Very rural Ireland

ei.sdraob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@dolanbaker keeps insisting that oil is running out hence the price is high, while ignoring that on the world stage speculators are running amock yet again despite falling demand and here in Ireland once you strip away all the taxes petrol is very much affordable.

I have never once said that oil was running out, just that the flow is decreasing, being divided up among a larger number of consumers and costing more to extract and refine.

Yes there is falling demand in Ireland, but Chindia are taking that "slack" as fast as we can cut it!

They ain't going to be giving it back when we want to grow this country in the future. All of this is bad news for a car dependant rural community, no matter what way you look at it.

PS petrol in the US is now about 3.80 a gallon and their cars only do about 25 miles a gallon, so you might get my point.

ei.sdraob

Deleted User wrote: »

I have never once said that oil was running out, just that the flow is decreasing, being divided up among a larger number of consumers and costing more to extract and refine.

Yes there is falling demand in Ireland, but Chindia are taking that "slack" as fast as we can cut it!

You provide absolutely no evidence for this, saying something doesnt make it so.

Deleted User wrote: »

They ain't going to be giving it back when we want to grow this country in the future. All of this is bad news for a car dependant rural community, no matter what way you look at it.

Maybe we should herd 2/3rds of Irish population into Ghettos :rolleyes:

The bad news is for everyone, artificially higher fuel prices lead to unemployment, lack of employment opportunities and more importantly expensive food (and uncompetitive food exports). Good luck growing your own food in the city, I on the other hand will enjoy the delicious fruit and veg from my land.

Deleted User wrote: »

PS petrol in the US is now about 3.80 a gallon and their cars only do about 25 miles a gallon, so you might get my point.

1. US gallon != UK gallon
2. Petrol is about 60-70 euro cent a litre now over there
3. My car here does 21mpg, I am looking forward to renting a similar car and paying more than half less for fuel, and all that nice cheap food, and hospitality (something the Irish tourist sector forgot!)

ei.sdraob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You provide absolutely no evidence for this, saying something doesnt make it so.

Well here's the eia energy report with lots of graphs showing energy useage etc.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/perspectives_2009.pdf

This video will give you an insight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNgNyiXPLk

edit:
Another video that provides a quick look at the issue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hea3c4CWP8I

I could blind you with data showing the oil production peaking and why it won't be rising fast enough to sustain growth, but that's OT

Just google "peak oil" or look at www.theoildrum.com

So the original point still stands, rural living for those in large houses who work and socialise in towns far away will become unsustainable as well as unaffordable.

Aidan1

Yes there is falling demand in Ireland, but Chindia are taking that "slack" as fast as we can cut it!

You provide absolutely no evidence for this, saying something doesnt make it so.

Not even close. It's much worse than that. China's oil demand will grow by 8.8% - to 9.32mln barrels per day this year (ours is just over 160,000 barrels a day, or 1% of the Chinese figure). Our total national demand in 09 was of the order of 64.5mln barrels over the entire year, so China uses more than our entire annual demand in a single week. More to the point, global demand increases add the equivelant of another Ireland to the market every 46 days - China alone adds another Ireland every 115 days, or three times our total demand every year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/11/china-oil-demand-idUSL3E7GB0BS20110511

Meanwhile, supply is constrained - the 'easy wins' are long gone, and prospecting is increasingly taking place in difficult and expensive places. There's also a medium term issue around a shortage of investment in infrastructure and prospecting, which is going to take a while to pan out, but which could make the medium term picture highly volatile. In short, the stuff isn't going to run out tomorrow, it's just going to get a lot more expensive over time.

Loads of detail and further links here;

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52460

The consequences for rural Ireland are going to be very difficult, particularly those areas distant from cities/city regions. Dealing with the political consequences of a dispersed population, hugely dependent on cheap oil for mobility and heating, trying to adapt to far more expensive fossil fuel is going to be very interesting.

Aidan1

Aidan1 wrote: »

Not even close. It's much worse than that. China's oil demand will grow by 8.8% - to 9.32mln barrels per day this year .

Yes, you're quite correct, I should have said OECD countries rather than just Ireland.

