Why do the Green party seem to have it in for country people?

bladespin

Just wondering why the Green party seem to hate the country dwellers among us so much, first they seem intent to punish rural commuters with a carbon tax without giving them the option of public transport first and now I read this.

They really do seem to be out to punish anyone who lives in a standalone house in the countryside I'm struggling to find logic in their proposals or are they just trying to push their agenda through before they're ousted permanently?
They seem to be forgetting (or ignoring the fact) there are huge numbers of voters that live beyond the city's limits.

The funny thing is Mr.Gormley was on the last word yesterday celebrating the fact that 1/3 of our electricity demand last weekend had been produced by windpower, these turbines are for the most part based in our open countryside, surely the greens should be on the side of the countryside (sustainable living etc.) or am I missing something?

meathstevie

So if I read it right you will have to pay some government agency a few quid to let them know you have a tank so they can come and give you some hassle over it ? Would it not be simpler to just prosecute people who neglect to deal with waste water etc properly without all the paperwork. It can't be too hard to find overflowing tanks.

Darsad

Well I for one despise the Green party they are quite simply fools and the sooner they are gone the better for all . The main parties all have green policies and most of it comes from the Eu anyway, so we dont need these muppets implementing carbon levies at times of economic turmoil.
That said there is a serious issue with septic tanks in this country and water pollution that as a nation we need to address but we dont need the greens to do it or take credit for it as they do with any sustainable job that has been created

Cool Mo D

bladespin wrote: »

Just wondering why the Green party seem to hate the country dwellers among us so much, first they seem intent to punish rural commuters with a carbon tax without giving them the option of public transport first and now I read this.

Can you honestly not see the logic in not inspecting septic tanks? There are 10s of thousands (or more) of these around the country, and even one of them leaking can damage the water table beneath them. It's one of the biggest reasons for Ireland having so much trouble with water quality.

Currently there is absolutely no inspection of them - once you built your house you could easily disconnect your tank and let it drain into the ground, no questions asked. Septic tanks NEED regular maintenance, and it's a dirty, smelly job, that I doubt most people are doing at the moment, because they don't have to.

This law is about 20 years past due.

Biggins

At this stage, I have nothing but pure hatred for them - seriously (see this thread: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055719727).

I despise the ground they walk on and if they come around my door at any stage, I will be done for attempted murder.

ednwireland

that'll be me having to find 10k plus next year for 2 new septic tanks
i can actually see the logic but i dont know where i'll get the money from

i dont why but green issues seem to always be city based solution just seems to be where they come from

bladespin

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Can you honestly not see the logic in not inspecting septic tanks? There are 10s of thousands (or more) of these around the country, and even one of them leaking can damage the water table beneath them. It's one of the biggest reasons for Ireland having so much trouble with water quality.

Currently there is absolutely no inspection of them - once you built your house you could easily disconnect your tank and let it drain into the ground, no questions asked. Septic tanks NEED regular maintenance, and it's a dirty, smelly job, that I doubt most people are doing at the moment, because they don't have to.

This law is about 20 years past due.

I'm not commenting on the logic of inspecting septic tanks, I'm asking if others feel the green party is targetting rural people.

I'm not passing any judgement on the septic tank thing just the politics of it, they're repeatedly targetting the countryside in my view, I'd like to know why, there's plenty of environmental problems in cities, not least is the fact that they're going to have to pump the water you mention in from the countryside to meet Dublin's demand.

Most of our water quality problems seem not to come from the water source but more from how it is delivered to the consumer, pumping stations, treatment plants etc.

gavney

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Can you honestly not see the logic in not inspecting septic tanks? There are 10s of thousands (or more) of these around the country, and even one of them leaking can damage the water table beneath them. It's one of the biggest reasons for Ireland having so much trouble with water quality.

Currently there is absolutely no inspection of them - once you built your house you could easily disconnect your tank and let it drain into the ground, no questions asked. Septic tanks NEED regular maintenance, and it's a dirty, smelly job, that I doubt most people are doing at the moment, because they don't have to.

This law is about 20 years past due.

