/poetry/bearla/poem278.html
“Dublin made me and no little town
With the country closing in on its streets … ”

It’s tied up with a sense of being and a rejection of the received idea that the essence of Irishness was how closely you resembled Peig Sayers.Put another way, Kieran, if you feel so neglected why don’t you head East? Exactly.

oscarbravo wrote:

I agree with many of them that the regions could be better served, but I think we need to invest more imagination more so than more money to achieve it.

With all the above said, I’ve no essential objection to your conclusion, particularly the need to consider what resources are actually spent on.

black_jack

KieranusTyranus wrote:

If you think the west is getting so much investment then why arent you rushing across the shannon to live here?

The lack of decent sushi west of the shannon.

It's an overly simplistic argument, the west may be recieving more investment than it deserves per captia, more income flows into the west, in the form of subsidisation from Dublin and EC than they give back.

Combined with the fact that people living in a rural community choose to do so, with the fact that the move to rural community is being forced onto thousands of civil servants.

No one in govt is giving an explanation how decentralisation will work logistical, how departments will interact when they're miles apart, how ministers will work effectively when the constituency is one county, the dail in dublin and their ministry is in another.

oscarBravo

ishmael whale wrote:

...I expect we could at least agree that claims the West is utterly neglected are unwarranted.

Utterly neglected, no.

ishmael whale wrote:

Usually the success/failure of regional policy is judged, for example, on the extent to which regions achieved a rate of employment growth comparable to Dublin.

I wouldn't have thought employment growth would be such a pressing issue in a time of full employment.

ishmael whale wrote:

Hence, the National Spatial Strategy focus on things like how employment might be diverted away from Dublin by concentrating on a small number of regional centres to create scale.

I could be wrong, but I suspect the emphasis on diverting growth away from Dublin is motivated more by a concern about Dublin's untrammeled growth than by any desire to enhance the regions.

ishmael whale wrote:

You seem to be querying this whole approach, i.e. that quantifiable things is not necessarily at the core of what we are trying to achieve, but rather unquantifiable things relating to quality of life. This is fair enough if that’s where you’re coming from. But does this mean that you are happy enough with Dublin continuing to grow significantly faster than the West and, consequently, that Dublin will then require the necessary material in terms of public transport, schools, whatever to cater for that population?

My only concern about the growth rate of Dublin is the extent to which the poor management thereof will cost the country resources that could be put to better use.

ishmael whale wrote:

Raising another context, I don’t doubt that you’re well versed in the debate on one-off housing and concerns that we're ignoring physical limits to this kind of development. This extract from County Galway’s settlement plan puts what I’d want to say better than I can.

We're getting OT for this thread, but there's a wide spectrum between unsustainable one-off development and an all-or-nothing concentration on two cities. The concept of a village is quite a different thing in Ireland to what it is in England.

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m not alone in feeling a shiver of recognition at the lines...

By the same token, I was in Dublin last weekend, and out of it I thought I'd never get. I spent a couple of the most traumatic hours in recent memory in that hellhole called Dundrum Shopping and Torture Centre. For the life of me I can't see how that's considered sustainable. I didn't start to relax until Tarmonbarry, and I haven't fully recovered.

Apart from anything else, my exhaust emissions during the time I spent getting in and out of the Centre almost certainly exceeded what I produced on the entire leg of the journey west of the Shannon. It also took about as long.

NewDubliner

black_jack wrote:

No one in govt is giving an explanation how decentralisation will work logistical, how departments will interact when they're miles apart, how ministers will work effectively when the constituency is one county, the dail in dublin and their ministry is in another.

Not only that but the government is concealing the full cost of the project and is operating with no budget. The only figures that are admitted are those for the cost of buildings. These are probably conservative. The cost of IT, re-training and losses due to disruption has not been estimated.

The benefits for the unquantified costs are equally unquantified.

black_jack

NewDubliner wrote:

Not only that but the government is concealing the full cost of the project and is operating with no budget. The only figures that are admitted are those for the cost of buildings. These are probably conservative. The cost of IT, re-training and losses due to disruption has not been estimated.

The benefits for the unquantified costs are equally unquantified.

Not to mention the brain drain of qualified and intelligent people leaving because they don't fancy living on Conmel, or the dubious nature of the location of certain ministries, is the dept of the marine still going to offaly.

Just saying "that'll be fantastic, thats me sorted for a job for life, cause the ministry of health is just down the road" isn't a good justification.

themurt

oscarBravo wrote:

I wouldn't have thought employment growth would be such a pressing issue in a time of full employment.

