€300M Investment into Waterford City

Teebor15

I would expect a nod and a wink has been given from above and will be formally announced when Leo and his entourage visit Waterford before the end of the year. Which will just happen to coincide with the ceremonial contract signing by Al-Hokair in a big hoo-haa!

All going well they'll throw in the announcement that the state funding for the runway extension has also been approved as that decision is due in the next few week also.

Everything is shaping up for a good Christmas!

Waterboy2014

I think they are actually €104 million from central government and about €26 million from Waterford Council, KK County Council, and the National Transport Authority. This money is to build the bridge and do all the infrastructure work around the site, plus build the transport hub. It makes total sense to me that they would wait for this finding announcement as the project will be significantly impacted if it's not.

Christy Browne

Teebor15 wrote: »

I would expect a nod and a wink has been given from above and will be formally announced when Leo and his entourage visit Waterford before the end of the year. Which will just happen to coincide with the ceremonial contract signing by Al-Hokair in a big hoo-haa!

All going well they'll throw in the announcement that the state funding for the runway extension has also been approved as that decision is due in the next few week also.

Everything is shaping up for a good Christmas!

If they guaranteed funding for the North Quays, the airport and a 24/7 cath lab, they’d clean up seats in Waterford for over a decade. Mental how they’re ignoring it.

engiweirdo

Christy Browne wrote: »

If they guaranteed funding for the North Quays, the airport and a 24/7 cath lab, they’d clean up seats in Waterford for over a decade. Mental how they’re ignoring it.

2 seats is all they'd be buying in reality. And for quite a price. For the most part the city and county operate physically and mentally entirely separately.

Anyway, "Do it. Do it all. Or get no bloody seats again ever." would be a better approach. These donkeys need a good dose of the stick not more carrots.

JohnC.

Too many people are too tribal in their voting to not vote for them.

Road-Hog

Waterboy2014 wrote: »

I think they are actually €104 million from central government and about €26 million from Waterford Council, KK County Council, and the National Transport Authority. This money is to build the bridge and do all the infrastructure work around the site, plus build the transport hub. It makes total sense to me that they would wait for this finding announcement as the project will be significantly impacted if it's not.

Where ya getting the €104m figure from....? Upped by €44 since the figure of €60m was mentioned last year. Is it construction inflation or something....or has a lot more been thrown into the ‘pot’......in any case based on past experiences on major construction projects the €104m could easily end up being €164 by time all works are complete

Harry Palmr

WLR North Quays interviews with Michael Walsh, Rob Cass, Marian Walsh etc

https://soundcloud.com/wlrfmwaterford/deise-today-special-meet-the-team-behind-the-north-quays

Brilliant moment of silence at 36 minutes It spoke a thousand words.

thomasm

I see Flynn’s pub in Ferrybank has been bought by the council to operate as offices during the development and as apartments when complete.

engiweirdo

thomasm wrote: »

I see Flynn’s pub in Ferrybank has been bought by the council to operate as offices during the development and as apartments when complete.

Lovely. That, in conjunction with the grim Celtic Tiger era cardboard box apartments they have been buying lately will solve the housing crisis. Sure beats building right?

Harry Palmr

You tit.

engiweirdo

Harry Palmr wrote: »

You tit.

Charming. You seem nice. For balance, maybe check out the councils fb updates for "choice based letting" for proof of their "sterling" work in housing the city compared to county.

Harry Palmr

They've taken a decommissioned property and are giving it not one but two uses and you take that as proof of something or other. Flynn's pub is just one plot not evidence of a policy.

engiweirdo

Harry Palmr wrote: »

They've taken a decommissioned property and are giving it not one but two uses and you take that as proof of something or other. Flynn's pub is just one plot not evidence of a policy.

Yeah that, and comparitive value of their efforts to secure this massive funding (which I do support) for private industry against the backdrop of absolute neglect of responsibilities in regard to housing provision for years. I still note no real developments of any notable scale in this regard in the pipeline, maybe 20 or 30 units here or there over the course of this year planned for the city.

While Michael Walsh and co are clearly and obviously keen to get their headline grabbing project over the line. Let's not pat them on the back too voraciously given the neglect and lack of focus on their responsibilities in what is in all seriousness a far more important area of concern for the city, even in line with the North Quays project: housing provision.

Max Powers

engiweirdo wrote: »

Yeah that, and comparitive value of their efforts to secure this massive funding (which I do support) for private industry against the backdrop of absolute neglect of responsibilities in regard to housing provision for years. I still note no real developments of any notable scale in this regard in the pipeline, maybe 20 or 30 units here or there over the course of this year planned for the city.

While Michael Walsh and co are clearly and obviously keen to get their headline grabbing project over the line. Let's not pat them on the back too voraciously given the neglect and lack of focus on their responsibilities in what is in all seriousness a far more important area of concern for the city, even in line with the North Quays project: housing provision.

Can't provide houses if no money available for it last number of years.