I'm possibly missing something, but how is making people buy a license for them, gonna help people inspect them?

Is it that they aren't on a register, that it isn't known where they are? If so, why not just get people to register for free instead of charging for it. Charging people for it is just gonna make them less likely to register. Just like loads of people dodge gettting a TV license.

And, as the article says "Fines of up to €5,000 or three months' imprisonment can currently be imposed for not ensuring the wastewater is properly treated. Penalties are likely to be of a similar order under the new system."

So, if the fining system is gonna be exactly the same, why throw an extra charge on people just to register??? why not just tell everyone to register - and fine them if they don't do it on time.

Cool Mo D

bladespin wrote: »

I'm not commenting on the logic of inspecting septic tanks, I'm asking if others feel the green party is targetting rural people.

I'm not passing any judgement on the septic tank thing just the politics of it, they're repeatedly targetting the countryside in my view, I'd like to know why, there's plenty of environmental problems in cities, not least is the fact that they're going to have to pump the water you mention in from the countryside to meet Dublin's demand.

Most of our water quality problems seem not to come from the water source but more from how it is delivered to the consumer, pumping stations, treatment plants etc.

No, our water problems come from the fact that water treatment plants are overwhelmed by the volume of pollutants in our water. By far and away the two biggest sources of water pollution in Ireland are agricultural runoff and leaky septic tanks. Industrial and urban runoff is small in comparison, especially because industry is monitored to a much stricter degree than agriculture.

Dublin, for example does not have quality problems - it has a supply problem, where most of the water is leaking out it's network of old water pipes. It gets its water from the Dublin and Wicklow mountains - hardly pumping it across the country. There are environmental problems in the cities, of course, but it is still much more environmentally friendly to live in a large town or city than in a rural area. If you live in a rural area, you will likely drive more miles, use more fuel, have a larger, one storey house that uses more energy to heat, with much larger gardens, which also have an environmental impact, and you will require a larger mileage of roads to serve you, and all services you use will have to cover a greater distance and be less efficient. Obviously, green policies are going to try and cut down on al the above, and so they will have a greater impact on rural dwellers.

jmayo

To answer the OP yes they are anti rural, anti farming.
Oh and that other newly promoted around here crowd amhran nua are cut from the same cloth.

This is just another sneaky way of getting money from people.
We are going to be charged so that an otherwise unoccupied offical can call, ask a few questions and fill out mountains of reports.
Yet someone leaking buckets of slurry can probably get away with it.

Chimney tax will be soon on the cards as this rate.
The sooner the greens meet a few slurry pits up close and personal the better for all of us, both urban and rural. :mad:

I love the way fines and jail terms are guranteed for certain non violent crimes whereas suspected rapists and proven killers are let out again, so that they can say kill a 16 year old visiting foreigner. :rolleyes:

Macha

jmayo wrote: »

To answer the OP yes they are anti rural, anti farming.

What unfounded nonsense.

MysticalRain

I can't believe the amount of ridiculous hyperbole in this thread. I'm from the countryside, born and bred. I generally agree with the kinds of environmental policies the greens are promoting because I have a vested interest in preventing our beautiful countryside from being turned into garbage dump due to people's greed and shortsightedness.

mike65

How many rural Green tds and councillors are there?

NewDubliner

bladespin wrote: »

Just wondering why the Green party seem to hate the country dwellers among us so much, first they seem intent to punish rural commuters with a carbon tax without giving them the option of public transport first

People should live near where they work. If you want public transport, go live near a town with enough people liveing there to make it economical, or where you're close enough to walk or cycle.

bladespin wrote: »

They really do seem to be out to punish anyone who lives in a standalone house in the countryside

Unless there's a farm attached to the house, it's better if people live in towns where services can be concentrated & so we can reduce the problems caused by one-off houses in our countryside.

It's time we stopped subsidising other people's lifestyle choices.

slimjimmc

mike65 wrote: »

How many rural Green tds and councillors are there?

Mary White is one, lives near Borris, Co. Carlow in the foothills of Mt. Leinster.
You could probably consider Councillors in most county towns as fairly rural too, since very few of those towns have any of the facilities of the cities and their residents face similar problems.

sceptre

mike65 wrote: »

How many rural Green tds and councillors are there?

