Waterford city boundary extension

questionmark?

Squidvicious wrote: »

While I think I might differ a little from you in so far as I have no huge problem with changing administrative boundaries (without changing traditional counties outside of that), provided it's done nationally and as part of a wholesale reorganisation of our system of local government. By all means, update current administrative divisions but do it rationally and not on a "beggar my neighbour" basis.
However I think you're quite on the money about the lack of honesty from some on the blue and white side.

I may not have explained myself fully. I should have explained my opinion in more detail and that is that this is more than a Waterford v KK situation. I would like to see this done nationally on a rational basis for the betterment of the country as a whole not some old county lines that often holds back development.

Dunmoreroader

Squidvicious wrote: »

Fair point. Let's move the boundary back to the river where it was originally;):p

Well not sure when the river was actually the border but here's where the border was in 1818. Oh look it contains most of the area in the current proposal. Who knew.😀

kikel

Leaving the county allegiance thing aside for one moment. What are the benefits of staying in County Kilkenny for the people living in the area affected.

I'm all ears.

Squidvicious

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Well not sure when the river was actually the border but here's where the border was in 1818. Oh look it contains most of the area in the current proposal. Who knew.😀

Hmm. Can't quite seem to find Slieverue or Bellevue on that map. So hardly most. Anyway, aren't the pro extension people supposed to be about modernising things not quoting early nineteenth century maps!
I have to admit, though, it was a good find

Squidvicious

kikel wrote: »

Leaving the county allegiance thing aside for one moment. What are the benefits of staying in County Kilkenny for the people living in the area affected.

I'm all ears.

Probably none. That's my whole point. It actually makes very little difference economically one way or another, no more than it affects Dublin being split into four local authority areas.

road_high

kikel wrote: »

Leaving the county allegiance thing aside for one moment. What are the benefits of staying in County Kilkenny for the people living in the area affected.

I'm all ears.

What are the "benefits" of leaving? A quick drive around Waterford and you won't be sold on the concept...Kilkenny is one of the best run counties out there, and I've lived in a few others.
Local authorities haven't a huge impact on any of our daily lives apart from providing a few basic services that are pretty similar regardless of where you live in Ireland.

kikel

road_high wrote: »

What are the "benefits" of leaving? A quick drive around Waterford and you won't be sold on the concept...Kilkenny is one of the best run counties out there, and I've lived in a few others.
Local authorities haven't a huge impact on any of our daily lives apart from providing a few basic services that are pretty similar regardless of where you live in Ireland.

I was expecting at least 1 example.

From reading the Waterford forum on this topic it seems that south Kilkenny is not as well ran at the city of Kilkenny. People feel that money earned on south Kk from rate is invested in Kk city.

(One thing I go agree with you on is that Waterford has not Bing managed very well over the last few years)

kikel

A question for you all. Where do you think the 19k objections to this came from? In my opinion the numbers don't add up. There are 7k people living in the affected. Obviously not all of those 7k agree to stay in Kilkenny. Where are roughly 13k extra submissions coming from? Is this not totally bizarre to everyone else? Are these signatures or actually real submissions?

Squidvicious

kikel wrote: »

I was expecting at least 1 example.

From reading the Waterford forum on this topic it seems that south Kilkenny is not as well ran at the city of Kilkenny. People feel that money earned on south Kk from rate is invested in Kk city.

(One thing I go agree with you on is that Waterford has not Bing managed very well over the last few years)

It's inevitable that a county's money will tend to be spent in the capital.
The onus is on people arguing for change to make the case for it. I've seen absolutely no case made nor can you point out one obvious economic benefit of a change.

kikel

Squidvicious wrote: »

It's inevitable that a county's money will tend to be spent in the capital.

True, I suppose if the change did happen the people of the area would hope to see themselves in a capital. I.e Waterford.

Squidvicious

kikel wrote: »

True, I suppose if the change did happen the people of the area would hope to see themselves in a capital. I.e Waterford.

No, not in a capital. We'd be part of a county which stretches as far as Youghal. Whatever about being part of the old Waterford City council, it makes little sense to be part of the combined county /city.
I notice that you haven't been able to come up with a compelling economic argument for an extension. As you say yourself I'm all ears.

kikel

Squidvicious wrote: »

No, not in a capital. We'd be part of a county which stretches as far as Youghal. Whatever about being part of the old Waterford City council, it makes little sense to be part of the combined county /city.
I notice that you haven't been able to come up with a compelling economic argument for an extension. As you say yourself I'm all ears.

Economic reason. Well, it make sense for Waterford to economically benefit from the port of belview in some way. While it would hit Kilkenny hard to loose the rate there from the port. The benefit that the Waterford port to Waterford. Waterford was built around a port. It's it's history. We know Waterford has issues but maybe the port moving out of the city has had poor economic effects. To change from a port city to a search for a new soul.

Squidvicious

kikel wrote: »

Economic reason. Well, it make sense for Waterford to economically benefit from the port of belview in some way. While it would hit Kilkenny hard to loose the rate there from the port. The benefit that the Waterford port to Waterford. Waterford was built around a port. It's it's history. We know Waterford has issues but maybe the port moving out of the city has had poor economic effects. To change from a port city to a search for a new soul.