Employment growth is the wrong concern, employment location is a far more pressing issue for those of us living in the increasingly wider Dublin commuter catchment area (Athlone, Tullamore, Mullingar and beyond in the Midlands region). In a time where child care is on the radar screens as an upcoming election issue and more and more are becoming aware that long commute times are detrimental to family wellbeing and is causing children to spend longer in care facilities, maybe the focus should be on creating jobs (public and private sector) outside Dublin in the first place.

I know that there are some civil servants who are commuting long distances everyday who would welcome the chance to work closer to home, but as to whether they are in significant numbers is another question.

The_Conductor

black_jack wrote:

is the dept of the marine still going to offaly.QUOTE]

Cavan actually, I believe, and its still on, yes..... (perfect sense that one, its a landlocked county......)

Regarding the argument about enhancing employment growth by moving jobs out of Dublin- if you check the discussion I had about this with an individual from Wexford who shall remain nameless (!) on the other decentralisation thread- I showed that the areas of highest unemployment in the country, contrary to popular belief, are not in fact the border areas or Wexford, but instead areas of inner Dublin and some of the suburbs.

As it would be all too easy to start re-ploughing the same ground again- I'm going to stop right now.

Shane

The_Conductor

I've heard rumours that the entire concept of the Decaf has been abondoned. Anyone know whats happening?

ishmael whale

oscarBravo wrote:

I could be wrong, but I suspect the emphasis on diverting growth away from Dublin is motivated more by a concern about Dublin's untrammeled growth than by any desire to enhance the regions.

The push for regional development comes from the regions, and I tend to interpret their main concern as, put simply, to get more jobs in their areas so population stay/grows. Remarks about this being good for Dublin tend to be added as an afterthought, possibly to avoid the question of the Eastern region’s infrastructure deficit.

oscarBravo wrote:

Apart from anything else, my exhaust emissions during the time I spent getting in and out of the Centre almost certainly exceeded what I produced on the entire leg of the journey west of the Shannon. It also took about as long.

At the risk of wandering off point, its possible to envisage a public transport solution for urban centres. But a settlement pattern based on people living in one-off housing, driving thirty miles this way to get to the shops and twenty miles that way to get to work, doesn’t. When you refer to the traditional Irish settlement pattern, presumably traditionally those people just had to walk out the door of their homes to be in their workplace and could meet most of their material needs from their immediate surroundings. But the current move to the countryside is not some back-to-nature, Year Zero kind of thing.
I’ll try to avoid labouring the point, but one-off housing today seems to attempt to merge the disadvantages of a dispersed population with an expectation that all the benefits of modern living will be available. There are knock-on effects on the general community. For example, a person living in one-off rural housing but working in a town is unlikely to use public transport to commute. That creates traffic in the town, and traffic that has no real public transport alternative. That’s where the sustainability argument comes in. We know there are things we can do to make city living more sustainable. But how do you make an urban lifestyle involving career employment, material wealth, specialised health services, whatever, sustainable in a rural setting?

Civil servants are just being dragged kicking and screaming into the real world of work, where jobs change and businesses move. They'll just have to make like the private sector, the workers they always want to compare themselves with when it comes to wage disputes, and put up.

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote:

Civil servants are just being dragged kicking and screaming into the real world of work, where jobs change and businesses move. They'll just have to make like the private sector, the workers they always want to compare themselves with when it comes to wage disputes, and put up.

Sure jobs change and businesses move- in the private sector this happens with consultation with the workforce- not at the political whim of someone trying to buy a few votes. In any case- the civil service is not like the private sector- we do not have the same rights as the private sector- we cannot refer disputes to the Labour Relations Commission or request remediation in matters detrimental to us. A lot of us did not originally work in the civil service- after I graduated I worked in the private sector for 6 years before taking a pretty massive paycut for the privilege of working 60 hour weeks in the civil service.

You appear to be part of the brigade who think that civil servants live some sort of a charmed existence...... we most certainly do not.

themurt

ishmael whale wrote:

But how do you make an urban lifestyle involving career employment, material wealth, specialised health services, whatever, sustainable in a rural setting?

Isn't that what the idea of gateway towns in the national spatial strategy supposed to address, where in the example of Athlone Tullamore and Mullingar working together they could address the needs of the three areas as one body, especially in terms of transport/information networks? However, years into the NSS little appears to have been done. People living in Tullamore still have no idea what's going on in Mullingar for example, and little in the line of options to get there if they did.

And since when was material wealth the sole domain of those who choose to live in towns/cities?

ishmael whale

themurt wrote:

...years into the NSS little appears to have been done.

