Decentralisation

Zynks

I suspect one reason (in addition to many other ones mentioned here) is the feeling that civil servants would have of financial loss from moving from a property in an area that is (was) performing so strongly to the country. If that is a factor, they might be wishing they had taken the move earlier this year cashing out at the peak.

RainyDay

vesp wrote:

Cannot believe the number of posts on this. Given the much higher property prices / office rents / commuting times etc in Dublin, and the amount of country folk working in Dublin who want to work closer to home, surely the logical thing is decentralisation ? It would save a fortune in commuting / help the environment / save money. Especially in these days of e-mail etc when you can work from anywhere. ( Even many call centres are now located in India etc ). A few govt employees tell me the objections are to do with looking for Com-PEN-SayTION for moving.

Don't feed the trolls, folks. Vesp is just looking for attention.

Zynks

RainyDay wrote:

Don't feed the trolls, folks. Vesp is just looking for attention.

Yeah, you would think there is a culture of suing and compensation in this country by reading vesp's post. Very misleading...:rolleyes:

TempestSabre

Zynks wrote:

I suspect one reason (in addition to many other ones mentioned here) is the feeling that civil servants would have of financial loss from moving from a property in an area that is (was) performing so strongly to the country. If that is a factor, they might be wishing they had taken the move earlier this year cashing out at the peak.

That doesn't make sense. They only make a loss if they sell at a loss. How likely is that in the current market? You could rent a Dubin Property and have it pay for the rent of another down the country if you want to keep your property in Dublin.

TempestSabre

vesp wrote:

Cannot believe the number of posts on this. Given the much higher property prices / office rents / commuting times etc in Dublin, and the amount of country folk working in Dublin who want to work closer to home, surely the logical thing is decentralisation ? It would save a fortune in commuting / help the environment / save money. Especially in these days of e-mail etc when you can work from anywhere. ( Even many call centres are now located in India etc ). A few govt employees tell me the objections are to do with looking for Com-PEN-SayTION for moving.

Well if you work out how much it will save do tell us, because even the Govt doesn't know that, and all indications are that it will make the Civil\ Public Service more expensive than it is now. Extra staff, extra premises, more traveling expenses and people being promoted/placed because they want to move to a specific location rather than their skills or experience.

In almost all the discussion on this, in the media for example, compensation hasn't been an issue since there isn't any, and there was never any. The main issues are with the disruption to the services, peoples careers, and the wide ranging family issues it causes.

I suspect you either know all of this and are ignoring it. Or really know nothing about the issue at all, other than soundbites which you pick up the media, and from politicians for the sheeple. You might aswell claim that people are looking for free moon trips.

NewDubliner

Zynks wrote:

I suspect one reason (in addition to many other ones mentioned here) is the feeling that civil servants would have of financial loss from moving from a property in an area that is (was) performing so strongly to the country. If that is a factor, they might be wishing they had taken the move earlier this year cashing out at the peak.

Where did you get that from? I've never seen that put forward as a reason by any of the people who don't want to move. Did you just make it up?

The proponents of the current so-call 'decentralisation' scheme are in denial. They ignore the family values of Dublin people and make up reasons such as they're holding out for grubby profit on selling their modest houses and for compensation for selling out on their families.

Why not accept that the people want to stay in Dublin because that's where they like living, prefer the quality of life in Dublin, and that's where there families want to live and to stay near their friends and relatives?

If the government thinks that insulting family-loving Dubliners is going to get them elected in Dublin, they really need to do some focus groups.

The_Conductor

TempestSabre wrote:

You could rent a Dubin Property and have it pay for the rent of another down the country if you want to keep your property in Dublin.

Actually- any income derived from renting their home in Dublin, as it would presumably no longer be their place of principal residence, would be entirely taxable. Renting a house down the country would incur a maximum tax credit of Euro 300 per annum. Unless they fiddled their taxes, which civil servants would be highly unlikely to do, one would not necessarily pay for the other. It could be argued that costs would be deductable from rental income before calculation of tax due on rental income- however all this means is the pot available for renting a property in which to live is further reduced. I am personally aware of three cases (1 man and 2 women) before the IRT at present of staff from a semi state who decentralised with their jobs to two locations and have had to keep their Dublin homes where their spouses are now living with their children- as their spouses would not have been able to find similar work to that they are currently engaged in within commutable distance of the newly decentralised state body, while the other spouse is now in rental accomodation (or a bedsit in one case) local to their decentralised job. Their families are split up. I can't go into details on this forum for obvious reasons- suffice to say, there are current examples of families being split up- husband and children in Dublin, wife on her own other than at the weekends in an area not on a railway line or within readily commutable distance of her Dublin home.

S.

Zynks

NewDubliner wrote:

Where did you get that from? I've never seen that put forward as a reason by any of the people who don't want to move. Did you just make it up?

Note that I didn't exclude other reasons mentioned before in this thread, but this one comes from my own experience. I have considered moving to the country and the rapid appreciation of my house helped hold me back (t wasn't the only nor the main reason). Now that the market has stalled, I am aware of the impact that a downturn may have on my net equity and how this reduces the likelihood of such a plan ever become a reality. So, considering civil servants are human and susceptible to the same feelings as me, I thought it would be a valid argument. But then, your guess is as good as mine if this is the case.