Kosseegan

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Short cul de sacs are one thing, but the majority of roads join places and people and getting rid of them would be regretted in the future just as people now regret the removal of the railroads.
Our dispersed population needs these roads, they are a positive "thing" and getting rid of infrastructure because of a short term financial hiccough is madness.
There are a hell of a lot more small cul de sacs serving only a few houses in urban areas, do you suggest people also pay for these out of their own pockets.

We need roads because we have a dispersed population? The answer is not to have a dispersed population and so no need for all of thes roads.
Below is a report of a meeting of Clare County Council proposing to make it easier to grant planning permission for one off houses. This in a county with numerous empty houses.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0517/1224297121108.html

Cú Giobach

Kosseegan wrote: »

The answer is not to have a dispersed population and so no need for all of thes roads.

Of course, why didn't I think of that.
Maybe we could get an idea of how to move the existing people from the accounts of the people who did this.
Sure we could use your logic towards solving unemployment, the answer is not to have unemployed people, Genius.

Cú Giobach

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Of course, why didn't I think of that.
Maybe we could get an idea of how to move the existing people from the accounts of the people who did this.
Sure we could use your logic towards solving unemployment, the answer is not to have unemployed people, Genius.

I don't think you would need to do anything at all, eventually many will be forced to move if they wish to maintain their "suburban" lifestyles.

Those who will stay, will need to adapt to a less oil intensive lifestyle.

Cú Giobach

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think you would need to do anything at all, eventually many will be forced to move if they wish to maintain their "suburban" lifestyles.

Those who will stay, will need to adapt to a less oil intensive lifestyle.

Those who live in suburbia will have problems maintaining their suburban lifestyles.
Large suburbs are creations that have been facilitated by cheap energy.
Sustainability is actually easier in a rural environment.


As things change over this century, people like me will be the lucky ones, a supply of clean water, I have a sustainable supply of wood for heat, space to grow food as do my neighbours, and could easily "harvest" the wind.

serfboard

Kosseegan wrote: »

Below is a report of a meeting of Clare County Council proposing to make it easier to grant planning permission for one off houses. This in a county with numerous empty houses.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0517/1224297121108.html

I love this quote from that article:

An Taisce wrote:

We do tend to win with 80 per cent of decisions going our way as An Bord Pleanála is guided by the planning laws in making its decisions.

As opposed to county councillors who are guided by gombeenism in making theirs.

murphaph

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Of course, why didn't I think of that.
Maybe we could get an idea of how to move the existing people from the accounts of the people who did this.
Sure we could use your logic towards solving unemployment, the answer is not to have unemployed people, Genius.

We're obviously not going to go forcefully removing people from their homes. I am simply in favour of no further destruction of the countryside by granting yet more planning permissions for one off housing. What should be done is that the real cost of living in a one off location should be passed on to the one off dweller. Roads with just a few houses and with no strategic importance (most all 5 digit and higher L roads) should really be abandoned by the local authority and the right of ways over them restricted to those that live on them, the roadways then being handed over to the land owners adjacent for them to maintain.

thebman

murphaph wrote: »

We're obviously not going to go forcefully removing people from their homes. I am simply in favour of no further destruction of the countryside by granting yet more planning permissions for one off housing. What should be done is that the real cost of living in a one off location should be passed on to the one off dweller. Roads with just a few houses and with no strategic importance (most all 5 digit and higher L roads) should really be abandoned by the local authority and the right of ways over them restricted to those that live on them, the roadways then being handed over to the land owners adjacent for them to maintain.

Pretty much has been the case for years TBH. Can't remember the last time the roads were done in my parents area or any area near it.

Was driving down a road the other night and it has basically sunken into the bog.

I can't see the state doing it anytime soon either since they are bankrupt and they weren't done for the elections despite being in Brian Cowen's backyard.

Cú Giobach

murphaph wrote: »

We're obviously not going to go forcefully removing people from their homes. I am simply in favour of no further destruction of the countryside by granting yet more planning permissions for one off housing. What should be done is that the real cost of living in a one off location should be passed on to the one off dweller. Roads with just a few houses and with no strategic importance (most all 5 digit and higher L roads) should really be abandoned by the local authority and the right of ways over them restricted to those that live on them, the roadways then being handed over to the land owners adjacent for them to maintain.