If I can assume it means "outside the cities of Dublin (incl DL), Cork, Limerick and Galway"[1], it's one TD (Mary White from Carlow/Kilkenny). And one senator, Deirdre de Burca being from Wexford. That's out of 6 TDs total and 2 senators total.

If "rural" means "outside Dublin" obviously we get the same answer for Oireachtas members.

Councillors, I think they're currently at one in Dublin (if we can include town council seats in Balbriggan) and three county councillors outside (Clare, Kilkenny & Louth). At the 2004 local electons they had a high proportion of their 18 county councillors and 14 town councillors outside Dublin. Their biggest losses in the 2009 locals though were DL/Rathdown and Fingal, where they had 4 seats and 3 seats respectively before the election - and that's out of a national total of 18 (have a look at the summary changes here).



[1] Only the first two of those have electoral areas that are pretty much unquestionably urban though.

Taxipete29

While I have no love for the Green party I dont feel that they have it in for country people.

The licensing for the septic tanks is a European directive according to that article so I dont see how that can be blamed on the Greens. Whoever was in the seat would have to sort that out.

I support any real envronmental policies the greens or any other party introduce. Anything thats stops this country being turned into an industrial cess-pit is fine by me. If those who live and work in the country have to change their practices so that we all have a cleaner and better country then so be it. The country belongs to us all and we all have a stake in keeping it clean. I dont see why any country person would have a problem with this. Do those who oppose or resent these higher standards have no pride in their community or countryside??

sold

bladespin wrote: »

Just wondering why the Green party seem to hate the country dwellers among us so much, first they seem intent to punish rural commuters with a carbon tax without giving them the option of public transport first and now I read this.

They really do seem to be out to punish anyone who lives in a standalone house in the countryside I'm struggling to find logic in their proposals or are they just trying to push their agenda through before they're ousted permanently?
They seem to be forgetting (or ignoring the fact) there are huge numbers of voters that live beyond the city's limits.

The funny thing is Mr.Gormley was on the last word yesterday celebrating the fact that 1/3 of our electricity demand last weekend had been produced by windpower, these turbines are for the most part based in our open countryside, surely the greens should be on the side of the countryside (sustainable living etc.) or am I missing something?

I would totally have agreed with this post 2 years ago, The greens only look out of city people. but.... seeing how the country has sunk I have to give it to them they have a coherent and sustainable perspective. One way or another we will run out of oil, be it 30 years or 300, so it we are to move to new energies the tax is an incentative to move away from fossil fuels. I saw a proposal to tax septic tanks with 80 euro, as a person with one I can understand the need that they be inspected. Country people need to address their issues with the greens.

juuge

One can waffle on and on about environmental issues ad nauseam the bottom line is that this proposal is yet another TAX - plain and simple. Anyway,the Greens are gone after the next election, don't waste your breath on them.

dan719

The greens have no concept of rural living. It's simply a south Dublin phenemonon. So far this year we have had bans on eel fishing (when the EU merely requested a sustainable fishing plan) and we will now see a change in the rules regarding demersal fishing. The sooner they are decimated at the poles the better.

dvpower

A ~€80 licence fee to support septic tank inspections seems reasonable to me given the damage that poorly maintained tanks can cause.

Has everyone forgot about the recent cryptosporidium problem in Galway?
+1 to the Green party on this.

Manach

Being from the country, this is a new tax targetting rural dwellers. Still, perhaps the Green plan to implement as a means to combat rural isolation, with inspectors popping up to check our sh... , sorry waste.

lucernarian

sceptre wrote: »

If I can assume it means "outside the cities of Dublin (incl DL), Cork, Limerick and Galway"[1], it's one TD (Mary White from Carlow/Kilkenny). And one senator, Deirdre de Burca being from Wexford. That's out of 6 TDs total and 2 senators total.

If "rural" means "outside Dublin" obviously we get the same answer for Oireachtas members.