Hotblack Desiato

vesp wrote:

Nobody is forcing them to move.

So don't criticise them for putting their families' interests ahead of the government's hairbrained plan.

They can continue being inefficient.

Your bias is noted.
But how is scattering people to 53 itty-bitty offices going to improve efficiency?

very miffed dub

I've tried to keep away from this thread but this statement lured me back!!

vesp wrote:

Nobody is forcing them to move.

I WAS forced to leave a job that I was highly skilled and excellent at [I have several FIUNTAS (sp) awards to prove it] because I refused to move my family to the new location which was over 100 miles away. I loved my old job but I wasn't prepared to move my children away from family, friends, schools, etc. just because the FF politicians decided to implement this farce.

My new job is boring as hell but at least it's a job!!!

From my practical on-the-ground experience of the decentralisation process - it's a complete farce and is just a vote grabbing exercise to try and get more votes from the constituencies which will benefit from this shambolic process.

I personally know of at least two people who are 'whitewalling' at the moment. The section they worked in has left for the new location and they are left twiddling their thumbs doing absolutely nothing for the required 6.57 hours every day and YOU (the taxpayer) are paying for this.

What really irks me is the loss of expertise and knowledge. At the end of the day, it's YOU, the public will suffer when services aren't delivered. So much for the ethos of 'Customer Service'.

I've heard (from remaining experienced staff - only 3 now) that the new inexperienced staff in my old job are getting the excuses ready for when they fail to meet targets, etc. No doubt they'll say they didn't get adequate training or some other excuse.

By the way it's impossible to find out anything about costs etc. We tried submitting an FOI request and it was turned down........surprise surprise!!!! I would also like to see a record of sick leave in the Dublin based Phase 1 non-movers because the levels of stress were unbearable but I suppose I've more hope of winning the Lotto jackpot on Wednesday than getting this information!!!

sligobhoy67

very miffed dub wrote:

I've tried to keep away from this thread but this statement lured me back!!



I WAS forced to leave a job that I was highly skilled and excellent at [I have several FIUNTAS (sp) awards to prove it] because I refused to move my family to the new location which was over 100 miles away. I loved my old job but I wasn't prepared to move my children away from family, friends, schools, etc. just because the FF politicians decided to implement this farce.

My new job is boring as hell but at least it's a job!!!

From my practical on-the-ground experience of the decentralisation process - it's a complete farce and is just a vote grabbing exercise to try and get more votes from the constituencies which will benefit from this shambolic process.

I personally know of at least two people who are 'whitewalling' at the moment. The section they worked in has left for the new location and they are left twiddling their thumbs doing absolutely nothing for the required 6.57 hours every day and YOU (the taxpayer) are paying for this.

What really irks me is the loss of expertise and knowledge. At the end of the day, it's YOU, the public will suffer when services aren't delivered. So much for the ethos of 'Customer Service'.

I've heard (from remaining experienced staff - only 3 now) that the new inexperienced staff in my old job are getting the excuses ready for when they fail to meet targets, etc. No doubt they'll say they didn't get adequate training or some other excuse.

By the way it's impossible to find out anything about costs etc. We tried submitting an FOI request and it was turned down........surprise surprise!!!! I would also like to see a record of sick leave in the Dublin based Phase 1 non-movers because the levels of stress were unbearable but I suppose I've more hope of winning the Lotto jackpot on Wednesday than getting this information!!!

IMO it is a necessary evil. Similar to a third world country this country to massively Dublincentric and the development and Dublin is proportion to the rest of the country is unhealthy for Dublin (hence the meltdown in terms of infrastructure) and not healthy for the country either.

In my opinion decentralisation does not go far enough - I honestly think more should be moved out over Dublin.

TempestSabre

sligobhoy67 wrote:

IMO it is a necessary evil. Similar to a third world country this country to massively Dublincentric and the development and Dublin is proportion to the rest of the country is unhealthy for Dublin (hence the meltdown in terms of infrastructure) and not healthy for the country either.

In my opinion decentralisation does not go far enough - I honestly think more should be moved out over Dublin.

So your all for an badly planned decentralisation, done for pure political gain, which will cost over a billion + and result in a public sector thats more expensive, and less efficient in the long term. All without planning, or budgeting, just moving people around to get a few votes. So far it hasn't created new jobs, or moved people out of Dublin, just moved people already in the country around to other parts.

At the same time they are building major infrastruture in Dublin city center, like the National Childrens Hospital, on a site thats grid locked, and completely unsuitable, and closing down hospitals and services in the country.

And you think this makes perfect sense? The politicians really have it far too easy in this country. They can build themselves houses and buy their own Islands to live on and people would still vote for them. :rolleyes:

The_Conductor

sligobhoy67 wrote:

IMO it is a necessary evil. Similar to a third world country this country to massively Dublincentric and the development and Dublin is proportion to the rest of the country is unhealthy for Dublin (hence the meltdown in terms of infrastructure) and not healthy for the country either.