Probably the most unworkable and unfair idea I have ever heard regarding the road system.
Why should say a farmer pay for a road that is adjacent to his land but not used by him?
Who pays for roads that have no houses but link villages?
The huge cost for the few people who live on a long road, and the dangers and legal implications of leaving upkeep in private hands.
The social implications of such an idea are huge, and anyway, in this democracy each government is elected as temporary caretaker to our infrastructure and WE won't elect people who will destroy something that is so important to our lives and communities.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

Roads with just a few houses and with no strategic importance (most all 5 digit and higher L roads) should really be abandoned by the local authority and the right of ways over them restricted to those that live on them, the roadways then being handed over to the land owners adjacent for them to maintain.

There are a number of private roads near where I live and they are all in a terrible condition, some are just gravel.

Be careful what you wish for!

murphaph

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Probably the most unworkable and unfair idea I have ever heard regarding the road system.
Why should say a farmer pay for a road that is adjacent to his land but not used by him?
Who pays for roads that have no houses but link villages?
The huge cost for the few people who live on a long road, and the dangers and legal implications of leaving upkeep in private hands.

That's the system in play in many rural communities in Germany. The farmer in your example wouldn't have to pay anything as his agricultural vehicles would be fine on rough roads, he wouldn't need a smooth road at all. A road linking 2 villages would be considered strategic and would be maintained from the public purse. A road that just provides access to dwellings or farmland would not be, quite simple really. This is not at all unheard of-many roads in rural parts of the US are not maintained by the state either. If people CHOOSE to live a one off, idyllic lifestyle, "fending for themselves" on their own bit of land (that they can grow food on etc.) then they can damn well look after their "private driveways". The post can be dropped (again as it is in the US) at a mail box at the end of the road and the one off dwellers can fetch it themselves.

Cú Giobach

murphaph wrote: »

That's the system in play in many rural communities in Germany. The farmer in your example wouldn't have to pay anything as his agricultural vehicles would be fine on rough roads, he wouldn't need a smooth road at all.

Ha ha! farmers don't need smooth roads that's really funny.

A road linking 2 villages would be considered strategic and would be maintained from the public purse. A road that just provides access to dwellings or farmland would not be, quite simple really.

Please stop this is getting hilarious now. No more public roads connecting houses.

If people CHOOSE to live a one off, idyllic lifestyle, "fending for themselves" on their own bit of land (that they can grow food on etc.) then they can damn well look after their "private driveways". The post can be dropped (again as it is in the US) at a mail box at the end of the road and the one off dwellers can fetch it themselves.

Getting at bit angry here, begrudgery at its finest.

Your little fantasies are unworkable due to the nature of the landscape and distribution of people on this island, here in West Cork and Kerry there are numerous roads that end at the coast, now I'm sure the locals would like a lot of these to be their own private spots, but I don't think the rest of the population would be too happy.
Do you have even the slightest clue about how communities are spread out in places like Cork, Kerry, Donegal etc...

markpb

Cú Giobach, you didn't respond to any of his points and you failed to explain why rural communities in Kerry and Cork are any different to those in Germany or America. Why are things which work well elsewhere impossible here?

You also failed to answer my earlier question. If some people in Dublin pay the full costs of lighting and maintaining the roads in their estates, why shouldn't people in Cork?

In parts of America, people who live outside of incorporated cities (towns) have to pay extra for the county to provide them with a fire service. I'm not advocating that but I'm guessing that would be impossible in Kerry too?

Does it boil down to - it's okay for others but not for me?

Cú Giobach

markpb wrote: »

Cú Giobach, you didn't respond to any of his points and you failed to explain why rural communities in Kerry and Cork are any different to those in Germany or America. Why are things which work well elsewhere impossible here?

Unless every single one of my points has been addressed, which they haven't, do not get on to me for not addressing every single point made. OK.

In America these private roads are built by people to access their farms and homes which were often built in the middle of nowhere years ago. The distribution of the population in rural parts of America is vastly different to here, and a comparison is utterly meaningless.
Give me an example of a country with a similarly dispersed population as here where the government made a radical change as is being advocated here.

You also failed to answer my earlier question. If some people in Dublin pay the full costs of lighting and maintaining the roads in their estates, why shouldn't people in Cork?

If people choose to live in gated or private communities that is their choice, I would love to see the reaction if it was announced all people living in housing estates had to pay for the upkeep of their access roads and lights on top of their existing taxes, it would be the same reaction as the people living in rural Cork or Kerry.