Wanderer78

Max Powers wrote: »

Can't provide houses if no money available for it last number of years.

our housing issues are far more complicated than the availability of money, the creation of money is relatively easy

Max Powers

Wanderer78 wrote: »

our housing issues are far more complicated than the availability of money, the creation of money is relatively easy

Nonsense, No it ain't easy.council gets money from the govt for most of its budget, govt didn't have any money meaning policy was no social housing also.

engiweirdo

Max Powers wrote: »

engiweirdo wrote: »

Yeah that, and comparitive value of their efforts to secure this massive funding (which I do support) for private industry against the backdrop of absolute neglect of responsibilities in regard to housing provision for years. I still note no real developments of any notable scale in this regard in the pipeline, maybe 20 or 30 units here or there over the course of this year planned for the city.

While Michael Walsh and co are clearly and obviously keen to get their headline grabbing project over the line. Let's not pat them on the back too voraciously given the neglect and lack of focus on their responsibilities in what is in all seriousness a far more important area of concern for the city, even in line with the North Quays project: housing provision.

Can't provide houses if no money available for it last number of years.

Where are the submissions from Waterford Council to government seeking funding for housing for even a tenth of the value of this investment? On already owned land €10m would provide a lot of units if not procured wastefully/using only "friendly" developers.

I have seen some fantastical projections for population and economic growth in line with this project but not a single solid plan to accommodate all these new people never mind the existing population. And yes I know there will be residential units as part of the development, but what else? Where will the workers building these units live? And if they secure accomodation, whi else will they push out of the market given the finite and not increasing in line with even current demand, never mind potential future increases, housing stock.

More questions, more accountability. Less backslapping. Mr Walsh receives quite a healthy salary from the public purse and should not be let off the hook so easily for fulfilling only part of his remit.

Bards

If this project lives up to only 50% of it's potential, imagine the increased income the city council will receive over the next decade or so to spend on services such as social housing etc.

This development secures all our futures

wakka12

This is great for waterford, might breathe a bit of life back into the city. I wonder why these saudi guys are investing in a little provincial city in ireland though, I wouldnt have thought it looked like a very worthwhile venture

Harry Palmr

wakka12 wrote: »

This is great for waterford, might breathe a bit of life back into the city. I wonder why these saudi guys are investing in a little provincial city in ireland though, I wouldnt have thought it looked like a very worthwhile venture

They have done the numbers - X people in City and environs, of that X percentage Y spend Z amount of money outside Waterford. Ergo Waterford has poor retail profile which is ripe for development.

Max Powers

engiweirdo wrote: »

Where are the submissions from Waterford Council to government seeking funding for housing for even a tenth of the value of this investment? On already owned land €10m would provide a lot of units if not procured wastefully/using only "friendly" developers.

I have seen some fantastical projections for population and economic growth in line with this project but not a single solid plan to accommodate all these new people never mind the existing population. And yes I know there will be residential units as part of the development, but what else? Where will the workers building these units live? And if they secure accomodation, whi else will they push out of the market given the finite and not increasing in line with even current demand, never mind potential future increases, housing stock.

More questions, more accountability. Less backslapping. Mr Walsh receives quite a healthy salary from the public purse and should not be let off the hook so easily for fulfilling only part of his remit.

Your plan..Ask for ten million to provide social housing, get told no and what then, lose a big investment. Silly talk.
Hopefully more housing will start soon, both public and private is slow at the moment.

Max Powers

engiweirdo wrote: »

Where are the submissions from Waterford Council to government seeking funding for housing for even a tenth of the value of this investment? On already owned land €10m would provide a lot of units if not procured wastefully/using only "friendly" developers.

I have seen some fantastical projections for population and economic growth in line with this project but not a single solid plan to accommodate all these new people never mind the existing population. And yes I know there will be residential units as part of the development, but what else? Where will the workers building these units live? And if they secure accomodation, whi else will they push out of the market given the finite and not increasing in line with even current demand, never mind potential future increases, housing stock.

More questions, more accountability. Less backslapping. Mr Walsh receives quite a healthy salary from the public purse and should not be let off the hook so easily for fulfilling only part of his remit.

Your plan..Ask for ten million to provide social housing, get told no and what then, lose a big investment. Silly talk.
Hopefully more housing will start soon, both public and private is slow at the moment.

engiweirdo

Max Powers wrote: »

engiweirdo wrote: »

Where are the submissions from Waterford Council to government seeking funding for housing for even a tenth of the value of this investment? On already owned land €10m would provide a lot of units if not procured wastefully/using only "friendly" developers.

I have seen some fantastical projections for population and economic growth in line with this project but not a single solid plan to accommodate all these new people never mind the existing population. And yes I know there will be residential units as part of the development, but what else? Where will the workers building these units live? And if they secure accomodation, whi else will they push out of the market given the finite and not increasing in line with even current demand, never mind potential future increases, housing stock.

More questions, more accountability. Less backslapping. Mr Walsh receives quite a healthy salary from the public purse and should not be let off the hook so easily for fulfilling only part of his remit.