Why does it make sense? That's completely subjective. The point is that the economic benefits of any particular resource will flow throughout the region regardless of where the border lies. A boundary extension isn't going to move the port geographically. The port was moved for practical reasons of deeper water and the availability of land to allow for expansion. Whether it's part of Kilkenny or Waterford, the port will go on benefiting the entire region. You'll have to try harder than that if you want to show a real gain for us in South Kilkenny in moving the boundary.

jelutong

Can anyone tell me why the powers that be decided to move the port to Belvue ?
It hasn't improved the City or Ferrybank and it sure hasn't improved Belvue.

kikel

Squidvicious wrote: »

Why does it make sense? That's completely subjective. The point is that the economic benefits of any particular resource will flow throughout the region regardless of where the border lies. A boundary extension isn't going to move the port geographically. The port was moved for practical reasons of deeper water and the availability of land to allow for expansion. Whether it's part of Kilkenny or Waterford, the port will go on benefiting the entire region. You'll have to try harder than that if you want to show a real gain for us in South Kilkenny in moving the boundary.

True a port will benefit a whole area. But the economic benefit of rates. Waterford are probably somewhat soar that there are huge rates involved with the port which are invested in Kilkenny city rather than Waterford city. The fact that rates.

Yes the port was moved for practical reason but it has knock on economic effect to the local area. This local area is Waterford city centre.

Squidvicious

jelutong wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why the powers that be decided to move the port to Belvue ?
It hasn't improved the City or Ferrybank and it sure hasn't improved Belvue.

I presume it was moved to benefit from deeper water down river. Also, the port's physical expansion would have been limited had it remained in an urban area. As far as I know, Port of Waterford is an independent entity which made the decision both to move and where to move to. Not sure why they decided to move to Co.Kilkenny as opposed to Co.Waterford.

Squidvicious

kikel wrote: »

True a port will benefit a whole area. But the economic benefit of rates. Waterford are probably somewhat soar that there are huge rates involved with the port which are invested in Kilkenny city rather than Waterford city. The fact that rates.

Yes the port was moved for practical reason but it has knock on economic effect to the local area. This local area is Waterford city centre.

You say Waterford is sore that something of worth was located in South Kilkenny. So it should simply be handed over to Co.Waterford because they feel a bit sore? I really don't see any logic there. Nor do I see how that will benefit the people in the affected area. Your only argument is the rates benefit of Waterford port. So when it comes down to it, there's no reason to move the boundary except that Waterford rather fancies a slice of the economic pie that is Bellevue. Bellevue is not even on the border. It's several miles inside. Effectively, Waterford is cherry picking something of value located in Co.Kilkenny. By that logic , we should give them the castle too. That would be another rates boost for Waterford.

The economic effects of the port will be exactly the same whichever county it is in. It won't be physical moved.

kikel

Squidvicious wrote: »

You say Waterford is sore that something of worth was located in South Kilkenny. So it should simply be handed over to Co.Waterford because they feel a bit sore? I really don't see any logic there. Nor do I see how that will benefit the people in the affected area. Your only argument is the rates benefit of Waterford port. So when it comes down to it, there's no reason to move the boundary except that Waterford rather fancies a slice of the economic pie that is Bellevue. Bellevue is not even on the border. It's several miles inside. Effectively, Waterford is cherry picking something of value located in Co.Kilkenny. By that logic , we should give them the castle too. That would be another rates boost for Waterford.

The economic effects of the port will be exactly the same whichever county it is in. It won't be physical moved.

You've got me with the reference to the castle.

Squidvicious

kikel wrote: »

You've got me with the reference to the castle.

Kilkenny Castle. Sorry, I was being a little facetious.

kikel

Squidvicious wrote: »

Kilkenny Castle. Sorry, I was being a little facetious.

road_high

jelutong wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why the powers that be decided to move the port to Belvue ?
It hasn't improved the City or Ferrybank and it sure hasn't improved Belvue.

It was a logical choice. Located well outside the city centre, lots of flat level for expansion and the deep water of the Suir/Barrow estuary right there. Had they decided to build it physically on the Co. Waterford side it would have meant extra millions in investment to build a bridge link directly across to link up with the road/rail network to the rest of the country.

Dunmoreroader

http://www.waterfordboundaryreview.ie/submissions/online/Stephanie%20Taheny.pdf
Nuff said

road_high

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

http://www.waterfordboundaryreview.ie/submissions/online/Stephanie%20Taheny.pdf
Nuff said

Yawn...the shopping centre never even opened ffs. Seems to be the major straw the Waterford boundary cheerleaders are clutching at. You'd swear they were almost happy it was built...Lots of planning mistakes occurred all-over the country, all local authorities, not least Waterford's, bare responsibility. The real prize is the planning successes here which WCC want to feed off for rates such as the Port and new Glanbia plant, all built in and supported by KCC.
Oh and for such a planning genius, can someone tell her it's bypass not bye-pass.