Indeed, the NSS is allegedly meant to be the way forward and it is being ignored. Compare the amount of effort being put into implementing the NSS to the effort being put into the decentralisation programme, where the law of gravity would be suspended if necessary to shift a few bodies out of one office and into another. Ironically, the only developments that can be traced to the national spatial strategy are the fiddling of the retail planning guidelines to meet IKEA’s requirements for opening in Ballymun and the relaxation of guidelines on once-off housing. Another chance to promote meaningful regional development (in the sense of employment growth being diverted to major regional centres) is being squandered.

themurt wrote:

And since when was material wealth the sole domain of those who choose to live in towns/cities?

I think in its context what I mean is clear enough, which is the transfer of all the wherewithal of urban living into a rural setting creates an unsustainable dependency.

smccarrick

smccarrick wrote:

Troll......

Shane-the rest of your post is fine but that bit contravenes the charter.
In view of your exemplary posting record,I'm just warning you to use the report a post feature in future-just like someone did for yours to alert the mods to the troll accusation.
Ordinarally when combined with other warnings and or other bad behaviour it would be a banning offence.


While I'm here I'm merging the two decentralisation threads.

ishmael whale

Anther brilliant example of decentralisation working for you.

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/opinion/Full_Story/did-sgj-TWimCZpdwsgdL11Zs5FWAE.asp

29/09/05
Vetting unit - Reckless approach to child safety
Children’s Minister Brian Lenihan announced plans more than a year ago to expand the Garda Central Vetting Unit (CVU) to allow for background checks to be carried out on all staff working with children.

This was to entail an increase in the CVU’s staff from 13 to 30, but no real progress has been made since then. It was decided to do essentially nothing until CVU could be moved to Co Tipperary in line with decentralisation. A temporary site has now been procured and a garda spokesperson said the move would begin in late October, but there is no indication when the full staff compliment will be employed and operating.

The changes announced should be primarily about children, not the acquisition of property, or the movement of civil servants. The danger to children was highlighted earlier this month with the disclosure by the media that a convicted sex offender was employed as a bus driver for children with special needs.

Olwyn Enright, the Fine Gael spokesperson on education, was being generous when she accused the Government of adopting a “casual approach” to the issue of child safety. The approach should more accurately be described as reckless.

smccarrick

smccarrick wrote:

Sure jobs change and businesses move- in the private sector this happens with consultation with the workforce

My wife, who has just been told she now has a 60 mile daily round trip because of a transfer of undertaking, will be most interested by this concept of consultation. She was told by letter that the deal was done and they could move or quit. The legal advice was that if she raised a really big fuss, she might get a couple of weeks wages out of them before leaving, but of course the reference might not be great. That's the real world of the private sector. The rights that you talk of really exist only in textbooks.

I should point out, in fairness, that my brother has been in the civil service for 20 years and is relocating. I'd be surprised if he, or his colleagues, have ever worked a 60 hour month, let alone week. I don't doubt you do, I do it every week too and know what it's like. Can I take it you get the same overtime (€0.00 per hour) as me?

ishmael whale

Deleted User wrote:

I'd be surprised if he, or his colleagues, have ever worked a 60 hour month, let alone week. I don't doubt you do, I do it every week too and know what it's like. Can I take it you get the same overtime (€0.00 per hour) as me?

Much as I enjoy seeing life imitating art as you recreate Monty Python’s ‘Four Yorkshiremen’ sketch, can I point out that you are way off beam. The point is not the impact this has on the terms and conditions of civil servants. The scheme is voluntary, and while they might be able to point to an amount of moral or indirect pressure to move, essentially they are promised a job at their present level in Dublin for as long as they wish.
The problem with the scheme is that it creates expense for the taxpayer with no corresponding benefit, and a considerable risk of loss. Never mind the sheer weirdness of the idea that the whole staff of, say, the Probation Service should be rotated just to move it to Navan for the crack. The programme is a waste of resources that could better be spent elsewhere. No-one in their right mind could support it.

http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm
…. Fourth Yorkshireman: I was happier then and I had nothin'. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof.
Second Yorkshireman:House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling…..

ishmael whale

ishmael whale wrote:

The scheme is voluntary

Voluntary? Voluntary? Oh the luxury of 'voluntary'. My wife had the soles of her feet whipped till she agreed to go, and even at that she has to walk there and back now...

The_Conductor

Yes- as an EO working in an administrative role, we do not get overtime at all (though we can work up time-in-lieu, but more often than not there is no time to take off the time-in-lieu as we are so short staffed).......