In parts of America, people who live outside of incorporated cities (towns) have to pay extra for the county to provide them with a fire service. I'm not advocating that but I'm guessing that would be impossible in Kerry too?

Sure why not change to their medical system also.

Does it boil down to - it's okay for others but not for me?

Each country does things differently, just because something is done elsewhere does not automatically make it better, or suitable for us.
Just saying "so and so does it why cant we" was an argument my mother didn't accept when I was a child and for good reason.

wiseguy

Private roads? fine so, then can our community also put a toll on it and charge all the traffic using the L road outside the house as a rat run :rolleyes: or used to avoid the N road which is a narrow deathtrap :rolleyes:
I am sure private roads would do wonders to tourism :rolleyes:

Aidan1

Give me an example of a country with a similarly dispersed population as here where the government made a radical change as is being advocated here.

The difficulty with that is that few countries have allowed the unregulated and unsustainable contruction of one off rural dwellings, scattered around the country side.

However, I'll give you two examples that are pretty close. Sweden and Finland - both peripheral European countries with low population densities and a degree of rural dispersion - in both cases rural roads are largely unmetalled, with grading and maintenance left to local farmers or landowners. In some cases the local authorities provide gravel or grit each spring, and leave it to the locals to deal with it.

Again, much of rural Ireland is a complete hybrid of the British rural model and the American rural model. We have the State provided and supported road system, just like the UK but even more dense due to our history. And we have the American model of very light touch regulation of planning. The UK system works well where there is tight control over planning, and most people live in well defined villages and towns. The American system works well where the State (meaning Federal or State) doesn't pay for all services on a flat basis - rural dwellers either pay more, or they look after the service themselves. Ours doesn't work at all, and hence you get poor roads (but lots and lots of them, to keep the rural dwellers happy), poor broadband, a very expensive electricity distribution system, an expensive postal service, an expensive education system and a political system ever locked into clientelism. And all the while, the towns that can create and sustain jobs are left to wither, particularly in the north and west.

The thing is, policy can only slow the inevitable - the measures that Murphaph suggests are occuring in slow motion. Population decline in rural Ireland has been a constant for decades - the 2001-2006 intercensal will show an increase in rural living, but primarily in peri-urban regions, and much of it created by the construction bubble. The lack of a coherent regional development policy has meant that instead of a distribution of employment creation in the exporting sector out to smaller towns, it has instead been focused in Dublin (and Cork to a much lesser extent) - where the critical mass of population, services and access to markets lie. The next intercensal will undoubtedly show an even greater urban focus, because jobs are primarily being created and preserved in urban areas. With an increasing proportion of the population living (and voting) in cities and towns, the existing supports for very lightly used infrastructure cannot be sustained, particularly when you add to the mix the energy situation, and the fact that the economy of this State is now 20% smaller than it was 4 years ago, and we now have a huge external debt load.

markpb

wiseguy wrote: »

Private roads? fine so, then can our community also put a toll on it and charge all the traffic using the L road outside the house as a rat run :rolleyes: or used to avoid the N road which is a narrow deathtrap :rolleyes: I am sure private roads would do wonders to tourism :rolleyes:

Did you read the posts you're replying to? Let me point out the problem with your acerbic wit:

murphaph wrote:

Roads with just a few houses and with no strategic importance (most all 5 digit and higher L roads) should really be abandoned by the local authority. A road linking 2 villages would be considered strategic and would be maintained from the public purse.

markpb wrote:

If some people in Dublin pay the full costs of lighting and maintaining the roads in their estates, why shouldn't people in Cork?

We only suggested it for roads that only go to a small number of homes and not between towns and villages. It's very hard to use a cul de sac as a rat run. Likewise, cul de sacs that lead to farms are probably not the tourist attraction that you seem to think they are.

Tipp Man

Hold on, how many 1 off houses do people think are in this country that are not on what ye call strategic roads i.e linking 2 villages etc??

In my opinion the answer is a tiny number and guess what a lot of these are already paying for the roads linking them to "strategic roads"

I live at the end of a half mile borheen with 2 other houses and we had to pay a very large sum of money each to get the road resurfaced. The council would do the work but only once payment was received. And guess what this was in 2006 - the height of the boom.