Your plan..Ask for ten million to provide social housing, get told no and what then, lose a big investment. Silly talk.
Hopefully more housing will start soon, both public and private is slow at the moment.

Different funds. Different applications. Neither one is dependent on the other. Nor does the stipulation exist that if you want funding for affordable/social housing you cant have a shopping centre. Needless to say if given that choice(wouldnt happen) and you chose the commercial option instead and only, what type of heartless robot does that make you?

I think the focus on provision of services for business only; Applemarket, Arundel Square, North Quays without then seeking funding for the social well-being of the citizens of Waterford. Sends a very clear message that Waterford Council in its current guise views its citizens only as consumers not as human beings and has strayed so far from the normal function of a county council as to be considered obscene.

Michael Walsh's legacy will likely be delivery of NQ and Michael St. In tandem with that though it should never be forgotten his legacy will be of standing over the worst period in the history of the state in terms of housing provision. And doing absolutely nothing to change that.

Harry Palmr

Housing is discussed in the soundcloud podcast if you listen to it

Max Powers

engiweirdo wrote: »

Different funds. Different applications. Neither one is dependent on the other. Nor does the stipulation exist that if you want funding for affordable/social housing you cant have a shopping centre. Needless to say if given that choice(wouldnt happen) and you chose the commercial option instead and only, what type of heartless robot does that make you?

I think the focus on provision of services for business only; Applemarket, Arundel Square, North Quays without then seeking funding for the social well-being of the citizens of Waterford. Sends a very clear message that Waterford Council in its current guise views its citizens only as consumers not as human beings and has strayed so far from the normal function of a county council as to be considered obscene.

Michael Walsh's legacy will likely be delivery of NQ and Michael St. In tandem with that though it should never be forgotten his legacy will be of standing over the worst period in the history of the state in terms of housing provision. And doing absolutely nothing to change that.

I doubt you know anything about what the council have been doing on housing last few years, total cheap shot then blaming m.walsh as there has been no money there since the crash, always someone elses fault is it engi.i mean, the dog in the street knows the council is a few million in the red too. Heartless robot....don't make me laugh, I'd prefer NQ over a few million worth of social housing all day long, most people would.Nonsense about different funds really, there is only so much money in the pot.

Stopitwillya

I for one am glad more money is not being wasted on social housing. If you want to be housed go work hard and buy a bloody house like the rest of us.
Plenty of houses out in Foxwood and Kill St. Lawrence. 238 of them for sale in the city on daft.ie.
Enough ghettos in the city without the council creating more of them.

engiweirdo

Max Powers wrote: »

I doubt you know anything about what the council have been doing on housing last few years, total cheap shot then blaming m.walsh as there has been no money there since the crash, always someone elses fault is it engi.i mean, the dog in the street knows the council is a few million in the red too. Heartless robot....don't make me laugh, I'd prefer NQ over a few million worth of social housing all day long, most people would.Nonsense about different funds really, there is only so much money in the pot.

Holding the highest ranking public servant in the city accountable for a failure is a "cheap shot"? Interesting point of view. Should we just not question our "betters" at all then. And you know, or at least should at this stage, the money in the pot is at best figuratively in existence/stroke of a pen stuff.

Austerity was very much a decision, publicising banking debt over Keynesian infrastructural investment was a decision. Top ranking public servants such as Michael enforced that decision and were rewarded for doing so. Now another set of decisions have been made and its clear corporate welfare trumps public welfare in the eyes of this administration. That is fine if that's your outlook but you must stand over that decision.

Under Mr Walsh's guidance Waterford Council decided the welfare of private business trumps that of citizens welfare. That is fact. That is his legacy.

engiweirdo

Stopitwillya wrote: »

I for one am glad more money is not being wasted on social housing. If you want to be housed go work hard and buy a bloody house like the rest of us.
Plenty of houses out in Foxwood and Kill St. Lawrence. 238 of them for sale in the city on daft.ie.
Enough ghettos in the city without the council creating more of them.

Do prices of private housing in the above developments align with the median wage in Waterford city?

Who said it needs be all social housing. When was the last time affordable units were built?

The money erstwhile "wasted" on social housing is in any case directed toward private landlords via HAP/RAS etc at exorbitant annual rates.

Road-Hog

engiweirdo wrote: »

Do prices of private housing in the above developments align with the median wage in Waterford city?

Who said it needs be all social housing. When was the last time affordable units were built?

The money erstwhile "wasted" on social housing is in any case directed toward private landlords via HAP/RAS etc at exorbitant annual rates.

You paint too simplistic a view. Mechanism of obtaining funding is far more complex than you portray it. I don’t think Mr Walsh can merely ring up the bearded housing minister and ask for €10m and he will get it a few days later......? Since the crash there has been numerous factors at play that are well documented with regards to reasons for so little housing units of any type in any place being constructed. What evidence do you have that the local council hasn’t been putting in the effort, dragging its heels etc. unless of course you are an employee of council or have a partner who is..?

WillieMason

No such thing as a free lunch.