Re: voluntary........
While decentralisation is allegedly a 'voluntary' activity- the implications of not 'volunteering' while implied rather than spelt out, are such that you have no option- i.e. the exact same as your wife....... and also, similar to your wife- it has been spelt out that there will be no relocation assistance or costs associated with decentralisation, of any nature whatsoever.......

Progress? I don't know......

oscarBravo

ishmael whale wrote:

...how do you make an urban lifestyle involving career employment, material wealth, specialised health services, whatever, sustainable in a rural setting?

Move to a knowledge-based economy where people can do their work wherever they happen to be, rather than requiring them to travel to a traditional office- or factory-bound paradigm.

It's already happening, and the good news is that the required infrastructure costs a lot less than that required for the old industrial model.

themurt

ishmael whale wrote:

...how do you make an urban lifestyle involving career employment, material wealth, specialised health services, whatever, sustainable in a rural setting?

Lets not exaggerate the rural setting we're talking about. The smallest towns mentioned in the decentralisation plans have poplulations of about 10,000 people, small compared to the greater Dublin area I'll grant you, but not exactly rolling countryside either.

Looking at just the three points you mentioned in your earlier post:

Career employment. how about employment full stop? Tullamore (my hometown) lost an average of 100 jobs a month in 2002, mine included. Most of these were manufacturing jobs that had been in the town for several years and were shipped overseas to lower cost labour countries like China. Donegal is going through the same thing at the moment. I would imagine it would be easier for service related enterprises to establish outside major urban centres then it would have been for those manufacturers who had serious logistical issues from not being next to a sea/airport? Careers outside of major urban centres are possible and should be sustainable, but there is a nationwide issue relating to employment that needs to be addressed.

Material wealth. I appreciate what you're getting at with this, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect to earn €100k+ as a financial services exec based in Ballycumber, but at the same time it wouldn't be reasonable to expect to pay €1m+ for a three bedroomed house in the middle of the bog either. Salaries are going to be relative but the employment is needed first.

Specialised health services. No need for a neurology centre in Tullamore when Beaumont is only an air ambulance ride away (nearest air ambulance is, to the best of my knowledge, based in Dublin, but we won't go into that), and anyway the rural midlands region is served by some exceptional hospitals, Mullingar has always been good and Tullamore is top notch too especially with the new building coming on stream shortly. When it comes to healthcare there's no excuse, every part of the country should have reasonable levels of facilities and services, the specialised facilities should be available where they are needed and most easily accessable.

This is just from my viewpoint, living as I do outside a big city. What would really make a rural lifestyle sustainable is if there was a reason for the provincial towns to develop and grow. One complaint you often hear about Tullamore is that "there's nothing there", decentralisation, while maybe not the best mechanism, does offer something new to the town, in the shape of new people and (to a greater or lesser degree) some new opportunities for locals.

themurt

Deleted User wrote:

My wife, who has just been told she now has a 60 mile daily round trip because of a transfer of undertaking

Know the feeling.... when my private sector job went bye bye in 2002 my 2 mile daily round trip jumped to an 80 mile round trip, which is still shorter than if I'd decided to commute to Dublin, as lots of people in Tullamore do (approx. 120 mile round trip), not that this has anything to do with Yorkshiremen or anything, but there's a strange acceptance of long-distance commuting that seems to be getting worse and worse all the time. Where I'm working now we have two people on staff who live near work during the week and go home to their families at the weekends (both are fathers of young children) as the commute got too much and relocating the family isn't an option.

What's that got to do with decentralisation? Some of those Tullamore commuters are civil servants too, I personally know of two who are desperate for decentralisation to kick in.

ishmael whale

Oscarbravo wrote:

Move to a knowledge-based economy where people can do their work wherever they happen to be, rather than requiring them to travel to a traditional office- or factory-bound paradigm.

If indeed people who currently need to travel find they can simply work at or near home at some activity that generates a reasonable income, it would remove the need to drive thirty miles that way to work. I’m not sure that this will provide a solution for many people, and it still leaves the need to drive twenty miles that way to the shops, along with general issues relating to access to education, health services and so forth. But it could mitigate the need to travel for employment.

themurt wrote:

The smallest towns mentioned in the decentralisation plans have poplulations of about 10,000 people

Decentralisation is simply a meaningless action. As the link I quoted above illustrates, it brings negligible downstream benefits.

themurt wrote:

Careers outside of major urban centres are possible and should be sustainable, but there is a nationwide issue relating to employment that needs to be addressed.