In my opinion decentralisation does not go far enough - I honestly think more should be moved out over Dublin.

Once again we are back to the lack of knowledge that 3/4 of the civil service is not in Dublin at all. This decentralisation plan is not a new idea at all- it is actually the 4th scheme since 1978.
The biggest problem of all with the current scheme- quite aside from how the Dublin based civil servants are being hung out to dry, is the manner in which the government has flung random sections of Departments willy nilly all over the country- instead of focusing on a coherent spatial strategy. Sligo was listed as a gateway town in the NSS- as was Longford. Its not widely reported that both of these locations will most probably loose net numbers of civil servants under the plans (though Longford has already more or less thrown in the towel and accepted that the civil servants there are most likely to move to Carrick-on-Shannon).

The problem is not so much that development is massively Dublin centric- it is more that there are not sufficient areas of relative mass out there that would benefit from location of government departments in a manner that would enable to compete viably with Dublin. That was the idea of the National Spatial Strategy- to identify a number of "gateway" towns and cities around the country- that could be developed in a sustainable manner into support hubs for their surrounding regions. Unfortunately- in a stroke, the government by trying to please every little constituency everywhere- ignored this laudable aim, and has with a shotgun approach flittered little sections all over the place in a weird and non-functional manner.

Development in this country has to take into account that we are only a very small little country- less than 1/10th the size of the UK- Dublin itself having a population less than 1/15th that of London. Increasingly in the open economy we are competing with the likes of London (especially in the financial sector)- so we do need a raw critical mass to do this.

We cannot get away with robbing corporation tax from the rest of our EU partners for much longer- that alone is what has dragged this country out of its doldrums. As soon as the multinationals up shop and move- we need to have sufficient resources in place to replace them. This was all supposed to be part of the NSS that has now been totally ignored.

I'm very sorry- but the current decentralisation scheme is a pup which has been sold to the electorate as a short term gain- a gain which will do very real medium term to long term damage to the country as a whole.

A few posters have made much about how Dublin is a mess- and indeed it is- but is that answer to create fresh messes elsewhere? I listened very bemused to an irate politician about traffic jams in Portlaoise last week- he was blaming decentralisation and the movement of Dublin based civil servants to Portlaoise for the problem. The tone of his voice was hostile in the extreme- this was not what they had signed up for......

The present government appear to have a policy of throwing things around the place to maximum extent possible, hoping to make the maximum number of people possible happy immediately- and to hell with the what happens down the road (sure they could well be out of government then, and even if not, well legally it was a different government that made those decisions and they cannot be held accountable.........)

We've all seen it all before- unfortunately we have rather short memories.......

NewDubliner

sligobhoy67 wrote:

IMO it is a necessary evil. Similar to a third world country this country to massively Dublincentric and the development and Dublin is proportion to the rest of the country is unhealthy for Dublin (hence the meltdown in terms of infrastructure) and not healthy for the country either.

I think you're talking about the idea of decentralisation rather than the current plan.

It's hard to criticise the idea, just like nobody wants to attack 'mom and apple pie'.

But, have you informed yourself of the details of the current plans and what do you think of them?

Will the taxpayer get value for money?

To what extent will the current plan succeed in its declared objectives?

sligobhoy67

NewDubliner wrote:

I think you're talking about the idea of decentralisation rather than the current plan.

It's hard to criticise the idea, just like nobody wants to attack 'mom and apple pie'.

But, have you informed yourself of the details of the current plans and what do you think of them?

Will the taxpayer get value for money?

To what extent will the current plan succeed in its declared objectives?

Thats exactly what I am saying ND, I dont know much would the current plan in place but I am all for more and more decentralisation. I dont live in Ireland anymore and the main reason for that is because of the lack of opportunities outside of Dublin.

NewDubliner

sligobhoy67 wrote:

Thats exactly what I am saying ND, I dont know much would the current plan in place but I am all for more and more decentralisation. I dont live in Ireland anymore and the main reason for that is because of the lack of opportunities outside of Dublin.

Well, the current plan is going to cost a lot money, disimprove services and increase congestion in Dublin. It will mostly fail to achieve the objectives that you want as it's being contrived to buy votes in already well-off rural locations.

So, in this situation, would you agree that the current plan should be abandoned?

vesp

The current plan if implimented properly is going to save a lot money ( look at how expensive property and overheads are in Dublin ), improve services and decrease congestion in Dublin.

Firetrap

The thing is, it's not going to be implemented properly. The vast majority of people don't want to move. Anyone, regardless of their skills (or lack of) who wants to move to another department down the country will get their wish. It doesn't matter if they know zilch about their new job as he/she will be another bum on another seat in another town - something for the local TD to crow about. Meanwhile, people who've forgotten more about their job than the newbies will ever know, will be left behind in Dublin, either doing nothing or wasted in a meaningless job. While most of the people who won't move remain in Dublin, it will cost the government money to house them in offices.