Councillors, I think they're currently at one in Dublin (if we can include town council seats in Balbriggan) and three county councillors outside (Clare, Kilkenny & Louth). At the 2004 local electons they had a high proportion of their 18 county councillors and 14 town councillors outside Dublin. Their biggest losses in the 2009 locals though were DL/Rathdown and Fingal, where they had 4 seats and 3 seats respectively before the election - and that's out of a national total of 18 (have a look at the summary changes here).



[1] Only the first two of those have electoral areas that are pretty much unquestionably urban though.

Actually I think there are some ridiculous assumptions being made there. Sewerage systems exist outside of Dublin and often extend to the town boundary or beyond (for housing estates and nearby villages). In the case of the Green cllr. in Dundalk, it's true to say that a fair bit of the ward lies outside Dundalk. But not in terms of population. I think the number of urban dwellers is in the region of 80% (in Dundalk South anyway). Furthermore, the town/county boundary is quite present in people's minds and rural votes tend to stay with rural cllrs. And to a lesser extent, the same with urban votes IMO.

Outside of Mary White, I can't think of any properly rural Green Party politicians except for that cllr. in Clare.

Specifically on topic, why the heck are the greens concerned with groundwater when most of them wouldn't have to worry about the consequences of its pollution?? Possibly the majority/significant minority of people with septic tanks would also use wellwater, so it's in their interest to be concerned about septic tanks. If the water quality tests from that are fine, why the hell should they be concerned about groundwater unless their property adjoins a stream/river??

lucernarian

dvpower wrote: »

A ~€80 licence fee to support septic tank inspections seems reasonable to me given the damage that poorly maintained tanks can cause.

Has everyone forgot about the recent cryptosporidium problem in Galway?
+1 to the Green party on this.

How is it reasonable?! The costs of replacing them might be "reasonable" in that they stop the supposed widespread pollution itself. But setting up another quango is reasonable? If I'm going to pay a tax, I'd rather see it go on something that will benefit the country (health, reduce deficit etc) than more whiny civil servants.

Also, what did the greens do about the cryptosporidium problem?? They were totally irrelevant, the problem would have been fixed as quickly if they vanished off the face of the earth.

Apologies for double post.

NewDubliner

Manach wrote: »

rural isolation.

Rural isolation is a self-imposed problem.

lucernarian

NewDubliner wrote: »

Rural isolation is a self-imposed problem.

True. But that should go both ways. If people aren't being supplied with a public service, they should not be charged a tax for providing the service themselves. It's unreasonable that the rural environment is protected over the people and communities who live there. If people in urban areas were charged rates for having the same services provided to them (running water as well as sewerage) then this would be more equitable.

Taxipete29

NewDubliner wrote: »

Rural isolation is a self-imposed problem.

Not everyone can live in a town or city and nor do we want them to.

lucernarian

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Not everyone can live in a town or city and nor do we want them to.

Not everyone can live in the countryside and nor do we want them to.:)

ei.sdraob

NewDubliner wrote: »

People should live near where they work. If you want public transport, go live near a town with enough people liveing there to make it economical, or where you're close enough to walk or cycle.

Unless there's a farm attached to the house, it's better if people live in towns where services can be concentrated & so we can reduce the problems caused by one-off houses in our countryside.

It's time we stopped subsidising other people's lifestyle choices.

im moving out the country soonish

i get land, alot bigger house, no noise and no trouble making knacker neighbors

my commute to work is a whole few seconds it takes to walk into home office

ive lived and work in large cities, and more than glad that im out of the rat race that Dublin is, i used to cycle to work every day in Dublin but getting nearly knocked over by a bus few times i learned that my life is more important


btw i want to put up a small windmill but not being allowed to do so.... ****ing greens and their hot air ...


does anyone know if this only applies to septic tanks or are more expensive waste treatment plants included?

Nermal

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Not everyone can live in a town or city and nor do we want them to.

They don't have to, they just have to stop complaining about not having public services or being 'forced' to drink & drive...

bonkey

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

But that should go both ways. If people aren't being supplied with a public service, they should not be charged a tax for providing the service themselves.