The essential point of the NSS is recognising that, to generate significant employment, you need a centre with reasonable economies of scale. Now, to be honest with you, the underlying NSS analysis was that even Cork and Limerick would find it hard to compete. However, the NSS plan based on that analysis cast the net much wider than that, but still retaining the concept of a need for scale – hence as you point out the Athlone/Tullamore/Mullingar triangle as none of these towns would be seen as having enough scale on its own. Scale is certainly an issue, and it is reported that companies want locations with enough scale to possess good universities, financial institutions, professional services, whatever. So I wouldn’t assume that we’ll find plenty of services industries out there willing to locate to areas that don’t offer these advantages.

themurt wrote:

every part of the country should have reasonable levels of facilities and services, the specialised facilities should be available where they are needed and most easily accessable.

I don’t think anyone can argue with that principle, but a lengthy argument could be had over what constitutes reasonable access. The ill-fated Hanly report provided a vision that would make some specialities more generally available in the regions. As we know, that vision also involved some closures of services. Thus far, rationality hasn't had a lot to do with the level of health services provision in any area.

themurt wrote:

One complaint you often hear about Tullamore is that "there's nothing there", decentralisation, while maybe not the best mechanism, does offer something new to the town,

Indeed, but the question is at what cost. The cost of moving the first 3,500 civil servants has been estimated at €900 million, or €260,000 a pop. I saw somewhere a comment to the effect that this is a multiple of what the IDA would be allowed to offer any prospective employer. Its just nuts, and far too much to pay for no practical benefit. Do you not feel it would be better to seek a similar level of resourcing for some local service that might actually be useful? Then at least the money wouldn't be going up in smoke.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/story/1043243.html
DECENTRALISATION: according to an article in today's Irish Independent, the decentralisation programme will cost the taxpayer almost €260,000 for every civil servant who relocates out of Dublin. Junior minister Tom Parlon revealed yesterday that €900m had been earmarked for decentralisation to pay for 3,492 jobs being moved from Dublin at a cost of €257,731 each.

themurt wrote:

Some of those Tullamore commuters are civil servants too, I personally know of two who are desperate for decentralisation to kick in.

Fine, but €900 million is a lot to pay to give a few thousand people a shorter commute. For the sake of argument, the same resources would go a very long way toward making Iarnrod Eireann’s ‘interconnector’ proposal a reality, which would revolutionise commuter rail services into and around the capital.

themurt

ishmael whale wrote:

...the underlying NSS analysis was that even Cork and Limerick would find it hard to compete

Which is a glaring reason something (not necessarily decentralisation) must be done to improve the competitiveness of these cities and other locations around the country, before the concept of the city state really takes hold and Dublin advances further and further ahead of the rest of the country.

ishmael whale wrote:

Do you not feel it would be better to seek a similar level of resourcing for some local service that might actually be useful? Then at least the money wouldn't be going up in smoke.

I do as a matter of fact. As you point out the IDA (or is it Enterprise Ireland - wonder how much that name change cost?) are only able to offer financial assistance to private enterprises that is a fraction of the decentralisation cost. The County Enterprise Boards are another group who should be able to do more, if only they had the cash. Then there are the VEC's who could always use more funding for the provision of education, you might have seen in todays' Independent a small article about the shortfall in education in Co. Offaly. The list goes on and on, town councils, county councils, all could use more funding to do better things for their areas.

ishmael whale wrote:

Fine, but €900 million is a lot to pay to give a few thousand people a shorter commute. For the sake of argument, the same resources would go a very long way toward making Iarnrod Eireann’s ‘interconnector’ proposal a reality, which would revolutionise commuter rail services into and around the capital.

Would be skeptical about that, remembering as I do how the same Iarnrod Eireann wanted to downgrade Tullamore station a couple of years ago, thus reducing the number of trains to and from the capital that would stop there each day. As well as that, while €900m would be an lot to spend simply to reduce commuter times I wonder how much would be saved on childcare costs (going to be an election issue) and what the non-fiscal benefits would be, especially in terms of quality of life?

I'm by no means convinced that decentralisation is even workable yet alone a good idea, but unless the government plays its part in some way then the lopsided development of the country will continue.

Dinarius

Just reported on Five Seven Live on RTE Radio 1........

The cost of land in the decentralisation fiasco has been revealed to be running at, on average, €430,000 an acre. I kid you not.

That is more than twice the cost, per acre, of the much disputed prison site in North Dublin.

Thusfar, 130+ civil servants have been decentralised at a cost of about€250k each.

If this was a PLC, it would be considered criminal.