If the government was serious about saving money and taking cars off the road, they'd take the initiative and encourage more e-working. I'm sure there are lots of people in the civil service who could work from home, especially nowadays with computers and broadband becoming more prevalent. Of course, something like that won't buy votes

NewDubliner

vesp wrote:

The current plan if implimented properly is going to save a lot money ( look at how expensive property and overheads are in Dublin ), improve services and decrease congestion in Dublin.

What do you mean by 'properly'?

Save a lot of money: Nope: accomodation will still be rented in Dublin, for example for the all the decommissioned IT staff (85% want to stay in Dublin) and it will cost a lot of money to train their replacements. And, hundreds of expensively trained IT staff will be on the payroll, 'white-walled'. There will be extra overheads caused by all the extra traveling needed between towns when before, people could just walk from one department to another.

Previous decentralisation plans drove up costs.

Improve services: Nope, inexperienced staff will make more mistakes. Unsuitable people are being hired just to make up the numbers. The experienced staff will have to reduce their normal workload so thay can train their replacements. And the impact on the morale of the existing staff as they're ordered to 'dig their own graves'? Very motivating.

Previous decentralisations did not improve services.

Decrease congestion: Nope: That's one of ther biggest lies of the whole project. The sites that are being sold are being redeveloped at higher densities of occupation. Some empty sites sold to fund the scheme are going to go from zero occupancy to thousands (e.g Heuston Gate). So this plan will have more commuters coming into Dubliin & they'll be crossing paths with Dublin civil servants commuting across and out of Dublin to the new locations.

Decentralisation will add to congestion in Dublin

vesp

NewDubliner wrote:

Decentralisation saves costs.

Yes, we all know office space and overheads are much lower, commuting times are lower, etc outside the Capital city. Hell, even stress levels are even lower

NewDubliner wrote:

Previous decentralisations improved services.

Because costs are lower and efficiency higher. Plus it improved the quality of live for many people who previously had to commute from the country to the city every week. Enough people are on the roads as it is. Plus decentralisation is an attempt to go a little bit towards helping the imbalance between country property prices and Dublin prices. People can afford better housing in the country locations. Because they are taken out of Dublin the demand for housing and prices are reduced slightly in Dublin.

NewDubliner wrote:

Decrease congestion

You are right, decentralisation decreases congestion because it put the workers from over congested Dublin to more country areas.

NewDubliner

vesp wrote:

Yes, we all know office space and overheads are much lower, commuting times are lower, etc outside the Capital city. Hell, even stress levels are even lower Because costs are lower and efficiency higher. Plus it improved the quality of live for many people who previously had to commute from the country to the city every week. Enough people are on the roads as it is. Plus decentralisation is an attempt to go a little bit towards helping the imbalance between country property prices and Dublin prices. People can afford better housing in the country locations. Because they are taken out of Dublin the demand for housing and prices are reduced slightly in Dublin.
You are right, decentralisation decreases congestion because it put the workers from over congested Dublin to more country areas.

Do pay attention, Vesp! We're discussing the current plan, not the general idea of 'Decentralisation'.

The current plan is failing because it has no cost-control, will cost far more than any benefits it might bring to a handful of people. It will have devastating effect on efficiency. It will add to congestion in Dublin and elsewhere.

I've put forward the reasons why this will happen.

Schuhart

sligobhoy67 wrote:

I dont live in Ireland anymore and the main reason for that is because of the lack of opportunities outside of Dublin.

In fairness, if there are opportunities in Dublin then its your choice to live outside Ireland. But that's not really the point.

The thing that has perpetually screwed regional development in Ireland is the lack of concentration of resources. This 'decentralisation' programme reflects that same failed philosophy that tries to pretend every town can be a growth centre. Leaving aside the lack of any organisational coherence to the proposed relocation of offices (which in itself is enough of a reason to abandon the programme), the real problem it reveals is the utter lack of commitment to the national spatial strategy.

Moving fifty or a hundred civil servants hither and dither does nothing for nobody, apart from moving to fifty or a hundred people to a part of the country they feel some affinity for. Just as previous moves have done nothing to 'divert' development from Dublin , and added to administrative costs, so this one will fail utterly as it shows no willingness to face clear realities.

Development is not something that arrived down a pipeline in the capital and can be shipped in tankerloads to Letterkenny. Some kind of coherent approach is necessary. A good illustrative example I remember reading a while back would be the kind of synergy that would be created in the Garda training college was moved to, say, Waterford where it could forge links with the Institute of Technology - both institutions would benefit from such cross-fertilisation.

We specialise in a fruitcake approach to regional development based on splitting up things that should be together and scattering them about for no real reason. Until that changes, development will continue to centre on Dublin.

smccarrick wrote:

Development in this country has to take into account that we are only a very small little country- less than 1/10th the size of the UK- Dublin itself having a population less than 1/15th that of London. Increasingly in the open economy we are competing with the likes of London (especially in the financial sector)- so we do need a raw critical mass to do this.

You are absolutely right to be raising this reality. The idea that every small town can have its IDA factory and there you go is bunkum, and why the regions are simply not as attractive a location as Dublin.

oscarBravo

vesp wrote:

NewDubliner wrote:

[deliberate misquoting]

<snip>

vesp, if you're not interested in a serious discussion, don't bother. Thanks.

vesp

oscarBravo wrote:

vesp, if you're not interested in a serious discussion, don't bother. Thanks.