Also despite us paying for the road they refused to then make it a private road. I'm not complaining about paying for it - but I certainly don't appreciate people on here implying that rural communities aren't paying their way

Cú Giobach

Aidan1 wrote: »

The difficulty with that is that few countries have allowed the unregulated and unsustainable contruction of one off rural dwellings, scattered around the country side.

However, I'll give you two examples that are pretty close. Sweden and Finland - both peripheral European countries with low population densities and a degree of rural dispersion - in both cases rural roads are largely unmetalled, with grading and maintenance left to local farmers or landowners. In some cases the local authorities provide gravel or grit each spring, and leave it to the locals to deal with it.

Both countries with very small population densities compared to Ireland's 60 per km2, Sweden 21 per km2, Finland (lowest in Europe) 17 per km2, with 85% and 76% living in urban areas. Both with huge tracts of wilderness, areas 6 and 5 times the size of Ireland and very harsh climates, hardly comparable in the slightest.
I bet they don't use that system in the more densely populated rural areas of southern Sweden and Finland.

Again, much of rural Ireland is a complete hybrid of the British rural model and the American rural model. We have the State provided and supported road system, just like the UK but even more dense due to our history. And we have the American model of very light touch regulation of planning. The UK system works well where there is tight control over planning, and most people live in well defined villages and towns. The American system works well where the State (meaning Federal or State) doesn't pay for all services on a flat basis - rural dwellers either pay more, or they look after the service themselves. Ours doesn't work at all, and hence you get poor roads (but lots and lots of them, to keep the rural dwellers happy), poor broadband, a very expensive electricity distribution system, an expensive postal service, an expensive education system and a political system ever locked into clientelism. And all the while, the towns that can create and sustain jobs are left to wither, particularly in the north and west.

The thing is, policy can only slow the inevitable - the measures that Murphaph suggests are occuring in slow motion. Population decline in rural Ireland has been a constant for decades - the 2001-2006 intercensal will show an increase in rural living, but primarily in peri-urban regions, and much of it created by the construction bubble. The lack of a coherent regional development policy has meant that instead of a distribution of employment creation in the exporting sector out to smaller towns, it has instead been focused in Dublin (and Cork to a much lesser extent) - where the critical mass of population, services and access to markets lie. The next intercensal will undoubtedly show an even greater urban focus, because jobs are primarily being created and preserved in urban areas. With an increasing proportion of the population living (and voting) in cities and towns, the existing supports for very lightly used infrastructure cannot be sustained, particularly when you add to the mix the energy situation, and the fact that the economy of this State is now 20% smaller than it was 4 years ago, and we now have a huge external debt load.

A good summary of the problems, but nothing to validate the closure and privatisation of huge numbers of roads that if you are correct, will naturally fall into disuse gradually anyway .

Aidan1

Both countries with very small population densities compared to Ireland's 60 per km2, Sweden 21 per km2, Finland (lowest in Europe) 17 per km2, with 85% and 76% living in urban areas. Both with huge tracts of wilderness, areas 6 and 5 times the size of Ireland and very harsh climates, hardly comparable in the slightest.

That's what I meant by the difficulties around finding a comparator - but taking the mean national population density figures is misleading. Parts of Sweden north of the arctic circle are almost entirely unpopulated, but parts of the south and west are much more so (leaving aside the arable areas like Skane), and 'local' (non national) roads are often entirely unpaved. It's one of the reasons why rallying is such a popular sport in Finland also - gravel roads.

but nothing to validate the closure and privatisation of huge numbers of roads that if you are correct, will naturally fall into disuse gradually anyway

No one is talking about 'closing these roads' (and I wouldn't support their privatisation either), but there is a simple reason for ceasing to maintain a large number of rural roads that have very, very little traffic; money. As other posters have pointed out, this has effectively been happening for years. Hedgecutting is now down to farmers, and many roads haven't seen maintenance for a decade or more, but huge sums are still spent on these roads on a national basis. Setting a clear policy direction around those roads that will be maintained, and those that will be 'left' would save local authorities huge amounts, which could then be spent on regional roads, which are used heavily.

thebman

Aidan1 wrote: »

That's what I meant by the difficulties around finding a comparator - but taking the mean national population density figures is misleading. Parts of Sweden north of the arctic circle are almost entirely unpopulated, but parts of the south and west are much more so (leaving aside the arable areas like Skane), and 'local' (non national) roads are often entirely unpaved. It's one of the reasons why rallying is such a popular sport in Finland also - gravel roads.