One of the reasons given for the program was the low infrastructure cost it would incur, given its rural base. It is now apparent that landowners in the chosen towns are making an extraordinary killing.

This could only happen in Ireland.

This is, quite literally, vote buying.

D.

themurt

Dinarius wrote:

The cost of land in the decentralisation fiasco has been revealed to be running at, on average, €430,000 an acre. I kid you not.

Where the hell are they buying land at that price outside Dublin an ACRE?!!?!

RicardoSmith

Dinarius wrote:

...This is, quite literally, vote buying...

Thats all it is. Doesn't make sense on any other level.

NewDubliner

smccarrick wrote:

I've heard rumours that the entire concept of the Decaf has been abondoned. Anyone know whats happening?

Not so, this from a press release on http://www.tomparlon.ie/news.php?id=10

The Minister stated that this Government policy will be implemented in full. The Minister said, “I can understand the concerns of the members of the Union and am confident that any and all of the issues raised can be resolved through detailed discussions between the Department of Finance and Union Officials. Progress has been made and is continuing on the acquisition of sites and properties and the time-table set by the Decentralisation Implementation Group can be achieved”.

Dinarius

Not really relevant here, but what we need is to do to our 'party of the establishment' what the Brits did to theirs in 1997. i.e. Annihilation forcing an entire rethink.

Granted, this is extremely unlikely without a change in our electoral system, which is itself unlikely.

But, we could have the best of both worlds, namely, proportional representation combined with SINGLE seater constituencies, like the Germans.

This would have two effects:

1. It would mitigate the appalling clientele-ism that is at the heart of multi-seater politics.

2. It would do away with the way in which our system permits genuinely popular and worthy candidates, who top the poll, electing pond life further down the list, via their transfers.

OK, I know it's not relevant, but I had to say it.............! ;-)

This decentralisation business is making me sick.

D.

NewDubliner

Dinarius wrote:

Not really relevant here, but what we need is to do to our 'party of the establishment' what the Brits did to theirs in 1997. i.e. Annihilation forcing an entire rethink.

This assumes that an alternative government would drop the project.

Even if say, a FG/PD alliance got into power, they'ed be sorely tempted to take advantage of the many political opportunities:

1: Anti-Dublin sentiment.
2: Anti-'people with good jobs' sentiment.
3: Windfall gains from selling off public properties.
4: Building industry enthusiasm for new contracts.
5: Genuine desire by long-distance commute public servants to be relocated.
6: Rural public servants who are trying to relocate.
7: Promotion 'tourists'.

As long as a bottomless pit of taxpayer's money is available to fund it, this project is going to stay on the agenda.

ishmael whale

NewDubliner wrote:

As long as a bottomless pit of taxpayer's money is available to fund it, this project is going to stay on the agenda.

I'd say the points you raise probably accurately describe the motivations of the framers of the decentralisation programme. On the other hand, the decentralisation programme hasn’t really produced the electoral gains FF expected in the local elections. They were annihilated in Waterford because radiotherapy was the issue that exercised people.
Its true that some people have a knee-jerk support for the decentralisation programme because it sounds as if it’s doing something for regional development. However, few enough persist in that belief when the obvious flaws of the proposal are pointed out. Most appreciate that the same resources could actually do more for them if used for some necessary purpose.
Some idea along the lines of allocating the resources that decentralisation would waste and instead allocating them for projects in NSS designated centres outside Dublin could actually do more to reap the electoral gains that decentralisation has failed to yield.

Sponge Bob

In Galway they face a heavy wipeout in Clifden and especially in Ballinasloe over this (non) decentralisation .

Dinarius

Sponge Bob wrote:

In Galway they face a heavy wipeout in Clifden and especially in Ballinasloe over this (non) decentralisation .

What exactly do you mean?

They're going to lose out because they're not going ahead with decentralisation in those towns, or because those towns weren't included in the divi up?

D.

ishmael whale

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/decentralisation/decencafsept04.pdf

42 jobs are due to go to Clifden, (ADM – I think it has something to do with funding voluntary organisations?) for which 3 people volunteered, 2 of which are from people already based in regional locations. The National Roads Authority were earmarked for Ballinasloe – 89 jobs for which they received 6 applications, 3 of which are already in regional locations. 8 Jobs in the Railway Safety Commission are also earmarked for Ballinasloe for which they have received no (0) applications. .

Clearly in these cases decentralisation simply isn’t a runner. So, notwithstanding decentralisation being a crock of a policy in any event, inevitably they need to think about something else if they want to give Ballinasloe and Clifden some pork.