Doesn't it cut both ways, though? If its not paid for by the people it effects, then its partly paid for by people who neither need nor use the service.

Imagine if the rural population of Ireland were told that they were facing a tax increase to pay for urban public transport. I would imagine there would be outrage...that rural Ireland would be subsidising urban services.

So when we look at the issue of septic tanks, who should pay for it? If everyone pays for it, then urban Ireland are subsidising rural services....which should presumably entitle them to the same outrage mentioned above.

Instead, the notion has been put forward that those who have septic tanks are the ones who should fund (at least, in part) the inspection of septic tanks. Its a bit like suggesting people who use a bus service should pay (at least in part) for their bus ticket....but somehow its different?

If people in urban areas were charged rates for having the same services provided to them (running water as well as sewerage) then this would be more equitable.

I'd readily agree that anyone being provided with a service such as water-supply or waste-management should have to pay for it.

lucernarian

bonkey wrote: »

Doesn't it cut both ways, though? If its not paid for by the people it effects, then its partly paid for by people who neither need nor use the service.

Imagine if the rural population of Ireland were told that they were facing a tax increase to pay for urban public transport. I would imagine there would be outrage...that rural Ireland would be subsidising urban services.

So when we look at the issue of septic tanks, who should pay for it? If everyone pays for it, then urban Ireland are subsidising rural services....which should presumably entitle them to the same outrage mentioned above.

Instead, the notion has been put forward that those who have septic tanks are the ones who should fund (at least, in part) the inspection of septic tanks. Its a bit like suggesting people who use a bus service should pay (at least in part) for their bus ticket....but somehow its different?


I'd readily agree that anyone being provided with a service such as water-supply or waste-management should have to pay for it.

I think you misunderstood me. Did you think I was suggesting that the inspecting should be funded by the exchequer?

I think that there should be no inspections full stop, or not on the scale that would cost more to any taxpayer. No one should have to pay more. Even putting aside the principle, charging an economically useless licence on people at this time is crazy. Short term clear problems should be tackled ahead of esoteric long term vaguely identified ones.

As far as water pollution goes, I am convinced it is the farmers who are the real problem. I've heard from several different ones by now, of how they had to release their slurry into a ditch at the bottom of a field. This was on the odd occasion where they weren't able to legally release due to weather etc. but they were unable to store anymore slurry. Also with septic tanks, the leakage is smaller, more likely to be diluted and will not (hopefully) be directly "running off" into a stream etc but will seep through topsoil and subsoil.

ei.sdraob

Why fine and imprison people

why not make them instead buy a proper sewage treatment plant to replace the septic tank?

the cost is about 4-5K


seems the greens want to send people to prison instead of helping the environment


as i said before green environmentalism taken to its conclusion is remarkably similar to communism and fascism

brianthebard

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Specifically on topic, why the heck are the greens concerned with groundwater when most of them wouldn't have to worry about the consequences of its pollution?? Possibly the majority/significant minority of people with septic tanks would also use wellwater, so it's in their interest to be concerned about septic tanks. If the water quality tests from that are fine, why the hell should they be concerned about groundwater unless their property adjoins a stream/river??

I don't really understand this part, why wouldn't the Greens be interested in a green issue, just because it doesn't impact them directly right now? Also, your point about wellwater is pretty suspect imo, I know far more houses at home in sligo that are on the mains rather than wells.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Rural isolation is a self-imposed problem.

Not completely true, in fact pretty much false.

Amtmann

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Why fine and imprison people

why not make them instead buy a proper sewage treatment plant to replace the septic tank?

the cost is about 4-5K


seems the greens want to send people to prison instead of helping the environment

The problem is that one-off houses are so scattered that it becomes impossible to provide such a treatment plant as you propose. Ideally one-off houses should be outlawed - then you could concentrate houses in villages and you would be able to build up enough critical mass that you could have village shops and post offices and decent transport links, as well as your treatment plant. Unfortunately, people don't seem to make the connection that one-off houses are responsible for a great many of our infrastructural deficits and poor services.

ei.sdraob

Furet wrote: »