I would urge you to stop the personal attacks and get back to the topic. My points are valid ones. It is up to the public / civil servants to make it work. That is what they are paid for. As I said, we all know office space and overheads are much lower, commuting times are lower, etc outside the Capital city. Hell, even stress levels are even lower Because costs are lower and efficiency higher. Plus it improved the quality of live for many people who previously had to commute from the country to the city every week. Enough people are on the roads as it is. Plus decentralisation is an attempt to go a little bit towards helping the imbalance between country property prices and Dublin prices. People can afford better housing in the country locations. Because they are taken out of Dublin the demand for housing and prices are reduced slightly in Dublin.
Decentralisation decreases congestion because it put the workers from over congested Dublin to more country areas.

Schuhart

vesp wrote:

As I said, we all know office space and overheads are much lower, commuting times are lower, etc outside the Capital city.

Accomodation is cheaper because other costs are incurred. For example, if an official needs to travel abroad, longer travel times are involved. Lowest price is certainly not the same as lowest cost. Also, if memory serves, the assessment made of the cost of building new offices compared to funds yielded by giving up accomodation in Dublin did not actually find any immediate saving. Some long term saving might be achieved on accomodation, but this has to be set against the increased costs from central government being split across so many locations.

vesp wrote:

Hell, even stress levels are even lower

Pardon me if I don't feel a pressing need to spend billions to reduce the stress levels of civil servants - never mind that their stress levels actually seem to be increased by the suggestion their jobs should be scattered to the four winds for no obvious reason.

vesp wrote:

Plus decentralisation is an attempt to go a little bit towards helping the imbalance between country property prices and Dublin prices.

I think it has been well established that the planned moves will make no difference to the Dublin area - 10,000 jobs here and there make no difference to the capital's property market.

vesp wrote:

Decentralisation decreases congestion because it put the workers from over congested Dublin to more country areas.

Ditto as above - moving 10,000 makes a negligible difference, plus the kind of car dependant lifestyle promoted by this kind of policy does not reduce congestion. If the resources were devoted to developing public transport in cities it would be far more effective in reducing congestion - however defined.

TempestSabre

vesp wrote:

The current plan if implimented properly is going to save a lot money ( look at how expensive property and overheads are in Dublin ), improve services and decrease congestion in Dublin.

Can't agree. The current plan is a political nut job.

Firetrap

Yes, there are advantages to living down the country and I agree that there is an imbalance when it comes to employment opportunities outside Dublin.

However, these do not justify this particular decentralisation plan. If people who are currently in Dublin don't want to move, no amount of telling them how wonderful it is in Shannon/Dungarvan/Clonakilty is going to move them. For whatever reasons, the vast majority of civil/public servants in Dublin don't want to move. I'm sure they've all thought about it but it's not for them.

Shovelling people who know nothing about their new jobs into positions of responsibility just because they were in the right grade in another department and they were willing to move defies logic. It won't matter if they don't have in-depth knowledge of their new job, don't have anyone to ask (because the experts aren't with the department anymore) and might simply be useless at the job. Once he/she wanted to move, that was all that was needed.

Don't forget either that something will have to be done about all the people remaining in Dublin. Nobody's come up with an answer for that. They have to be accommodated in offices somewhere. Don't tell me that isn't going to cost the exchequer a LOT of money.

The idea that 10,000 people leaving their jobs in Dublin in the morning would ease congestion is rubbish. They're the tip of the iceberg. If this mythical 10,000 quit Dublin in the morning, the void would be quickly filled.

The government would be better off finding other ways to address regional imbalance. They should be developing infracstructure so that businesses will set up outside Dublin. They should be looking into e-working so that less people are getting into their cars to drive to work every day. Dispersing skilled personnel to the four winds just because Charlie McCreevy had a "brainwave" isn't the way to go

vesp

allie_e17 wrote:

The idea that 10,000 people leaving their jobs in Dublin in the morning would ease congestion is rubbish.

It would be a move in the right direction. For many of the country workers forced to work in Dublin it would be a godsend.

vesp

Schuhart wrote:

Accomodation is cheaper because other costs are incurred. For example, if an official needs to travel abroad, longer travel times are involved. Lowest price is certainly not the same as lowest cost. .

Office accomodation and overheads are cheaper outside Dublin. Fact. As regards "if an official needs to travel abroad,".... how many public servants need to travel abroad ? And at what cost ? Are public servants really paid to sit in traffic jams on the M50 / Dublin city centre ?

There are many flights abroad from regional airports, without the time delays / car parking hassle and costs associated with Dublin airport.

NewDubliner

vesp wrote:

I would urge you to stop the personal attacks and get back to the topic.

You've got some cheek! Mis-quoting my posts and failing to address valid arguments is not helping your credibility.

vesp wrote:

That is what they are paid for.