Victor

ishmael whale wrote:

The National Roads Authority were earmarked for Ballinasloe – 89 jobs for which they received 6 applications, 3 of which are already in regional locations. 8 Jobs in the Railway Safety Commission are also earmarked for Ballinasloe for which they have received no (0) applications. .

Expect a split in the NRA soon, with part of it joining with the NSC to form the Road Safety Authority.

fly_agaric

NewDubliner wrote:

Even if say, a FG/PD alliance got into power, they'ed be sorely tempted to take advantage of the many political opportunities:

1: Anti-Dublin sentiment...

One can never underestimate how much people in the rest of the country just love to see Dublin get píssed on from a great height.

The_Conductor

Notes from the Decentralisation meeting held on 28.09.05
Should be on the PSEU website later this morning.

Shane

The_Conductor

I note:

A total of 998 couples have applied under the CAF. In some cases, both will qualify and be offered re-location. In other cases one of the people concerned might qualify for an offer whereas the other might not. Potentially anything up to 500 people, therefore, could be in this position.

Being in this situation myself- it will be interesting to see how they approach it. My s/o is contractually bound to go to Drogheda (DSFA) while my post is going to Portlaoise. The Decentralisation Policy Unit have told me personally that as Drogheda is over subscribed at my grade (and at all grades- as people intend to use it as a commutable location) that I it is highly unlikely that I will be offered a position there. As my s/o is still under probation- she has been told she will not be allowed transfer out of her Department........

998 couples getting sent to disparate locations- and 500 people ineligible to apply to be transferred together. Bet you they didn't see that one coming.......

This gets better and better.....

holly_johnson

I like the part about the Dept Finance moving in staff for Tullamore and not moving out the same numbers. They think they are infallible and answer to a different standard than all other Depts!

NewDubliner

smccarrick wrote:

998 couples getting sent to disparate locations- and 500 people ineligible to apply to be transferred together. Bet you they didn't see that one coming.......

Not a problem: just get people to swap partners.

black_jack

KieranusTyranus wrote:

Ok I accept the majority of people in Dublin and the surrounding counties are against it. But I seriously believe that it is one of the few good ideas this government has come up with. The only problem with it is that it doesnt go far enough. The rural areas of the country ( in paticular the West Borders and Midlands) get sweet **** all infasructure and development from the government and this has to change.

Kieran, I hope you're paying attention

smccarrick wrote:

Being in this situation myself- it will be interesting to see how they approach it. My s/o is contractually bound to go to Drogheda (DSFA) while my post is going to Portlaoise. The Decentralisation Policy Unit have told me personally that as Drogheda is over subscribed at my grade (and at all grades- as people intend to use it as a commutable location) that I it is highly unlikely that I will be offered a position there. As my s/o is still under probation- she has been told she will not be allowed transfer out of her Department........

998 couples getting sent to disparate locations- and 500 people ineligible to apply to be transferred together. Bet you they didn't see that one coming.......

You're getting an example of how this pointless and unnecessary move is affecting and will affect hundreds of people. What do you think 900 families looking for houses will do to house prices in Drogdhea?

Instead of lording some delusional self agrandising benefits this program is giving some rural communties you could look at the impact it has on our civil servants.

ishmael whale

IMPACT probably have their own agenda, but this complaint is close to the point. Why spend a pile of money so a few people can live closer to mammy in Clifden, and get a promotion into the bag? What makes decentralisation the thing we have to turn the world on its head to achieve?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/10/04/story223818.html
Govt ‘promoting junior staff to fill decentralisation deficit’
04/10/2005 - 13:53:06

IMPACT has accused the Government of planning to promote junior staff to cover up problems with the decentralisation programme. The trade union claimed today that the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition was planning to fill decentralised posts by promoting junior staff at an unknown cost to the taxpayer.

It said the move was being implemented because senior and specialist staff did not want to move out of Dublin to new locations around the country.IMPACT said it now appeared that the most important qualification for a job in the civil service was not performance or skill, but a willingness to move out of the capital.

Tuars

black_jack wrote:

Instead of lording some delusional self agrandising benefits this program is giving some rural communties you could look at the impact it has on our civil servants.

And if you have no sympathy for civil servants you should look at the impact decentralisation has on the civil service itself. I don't think the country can afford to demolish and rebuild the civil service in this way. It's going to have a massive negative impact on our ability to run the country for many years to come.