The problem is that one-off houses are so scattered that it becomes impossible to provide such a treatment plant as you propose. Ideally one-off houses should be outlawed - then you could concentrate houses in villages and you would be able to build up enough critical mass that you could have village shops and post offices and decent transport links, as well as your treatment plant. Unfortunately, people don't seem to make the connection that one-off houses are responsible for a great many of our infrastructural deficits and poor services.

theres a treatment plant for me house in the front lawn, one in the neighbors back

they are about 4-5 times more expensive than septic tanks but are designed for average house use

im not talking about a community treatment scheme im talking about these things > http://www.biotechireland.net/system-design.php or http://www.biocycle.ie/home/septic-tank-replacement/

they dont need to be emptied like septic tanks, and has technology in it like UV lamps to kill bacteria

gerry28

ei.sdraob wrote: »

theres a treatment plant for me house in the front lawn, one in the neighbors back

they are about 4-5 times more expensive than septic tanks but are designed for average house use

My reading of the last paragraph in the independant piece is that septic tanks and treatment plants will both be taxed :mad:.

I have a treatment plant... I had to get an engineer to come and design a system for me in order to satisify planning requirements.

Roll on the next election and i hope the greens are destroyed.

Liam Byrne

NewDubliner wrote: »

People should live near where they work. If you want public transport, go live near a town with enough people liveing there to make it economical, or where you're close enough to walk or cycle.

It's time we stopped subsidising other people's lifestyle choices.

:rolleyes: What about this scenario : someone IS doing just that, and thanks to this crap Government and their policies, they lose their job, and the only job they can get is miles away from where their previous job was......what do you want them to do ? Move house ? Are you in this "protect the developers and bankers" circle, too ?

And it's precisely BECAUSE of said policies that many people are living miles away from the towns and cities and workplaces, because houses there weren't worth half a million, even if they were already built in areas where you'd have to walk 2 miles from the centre of the estate in order to catch the "local" bus.

"Lifestyle choices" my arse! :rolleyes:

P.S. There are some lifestyle choices that I WOULD like to stop subsidising; e.g. the M50, The Luas, Gormley & Co's ride-a-bike-while-followed-by-a-state-car bull****, etc.

And if you could convince your Gods to actually link the cities in this country by rail, we might actually leave the car at home.

Y'see this is the problem with Government in this country; they tax people more and more for "wrong choices" despite the fact that they don't provide the "right" one.

It's like speeding and smoking; they don't actually WANT people to change, because they'd lose the cash. All they want to do is keep hitting people for extra cash that they don't have (while spending it carelessly and criminally).

Will there be a septic tank charge for each of the Green ministers' mouths ? Because that's where I hear most of the **** coming from.

Liam Byrne

bonkey wrote: »

So when we look at the issue of septic tanks, who should pay for it? If everyone pays for it, then urban Ireland are subsidising rural services....which should presumably entitle them to the same outrage mentioned above.

They HAVE paid for it; they paid to install the bloody thing, and they pay to empty it!!! Do city dwellers have to do this ? NO!!!

If people are responsible and have it maintained and emptied, then they're being charged EXTRA for being responsible.

If, on the other hand, they were inspected and those with dodgy ones were fined heavily, THAT would pay for the inspections.

dan719

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes: What about this scenario : someone IS doing just that, and thanks to this crap Government and their policies, they lose their job, and the only job they can get is miles away from where their previous job was......what do you want them to do ? Move house ? Are you in this "protect the developers and bankers" circle, too ?

And it's precisely BECAUSE of said policies that many people are living miles away from the towns and cities and workplaces, because houses there weren't worth half a million, even if they were already built in areas where you'd have to walk 2 miles from the centre of the estate in order to catch the "local" bus.

"Lifestyle choices" my arse! :rolleyes:

P.S. There are some lifestyle choices that I WOULD like to stop subsidising; e.g. the M50, The Luas, Gormley & Co's ride-a-bike-while-followed-by-a-state-car bull****, etc.

And if you could convince your Gods to actually link the cities in this country by rail, we might actually leave the car at home.

Y'see this is the problem with Government in this country; they tax people more and more for "wrong choices" despite the fact that they don't provide the "right" one.