No one is talking about 'closing these roads' (and I wouldn't support their privatisation either), but there is a simple reason for ceasing to maintain a large number of rural roads that have very, very little traffic; money. As other posters have pointed out, this has effectively been happening for years. Hedgecutting is now down to farmers, and many roads haven't seen maintenance for a decade or more, but huge sums are still spent on these roads on a national basis. Setting a clear policy direction around those roads that will be maintained, and those that will be 'left' would save local authorities huge amounts, which could then be spent on regional roads, which are used heavily.

But these roads aren't resurfaced in Ireland either. The roads were built years ago, all the council does is throw down chippings which get run into the road or dispersed to the edge by traffic on the road hence the slow loose chippings 20KM/H signs that never get picked up again either.

The last time the road my parents live on had chippings thrown on it was about 7 years ago and pot holes on the road have been filled in by the local quarry that has to drive its trucks over the roads.

Does anybody actually have any figures for how much we are spending on repairing non-national, non-strategic routes? I doubt it. I imagine its very low compared to what it once was.

Cú Giobach

Aidan1 wrote: »

That's what I meant by the difficulties around finding a comparator - but taking the mean national population density figures is misleading. Parts of Sweden north of the arctic circle are almost entirely unpopulated, but parts of the south and west are much more so (leaving aside the arable areas like Skane), and 'local' (non national) roads are often entirely unpaved. It's one of the reasons why rallying is such a popular sport in Finland also - gravel roads.

As a biker and cyclist gravel roads are death traps for the likes of me, so please excuse me if I don't support them.

No one is talking about 'closing these roads' (and I wouldn't support their privatisation either),

People are talking about closing them, that's what has kept me in this thread, nice to see you don't agree with privatisation.

but there is a simple reason for ceasing to maintain a large number of rural roads that have very, very little traffic; money. As other posters have pointed out, this has effectively been happening for years. Hedgecutting is now down to farmers, and many roads haven't seen maintenance for a decade or more, but huge sums are still spent on these roads on a national basis. Setting a clear policy direction around those roads that will be maintained, and those that will be 'left' would save local authorities huge amounts, which could then be spent on regional roads, which are used heavily.

As thebman says this is happening anyway. The natural decline of lesser used roads has always happened, there are many tracks and borheens around the country that were once joining communities and villages and are now just used by farmers or walkers and visitors. This is normal and natural.
There is one very important thing about leaving roads decline and that is safety, I spend my time on a bicycle, motorbike and foot, around the lesser used roads in W' Cork, and the way lots of people drive their cars I am taking my life in my hands every time I leave the house, poor quality roads increases this danger manyfold.
Getting constantly hit in the face from loose chippings isn't very pleasant either.

paulm17781

Cú Giobach wrote: »

People are talking about closing them, that's what has kept me in this thread

I suspect it will or won't happen regardless of whether you're in the thread or not. :P

Cú Giobach

paulm17781 wrote: »

I suspect it will or won't happen regardless of whether you're in the thread or not. :P

That's a weird comment.

Milk & Honey

Tipp Man wrote: »

Hold on, how many 1 off houses do people think are in this country that are not on what ye call strategic roads i.e linking 2 villages etc??

In my opinion the answer is a tiny number and guess what a lot of these are already paying for the roads linking them to "strategic roads"

I live at the end of a half mile borheen with 2 other houses and we had to pay a very large sum of money each to get the road resurfaced. The council would do the work but only once payment was received. And guess what this was in 2006 - the height of the boom.

Also despite us paying for the road they refused to then make it a private road. I'm not complaining about paying for it - but I certainly don't appreciate people on here implying that rural communities aren't paying their way

The real issue is why should there be three houses there at all? A postman delivering a letter to one of you has to travel a mile on the round trip up and down the boreen. The cost of that is naturally greater than the price of the stamp. There are all kinds of costs associated with providing services to isolated settlements that are averaged in to the costs of services.

FF and proud

Ah sure without the rural areas we would be nowhere at all. Sure we are still mainly a farming country and we need to keep the country alive so that we have a thrivving farming community. Without rural ireland the economy would collapse and we woudlnt have much to export. The an Taisce people dont really take account of that when they try to depopulate the rural areas.