NewDubliner

Parlon was interviewed on RTE 6.1. He's positioning himself as just dealing in the properties and is setting up Finance to take the blame when the numbers come up short. Also still claiming that Impact is holding out for a deal, even though Impact have asked for nothing other than that it's members be allowed to stay in Dublin.

uncivilservant

NewDubliner wrote:

Parlon was interviewed on RTE 6.1. He's positioning himself as just dealing in the properties and is setting up Finance to take the blame when the numbers come up short. Also still claiming that Impact is holding out for a deal, even though Impact have asked for nothing other than that it's members be allowed to stay in Dublin.

http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2080124.smil

Victor

NewDubliner wrote:

Parlon was interviewed on RTE 6.1. He's positioning himself as just dealing in the properties and is setting up Finance to take the blame when the numbers come up short. Also still claiming that Impact is holding out for a deal, even though Impact have asked for nothing other than that it's members be allowed to stay in Dublin.

Ties interestingly with the bit below. While I imagine a lot of it is down to roads, I suspect a bit of it might be down to Decentralisation also.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/6449561?view=Eircomnet

Budgetary position still ahead of target, data shows

....

The deficit of capital expenditure over capital revenue amounted to just €3,361 million for the first three quarters, compared with a budgeted deficit of €7,080 for the year.

Excluding the impact of so-called capital carryover effects, where unspent money is carried forward from one year to the next, capital spending rose by just 3.2 per cent in the year to September, compared with a revised estimate of 12.5 per cent for the year.

Tom Heffernan, principal officer in the public expenditure division of the department, said that difficulties concerning the acquisition of land were affecting capital spending across a range of projects.

.....

"Once again the Government has shown itself incapable of delivering its projected infrastructure projects. It is four years since the Taoiseach has promised a national strategic infrastructure Bill to speed up the delivery of key infrastructures. It will be years before we see this appear," said Mr Bruton.

NewDubliner

From Today's Independent:

2,000 civil servants to transfer by 2006
ADVERTISEMENT

UP tp 2,000 civil servants are expected to have moved to new decentralised locations around the country by the end of next year.

Junior Minister, Tom Parlon, said staff transferring from one Department to another does not present a difficulty.

Fine Gael deputy Richard Bruton questioned the transfer of staff, asking how they could allow members of staff in a non-related Department or agency to join the Health and Safety Authority for example, as an inspector.

"We want the organisations affected to do their job effectively. We do not want to fit square pegs into round holes," Mr Bruton said.

However, Minister Parlon defended decentralisation saying he anticipates the ability of staff to work in a Department of their choice close to where they live would have a positive impact on efficiency and eliminate the need to commute for five or six hours a day.

Geraldine Collins
Dail Correspondent

Parlon seems to be substituting wishful thinking for planning.

How many of the 2000 are leaving Dublin?

holly_johnson

I have just watched the Parlon ionterview on 6-1. Does anyone know what building in Ballsbridge he is referring to selling?? I sincerely hope it is not the one I am currently based in!!
If it is, nothing will surprise me anymore, sure why tell the staff that we are going to be shunted to somewhere else? That would involve giving a crap about us, not something I feel is likely to happen any time soon.

ishmael whale

However, Minister Parlon defended decentralisation saying he anticipates the ability of staff to work in a Department of their choice close to where they live would have a positive impact on efficiency and eliminate the need to commute for five or six hours a day.

Leaving aside the fantasy of five to six hours commutes being a common experience, and the far more effective ways of reducing commuting times than moving a handful of office staff from one town to another, Parlon is again sidestepping the issue of the lack of sense of the whole exercise.
Is he suggesting that a Cartographer can fill a post as a Probation Officer, while an administrator from the Department of Social Welfare takes over his old job in the Ordnance Survey, and a former Quantity Surveyor from the Office of Public Works takes over their IT systems? And what happens to all the Cartographers who opt to stay in Dublin? Do we redeploy them on full salary onto some FAS scheme, as we understand jobs are to be available for anyone not decentralising? To reveal the essential imbecility of the whole scheme, all you need to do is follow the Cartographers.

NewDubliner wrote:

How many of the 2000 are leaving Dublin?

Last time I looked, roughly half of the applications for the new locations were from people already located in regional centres, and the bulk of Dublin volunteers were seeking to move to Mid-Eastern/Eastern locations such as Newbridge and Trim.

Zaph0d

From yesterday's Dáil debate:

Mr. Bruton: How can we allow members of staff in a non-related Department or agency join the Health and Safety Authority as inspectors? We want the organisations affected to do their job effectively. We do not want to fit square pegs into round holes.


Mr. Parlon: Of the 10,600 civil servants affected by decentralisation, approximately 1,000 are specialist staff while the others are ...

I was waiting for him to say 'monkeys with salaries'

...ordinary civil servants from various grades.