They're not paid to waste public money, nor are they political playthings to be moved to favoured constituencies on a whim. You've ignored all the cost arguments. Why spend a couble of billion euro and break up families just so some country-folk can enjoy a 'better quality of life', as defined by them?

vesp wrote:

Hell, even stress levels are even lower Because costs are lower and efficiency higher.

Efficiency will be lower because of extra travel (within Ireland) and knowledge loss. Stress will be just as high, maybe worse because of the drop in efficiency. Building costs are a negligible factor.

vesp wrote:

Plus it improved the quality of live for many people who previously had to commute from the country to the city every week.

And hugely disimproved for people who commute 30-40 minutes by Dart, bus & bicycle. Not to mention the need to return to Dublin at weekends to be with their families.

vesp wrote:

People can afford better housing in the country locations.

Not everyone wants to leave Dublin: accept it.

vesp wrote:

Because they are taken out of Dublin the demand for housing and prices are reduced slightly in Dublin.

Effect will be negligible.

vesp wrote:

Decentralisation decreases congestion because it put the workers from over congested Dublin to more country areas.

Sorry, that's not true, as I told you before. The sites sold in Dublin will increase the office population in Dublin. Add to that the cross-commuting by Dubliners (say from tallaght to Drogheda). Congestion will increase.

The_Conductor

vesp wrote:

It would be a move in the right direction. For many of the country workers forced to work in Dublin it would be a godsend.

Not so. You can't just become a civil servant- you need to pass quite onerous examinations and interview panels before being appointed. There is a flawed assumption that you just walk into the job.

Further to previous comments- moving 10,500 civil servants from Dublin will do nothing to Dublin's congestion problem- I am personally aware that most government Departments provide more secure bicycle parking spaces for staff than they do car parking spaces- and car parking is only available as a matter of course for the highest ranking civil servants who are not very numerous.

Civil servants are paid to implement government policy relating to the specific areas under the auspices of their parent departments. Civil servants are not paid to implement every random hairbrained scheme that may occasionally pop up on the radar. Nor or they paid to blindly do daily tasks- they are expected to practise financial prudence and safeguard the interests of the public, the exchequer and the government- while undertaking those duties assigned to them.

In recognition of blatant misquoting of NewDubliner's post I am not continuing to debate with you.

TempestSabre

vesp wrote:

It would be a move in the right direction. For many of the country workers forced to work in Dublin it would be a godsend.

Theres more vastly more imigrant/migrant workers than Public sector staff in Dublin. Why not encourage them to move down the country? Give them grants an incentives to settle out of Dublin? Besides if you wish to work down the country the option of transferring has been an option for years. All you are talking about are those who have chosen to live, or continue to live in Dublin.

oscarBravo

vesp wrote:

I would urge you to stop the personal attacks and get back to the topic.

There was no personal attack. As a moderator of this forum, I saw you use a childish playground debating tactic in a serious thread, and I called you on it. I'm reiterating that warning now: either engage seriously in the debate (and that means refuting points that have been made repeatedly and convincingly in a 1600-post-plus thread using actual facts and/or logic) or don't bother "contributing" at all.

TempestSabre

vesp wrote:

Office accomodation and overheads are cheaper outside Dublin. Fact. As regards "if an official needs to travel abroad,".... how many public servants need to travel abroad ? And at what cost ? Are public servants really paid to sit in traffic jams on the M50 / Dublin city centre ?

There are many flights abroad from regional airports, without the time delays / car parking hassle and costs associated with Dublin airport.

Can you quote some Govt figures on how much decentralisation is saving, or costing.

Or how much more expensive it is to drive around the city center or fly from birr or somewhere like that, to dublin. Inlcuding the difference in rent etc.

Schuhart

vesp wrote:

It would be a move in the right direction. For many of the country workers forced to work in Dublin it would be a godsend.

It's not a step in the right direction as it does nothing to promote concentration in the regions, identified as the key barrier obstructing regional development. The programme undermines the national spatial strategy, and hence is a step in the wrong direction.

vesp wrote:

Office accomodation and overheads are cheaper outside Dublin. Fact.

Accommodation can be, overheads can be more expensive. If something is cheaper, it is for a reason. Also, the Government’s own assessment states that the property related costs will not break even until 2026. Bizarrely, this assessment was only carried out after the decision was taken to decentralise. Hence, it is clear both that saving money on accommodation was not a motivation for this plan, and that it offers no immediate prospect of saving money on accommodation.

Of course, this takes no account of the higher costs incurred on things other than accommodation. In that context air access is just an example, but one I’m willing to pursue to illustrate the kind of issue at stake. Regional airports tend to offer scheduled flights to the UK only. If you think it’s a good idea to isolate Central Government from Europe, and adopt a UK-centric outlook, I cannot agree with you. Decentralisation as proposed turns us back into ‘an island behind an island’.

Victor

vesp, could I ask what you background is and what your experience of the civil services is?

vesp wrote:

Plus it improved the quality of live for many people who previously had to commute from the country to the city every week.

vesp wrote:

For many of the country workers forced to work in Dublin it would be a godsend.

These two quotes seem to indicate a slightly antiquated view of Ireland. Have you ever thought that people want to get out of rural Ireland?

very miffed dub

This is my experience of the practical effect of Decentralisation.