It's like speeding and smoking; they don't actually WANT people to change, because they'd lose the cash. All they want to do is keep hitting people for extra cash that they don't have (while spending it carelessly and criminally).

Will there be a septic tank charge for each of the Green ministers' mouths ? Because that's where I hear most of the **** coming from.

If I could thanks this post more than once, I would. In fact I would never stop thanking it.

Mr.Micro

IF Gormless introduces the licence that's one thing, a nice little earner for the incompetent Government, but most of the tanks will probably fail, that will be the more money for the incompetents. It is important that the tanks are working properly I will agree that but there then should be a grant scheme introduced to help householders to upgrade their tanks just like the current SEI scheme for home insulation and water pumps etc.

NewDubliner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes: What about this scenario : someone IS doing just that, and thanks to this crap Government and their policies, they lose their job, and the only job they can get is miles away from where their previous job was......what do you want them to do ? Move house ? Are you in this "protect the developers and bankers" circle, too ?

No, I don't care about bankers or property developers. I do care about what rural dwellers are doing to our countryside.

People who live near centres of employment or who can easily move residence to be be near one will be at an advantage in the new economy.

Macha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes: What about this scenario : someone IS doing just that, and thanks to this crap Government and their policies, they lose their job, and the only job they can get is miles away from where their previous job was......what do you want them to do ? Move house ? Are you in this "protect the developers and bankers" circle, too ?

Sorry but this is just nonsense. The problem of urban sprawl and huge commuting distances existed before the recession. Your attempt to link the two reveals the extreme populist angle you're trying for.

I'd also point out that the damage was done long before the Greens got into power.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And it's precisely BECAUSE of said policies that many people are living miles away from the towns and cities and workplaces, because houses there weren't worth half a million, even if they were already built in areas where you'd have to walk 2 miles from the centre of the estate in order to catch the "local" bus.

Again, this was implemented long before the Greens got into power. Nevertheless, the housing bubble and the TYPE of housing that was built are two separate issues. It could have been equally possible for the housing bubble to exist and most of those houses be higher density accommodation.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"Lifestyle choices" my arse! :rolleyes:

I'm afraid this is most definitely a factor. Too many people wanted to live in their house with a postage stamp back garden and now we are known as the land of the semi-d.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

P.S. There are some lifestyle choices that I WOULD like to stop subsidising; e.g. the M50, The Luas, Gormley & Co's ride-a-bike-while-followed-by-a-state-car bull****, etc.

What exactly is your problem with the M50 and the Luas?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And if you could convince your Gods to actually link the cities in this country by rail, we might actually leave the car at home.

And, you don't think public transport MIGHT be a policy of the Greens?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Y'see this is the problem with Government in this country; they tax people more and more for "wrong choices" despite the fact that they don't provide the "right" one.

I agree that there is too much stick and not enough carrot. Unfortunately we have literally built ourselves into too many cul-de-sacs and unless we start ripping down sprawling housing estates and putting up apartment blocks instead, it is going to be very, very difficult to remedy.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's like speeding and smoking; they don't actually WANT people to change, because they'd lose the cash. All they want to do is keep hitting people for extra cash that they don't have (while spending it carelessly and criminally).

Hah - you really think that the tax earned on smoking covers the strain and cost on our health system? You're having a laugh.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Will there be a septic tank charge for each of the Green ministers' mouths ? Because that's where I hear most of the **** coming from.

Looks like you might be in the market for one as well, judging from the above post.

old boy

how many urban dwellers pay for their water, also the household waste, i have to pay for water, 2 bins are required by all waste collection services in my area, i do not complain about not having a bus service, etc, my family has lived in my dwelling house since at least 1880, if it was in an urban area i would be getting state aid to preserve it, the pot holes in our road requires filling by the residents, the local co. council area offices were replaced at a cost of 6m, no there are no grants advailable to the elderly or disabled cannot get a grant to improve their houses, or make necessary improvements, my area has 1 ONE windpowered generator, no thanks to the co.council planners no more can be erected, one thing the CHIEF SNOT has forgotten, all septic thanks built before 1960 are exempt from council control, i will say no more for the moment,

NewDubliner

old boy wrote: »

my family has lived in my dwelling house since at least 1880,

This is 2009. Just because a house was justified at a particular location in 1880, does not mean it needs to be there now.