Dunmoreroader

road_high wrote: »

Yawn...the shopping centre never even opened ffs. Seems to be the major straw the Waterford boundary cheerleaders are clutching at. You'd swear they were almost happy it was built...Lots of planning mistakes occurred all-over the country, all local authorities, not least Waterford's, bare responsibility. The real prize is the planning successes here which WCC want to feed off for rates such as the Port and new Glanbia plant, all built in and supported by KCC.
Oh and for such a planning genius, can someone tell her it's bypass not bye-pass.

Wow, you really shredded her arguments pointing out that spelling typo, boom! - no credibility left missus :rolleyes:
I think the intended feeding off rates was that hoped for by KCC off the still-born white Elephant - Ferrybank Shopping Centre, no?

mountcisco

road_high wrote: »

Yawn...the shopping centre never even opened ffs. Seems to be the major straw the Waterford boundary cheerleaders are clutching at. You'd swear they were almost happy it was built...Lots of planning mistakes occurred all-over the country, all local authorities, not least Waterford's, bare responsibility. The real prize is the planning successes here which WCC want to feed off for rates such as the Port and new Glanbia plant, all built in and supported by KCC.
Oh and for such a planning genius, can someone tell her it's bypass not bye-pass.

You should always be careful when correcting spelling errors. We can all fall into the trap, like in your own case the word above should be 'bear', not 'bare'.

Flying Abruptly

For me, her whole argument comes down to that the FSC should have been built on the North Quays instead. There's nothing to say the whole thing wouldn't have played out the same if it was built 1 mile down the road leaving it still vacant.

And by the way, the document, especially the conclusions, is hard to read with typos and paragraphs spread out everywhere.

Dunmoreroader

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

For me, her whole argument comes down to that the FSC should have been built on the North Quays instead. There's nothing to say the whole thing wouldn't have played out the same if it was built 1 mile down the road leaving it still vacant.

And by the way, the document, especially the conclusions, is hard to read with typos and paragraphs spread out everywhere.

Bit of selective reading going on here? It was the scale of the development that was at issue not its location. WCC originally provided the site for a modest district shopping centre. Deerland, with KCC's approval, turned it into Frankenstein's monster.
Anything on the North Quays is about extending the city centre core, not about providing sub-urban shopping. This was all provided for in the PLUTS, in the Retail Strategy guidelines but KCC drove a coach & 4 through all of that.

Flying Abruptly

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Bit of selective reading going on here? It was the scale of the development that was at issue not its location. WCC originally provided the site for a modest district shopping centre. Deerland, with KCC's approval, turned it into Frankenstein's monster.
Anything on the North Quays is about extending the city centre core, not about providing sub-urban shopping. This was all provided for in the PLUTS, in the Retail Strategy guidelines but KCC drove a coach & 4 through all of that.

Its not selective reading, its the conclusion of the letter itself: the investment in FSC was loss in investment for the North Quays.

Dunmoreroader

Flying Abruptly wrote: »

Its not selective reading, its the conclusion of the letter itself: the investment in FSC was loss in investment for the North Quays.

Then your deliberately missing the point; retail on the North Quays with presumably a new pedestrian bridge, augments and consolidates the city centre as the primary retail area. A small district shopping centre in Ferrybank, like Ardkeen stores or Supervalu Loughboy wouldn't have affected this greatly. FSC as it was built, with it's scale, if it's ever opened fully, will harm the city centre including any prospective investment mooted for the North Quays.
Thats what KCC hoped it would do, diverting big ticket retailers looking at Waterford city centre to open new shops, to instead set up in FSC diverting rates from WCC to KCC.

Flying Abruptly

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Then your deliberately missing the point; retail on the North Quays with presumably a new pedestrian bridge, augments and consolidates the city centre as the primary retail area. A small district shopping centre in Ferrybank, like Ardkeen stores or Supervalu Loughboy wouldn't have affected this greatly. FSC as it was built, with it's scale, if it's ever opened fully, will harm the city centre including any prospective investment mooted for the North Quays.
Thats what KCC hoped it would do, diverting big ticket retailers looking at Waterford city centre to open new shops, to instead set up in FSC diverting rates from WCC to KCC.

The point the author is making, from the conclusions, is that it was built as a detriment to the North Quays project and the investment to it was lost.

The North Quays is arguably a better location for investment and development for the city and Ferrybank, however it has been left idle for as long as I came remember (~25 yrs). When the first application went in for FSC in 2002, there was no sign of any change, and even now, from what I understand, one of the larger buildings is being left at the end of the current cleaning process. The time it takes so that it is finally removed, as well as investment and the building of another bridge, it will be what...another 5 - 10 years? Maybe it can be so wisely used as car parking in the mean time, just like the South Quays waterfront.

Did they make FSC too big? Yes. But waiting possibly indefintely for another large future project that might never exist does also not serve the people of the area. If the North Quays had been cleared at a much earlier date, FSC would most likely never have existed.

In my opinon, you are the one misrepresenting the letter and drawing conclusions that the author did not make. Nowhere I can see does it include anything about what you just said about a plan to divert retailers or rates. You are presenting it as some sort of 'gotcha' argument, which I dont think it is.