A highly skilled and knowledgeable section in a key Department have been transferred to other sections because they didn't want to uproot their families and move to the new location. The result is that the new staff are inexperienced and failing to meet targets.

This became evident today when I received an important e-mail today wondering why certain information wasn't available. Obviously the person that sent the e-mail didn't realise that the section in question has been decimated!! I replied saying that I understood their frustration but that as a result of decentralisation I was no longer working there.

I said in one of my earlier posts that delivery of services would be drastically effected and now I have been proved right.

vesp

Schuhart wrote:

Accommodation can be, overheads can be more expensive. If something is cheaper, it is for a reason.

Its not a case of accomodation CAN be more expensive in Dublin, Accomodation IS more expensive in Dublin. Ask anyone in the property business. If you cannot work that one one ( supply and demand, higher price of land in overcrowded Dublin etc ) then I feel sorry for you.

vesp

very miffed dub wrote:

This became evident today when I received an important e-mail today wondering why certain information wasn't available. Obviously the person that sent the e-mail didn't realise that the section in question has been decimated!!

I would imagine the section in question is still being paid, many people still work there and the reason the e-mail was not answered properly or the info. was not available was good old inefficiency. Or maybe the person who sent the e-mail did so at 4.30 on a Friday and all the workers had left to go home for the weekend, to the country or wherever ?

oscarBravo

vesp wrote:

I would imagine the section in question is still being paid, many people still work there and the reason the e-mail was not answered properly or the info. was not available was good old inefficiency. Or maybe the person who sent the e-mail did so at 4.30 on a Friday and all the workers had left to go home for the weekend, to the country or wherever ?

You would imagine, would you?

I've already taken you up on your approach to this thread, so let me make this absolutely clear for you: unless you're prepared to refute other posters' points with provable facts and/or well-reasoned logic, you'll be taking a break from this forum. Think carefully before you post here again.

NewDubliner

vesp wrote:

Its not a case of accomodation CAN be more expensive in Dublin, Accomodation IS more expensive in Dublin.

This is sometimes true, depending on the circumstances. Now tell us how much money would be saved by using accomodation outside of Dublin and how much will it cost to make this saving? For extra points, refer (and quote accurately) from posts made in the thread concerning the costs of the project.

vesp wrote:

I would imagine the section in question is still being paid, many people still work there and the reason the e-mail was not answered properly or the info. was not available was good old inefficiency. Or maybe the person who sent the e-mail did so at 4.30 on a Friday and all the workers had left to go home for the weekend, to the country or wherever ?

Do pay attention Vesp! The e-mail was sent to a person in Dublin looking for information that was supposed to have been done by people down the country, who according to you, are 'more efficient'. The original section that was responsible for the work has been disbanded or 'white-walled' and its knowledge and skill dissipated.

The_Conductor

vesp wrote:

Its not a case of accomodation CAN be more expensive in Dublin, Accomodation IS more expensive in Dublin. Ask anyone in the property business. If you cannot work that one one ( supply and demand, higher price of land in overcrowded Dublin etc ) then I feel sorry for you.

This is not an accurate assumption. While you may generalise that headline costs (i.e. rent) of office accomodation may be higher in most (but not all cases) in Dublin, in the vast majority of cases you will find that the costs to service said office accomodation on an ongoing basis in most cases is considerably higher outside of Dublin.

There is documented evidence to show it costs more to house Department of Agriculture staff in Maynooth, Portlaoise or even Galway than it does on Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

The higher price of land in provincial locations is only one of a long list of factors which influence the cost of locating or accomodating offices there. Access to necessary infrastructure and the ability of staff to interact with each other in order to conduct their duties must be costed and included in this equation.

Those are exchequer costs associated with locating in particular locations- then there are the personal costs associated with individual people- which can also be considerable, and more often than not, are conveniently overlooked.

It is not as simple a case as blindly stating Dublin is expensive and everywhere else is cheaper. The rental cost of a serviced site in Mountrath suitable to accomodate 600 staff is between 30 and 50% more expensive than rental space in City West Dublin (depending on when occupancy is required).

Certainly your one-off 4 bed bungalow on a half acre will be cheaper outside Portlaoise than in Howth- but apples and oranges are two different types of fruit.......

very miffed dub

vesp wrote:

I would imagine the section in question is still being paid, many people still work there and the reason the e-mail was not answered properly or the info. was not available was good old inefficiency. Or maybe the person who sent the e-mail did so at 4.30 on a Friday and all the workers had left to go home for the weekend, to the country or wherever ?

Just to clarify the e-mail was sent yesterday morning to key staff who used to work in the section pleading for the information because they couldn't get it from the new staff. The section is still in Dublin (due to go to the new location in 2007) but the staff are totally inexperienced despite thousands of taxpayers' euro spent on training etc.

Before I left my old job I had to do a complete instruction and procedural manual for the new staff. They obviously ignored it.

So much for Customer Service!!!!