Instead of bailing out people who live in economically nonviable locations & lifestyles, we should support people who make choices that are aligned with economic strategy.

old boy

NewDubliner wrote: »

This is 2009. Just because a house was justified at a particular location in 1880, does not mean it needs to be there now.

Instead of bailing out people who live in economically nonviable locations & lifestyles, we should support people who make choices that are aligned with economic strategy.

i have asked no one to support me, i do not need a train station, a bus shelter, a luas stop, all of which i help pay for,i pay for water, i pay for rubbish collection, i live a very eco green life, my electric bill is roughly 36 euro every two months, it is you sir / madam that live in an economically non viable location, i would love to erect a wind turbine, to become energy sufficent, and give the rest to neighbours, we have our own chickens the most of our veg, apples fruit etc. my car usage is under 4,000 miles annualy, i do not use bus or trains, as they are not advailable, why does my house not need to be where it is, what would it cost the country and the envoirnment to replace it, you sir/madam cannot see beyond the m50 roundabout, or the end of your nose, which you give the impression has a VERY GREEN SNOT on the end of it

dresden8

taconnol wrote: »

And, you don't think public transport MIGHT be a policy of the Greens?

It MIGHT be a good thing if it was a policy of the greens.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dublin-bus-cuts-290-and-slashes-services-1605207.html

ei.sdraob

old boy wrote: »

i have asked no one to support me, i do not need a train station, a bus shelter, a luas stop, all of which i help pay for,i pay for water, i pay for rubbish collection, i live a very eco green life, my electric bill is roughly 36 euro every two months, it is you sir / madam that live in an economically non viable location, i would love to erect a wind turbine, to become energy sufficent, and give the rest to neighbours, we have our own chickens the most of our veg, apples fruit etc. my car usage is under 4,000 miles annualy, i do not use bus or trains, as they are not advailable, why does my house not need to be where it is, what would it cost the country and the envoirnment to replace it, you sir/madam cannot see beyond the m50 roundabout, or the end of your nose, which you give the impression has a VERY GREEN SNOT on the end of it

spot on

no one is looking for a bailout, this thread is about the septic tank charge


if this also applies to expensive treatment plants some homes have then i would be very very pissed off

im already pissed of at the greens and the current shower of **** who wouldnt allow to put up a windmill


and no i dont commute anywhere far, me going to work involves going from one room to another

NewDubliner

old boy wrote: »

i have asked no one to support me....you sir/madam cannot see beyond the m50 roundabout, or the end of your nose, which you give the impression has a VERY GREEN SNOT on the end of it

I'm glad to hear that you're not a liability to your country.

dan719

NewDubliner wrote: »

No, I don't care about bankers or property developers. I do care about what rural dwellers are doing to our countryside.

People who live near centres of employment or who can easily move residence to be be near one will be at an advantage in the new economy.

And what will these city dwellers do? What will all you hemp wearing cycling green party voting bumpkins produce of value? **** all.

We have resources in the countryside, which occasionally we are allowed exploit. Until you and all your ilk realise that, then we are going to be stuck in this recession.

NewDubliner

dan719 wrote: »

And what will these city dwellers do? What will all you hemp wearing cycling green party voting bumpkins produce of value? **** all.

Entering into the sprit of your rather amusing & humourous robust rural abuse - Dole and bailouts for lazy countryfolk. 'Decentralised' jobs moved at a cost of over 300 million euro. Subsidies. Money for speaking Irish. Health and welfare services for non-taxpaying farmers.

dan719 wrote: »

We have resources in the countryside, which occasionally we are allowed exploit. Until you and all your ilk realise that, then we are going to be stuck in this recession.

All of you, you're all farmers/farm workers? That's great news. Last time I was speaking to a farmer friend of mine, he couldn't get any locals to work on his farm, 'too hard' they said.