By the way I answered the e-mail giving the required information and the person was very grateful even though it's not my job any more!!

vesp

very miffed dub wrote:

Just to clarify the e-mail was sent yesterday morning to key staff who used to work in the section pleading for the information because they couldn't get it from the new staff. The section is still in Dublin (due to go to the new location in 2007) but the staff are totally inexperienced despite thousands of taxpayers' euro spent on training etc.

Before I left my old job I had to do a complete instruction and procedural manual for the new staff. They obviously ignored it.

So much for Customer Service!!!!

So much for civil service efficiency. If it was a big private company it would either have gone bust long ago or else relocated to cheaper locations. How many big manufacturers are still in Dublin city centre for Gods sake ?

RainyDay

vesp wrote:

So much for civil service efficiency. If it was a big private company it would either have gone bust long ago or else relocated to cheaper locations. How many big manufacturers are still in Dublin city centre for Gods sake ?

Why compare against big manufacturers? Are more sensible comparison would be against the big banks (HQs in Ballsbridge and Baggot St), or the major accounting firms (all HQ in Dublin city centre) or the major legal firms (all HQ in Dublin city centre). You're clutching at straws now, Vesp.

Give up your oul trolling and start talking sense.

very miffed dub

vesp wrote:

So much for civil service efficiency. If it was a big private company it would either have gone bust long ago or else relocated to cheaper locations. How many big manufacturers are still in Dublin city centre for Gods sake ?

Vesp -the reason for the inefficency and woeful service delivery is
D-E-C-E-N-T-R-A-L-I-S-A-T-I-O-N.

I want to say more but don't want to get banned!!!!!

NewDubliner

vesp wrote:

So much for civil service efficiency. If it was a big private company it would either have gone bust long ago or else relocated to cheaper locations. How many big manufacturers are still in Dublin city centre for Gods sake ?

The inefficiency is caused the very project that you are blindly supporting. Get it?

No private company would spend 2 billion euro, and risk ruining the business, without having any idea of what kind of return on investment would result. This is what the current project is about to do.

Dublin City centre is a great location for the public service. It has the best public transport infrastructure in the country. It benefits from economies of scale. It's served by DART, LUAS, Dublin Bus. Many staff cycle to work from nearby suburbs. Average commuting time is less than 1 hour, for some, it's just 30 minutes. Quality of life is enhanced by some of the finest public parks in Europe, a spectacular coastline and the great national parks of Wicklow. There's a great variety of shopping, theatres and restaurants. Dublin has internationally renowed universities. Travel between departments is easy as so many are concentrated there, often just walking distance apart.

It's not surprising that, living in such a great city and having family ties there, that so many people just don't want to live anywhere else.

Commercial property costs in Dublin are not an important factor.

A wise employer knows that staff together with their knowledge and experience are the greatest asset, and keeps his business where this asset is readily available.

vesp

NewDubliner wrote:

Commercial property costs in Dublin are not an important factor.

Not for you but it is for the taxpayer. The taxpayer demands a more cost effective, more efficient public service. The many people from around the country who have to work in Dublin often would give their right arm to work near their communities, and not to have to commute to Dublin to work....more often than not by motor vehicle. The commuter in Dublin deserves less congestion on the roads.

vesp

NewDubliner wrote:

Dublin City centre is a great location for the public service. . Average commuting time is less than 1 hour, for some, it's just 30 minutes.

For some its 2 hours. Think of the environmental effect alone from all the traffic in Dublin. "Average commuting time" is far less in decentralised locations, plus not as many people have to go to their real home at weekends. Ever witness the hordes of public servants leaving Dublin on Friday afternoon / evening. Ever even ring a govt dept at 4.30 or 4.45 then ?

NewDubliner

For some its 2 hours.

Some might get shorter commutes, but others who may feel forced to commute from Dublin in order to stay on their career track, will have longer commutes. Others, who don't get the town of their choice, could be commuting for some hours from their town to another rural location where they've managed to bag a promotion by 'decentralising'. You cannot assume that people will buy houses in the 'decentralisation' towns. That & all the lovely new 'one-off' houses.... Net-benefit to the environment: nil.

vesp wrote:

The many people from around the country who have to work in Dublin often would give their right arm to work near their communities, and not to have to commute to Dublin to work....more often than not by motor vehicle.

Yes, and they've volunteered to move, if they can get to the places they would like to live and if suitable jobs are located near their communities. How much will this cost?

As a taxpayer, I'd like to know much much extra tax I'll have to pay and how it will affect services. All I see from you are guesses & wishful thinking.

The commuter in Dublin deserves less congestion on the roads.

As explained very patiently, and on more than one occasion, the project will INCREASE congestion in Dublin.

vesp wrote:

The taxpayer demands a more cost effective, more efficient public service.

And the best way of providing this is to make sure that all projects that expend public money are subject to a proper cost/benefit analysis, just as would happen in a 'big private company', yes?

It's been explained to you already, that the plan will result in increased costs, and lowered efficiency.

vesp wrote:

Ever even ring a govt dept at 4.30 or 4.45 then ?

Yes and later. I always been able to reach someone helpful. Unlike many 'big private companies' where you're condemned to call-centre hell.