Can anything stop Rural Decline?

juneg

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If you offered most London workers a 45 minute commute, they'd have your hand. Trains from places 90 minutes away are always packed and that's before one factors in walking and commuting across the city itself.

Ah no, I meant a 45 min commute on Southern Railways before you get in to one of the central stations and take the tubes

juneg

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The elderly are regularly visited by local kids(mostly for chocolate:D) .

This. When you're driving along in the car and the kids have an irresistible urge to visit Granny! :D

randylonghorn

HivemindXX wrote: »

But most of the time they won't. They are already getting in the car because they live 5km outside the village, why not drive to the nearest giant supermarket on the outskirts of the nearest big town.

You have a point, but this happens in Dublin / the other cities / big towns as well, leading to the decimation of the local "corner shop".

It's a modern retail phenomenon more than specific to a conversation about rural / urban.

blanch152

djPSB wrote: »

Don't see any problems with one off housing.

.

Apart from being the single biggest mistake in Irish planning history?

djPSB wrote: »

You have someone who is committing to living in a house for the rest of their lives and committing to paying mortgage on same. They are building the house in an area that they are obviously happy to commit to live in. It's up to the banks to control the credit being provided for these in a prudent manner.

Much better than the situation we saw during the bust with ghost estates being built by developers in the back arses of nowhere. This is high risk, building 30 or 40 houses in a small rural village with absolutely no idea if they'll be sold or not. With all the debt resting on the developer and ultimately the taxpayer. In any kind of a recession, these developments are screwed.

With singular houses, the debt is spread better more evenly to individuals who are committing to a house that meets their specifications in which they are committing to live in long term. It's up to the banks to manage the provision of credit and councils to manage planning applications to ensure houses are being built in the correct areas.

Banks should be banned from financing new one-off housing, that would solve the problem fairly quickly.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

...because driving while drunk has never, ever happened in a city.

I'll reiterate: we all know the reasons why we shouldn't have allowed one-off housing to flourish. But we did, and we face three choices: we either design our country around the fact that we have a distributed population; or we carry on pretending really really hard that we don't; or we implement a forced urbanisation policy.

We're currently somewhere between the first and second options, in that any effort to recognise and account for the facts on the ground is met with carping about how we shouldn't have to if only we'd done things differently over the past couple of hundred years.

The first option is too costly and expensive and depends on a diesel car-driving culture that will be impossible within a decade and a half.

The second option is the current one.

The third option isn't possible either, people can't be forced.

However, there is a fourth option, as being implemented in Japan and other countries, is a managed rural decline, with a concentration on development in Cork, Limerick, Galway and the other major cities outside Dublin, correcting the mistakes made in Dublin and ensuring good public transport, high-density housing and top quality public services.

oscarBravo

blanch152 wrote: »

The first option is too costly and expensive and depends on a diesel car-driving culture that will be impossible within a decade and a half.

On what planet is a diesel car the only option when living in a small town?

My OH still has the petrol BMW she owned from new when she lived in London. She's strongly considering trading it for an electric car. I have a colleague whose 2-car family consists of a diesel Audi for long runs and a Leaf for daily pottering.

The third option isn't possible either, people can't be forced.

However, there is a fourth option, as being implemented in Japan and other countries, is a managed rural decline, with a concentration on development in Cork, Limerick, Galway and the other major cities outside Dublin, correcting the mistakes made in Dublin and ensuring good public transport, high-density housing and top quality public services.

The fourth option is just a passive-aggressive version of the third. It consists of people in cities demanding that people outside of those cities be deprived of services until they have no choice but to move to a city where they don't want to live or work.

The difference between options three and four is the same as the difference between unfair and constructive dismissal.

But, let's pursue the idea. Let's imagine that government policy is to starve the regions of investment until the roads disintegrate, the post doesn't get delivered, nobody can get broadband. People are forced to abandon their homes and move to cities. Thriving businesses like Allergan, faced with the prospect of moving to Dublin or Cork, pull plant and move to India instead. The cities are filled with underemployed culchies increasing the demand for social housing.

This is better than what we have now... how?

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

On what planet is a diesel car the only option when living in a small town?

My OH still has the petrol BMW she owned from new when she lived in London. She's strongly considering trading it for an electric car. I have a colleague whose 2-car family consists of a diesel Audi for long runs and a Leaf for daily pottering. The fourth option is just a passive-aggressive version of the third. It consists of people in cities demanding that people outside of those cities be deprived of services until they have no choice but to move to a city where they don't want to live or work.

The difference between options three and four is the same as the difference between unfair and constructive dismissal.

But, let's pursue the idea. Let's imagine that government policy is to starve the regions of investment until the roads disintegrate, the post doesn't get delivered, nobody can get broadband. People are forced to abandon their homes and move to cities. Thriving businesses like Allergan, faced with the prospect of moving to Dublin or Cork, pull plant and move to India instead. The cities are filled with underemployed culchies increasing the demand for social housing.

This is better than what we have now... how?

Fristly, option four isn't starving the regions of investment, it is about creating counter-weights to Dublin in the regions.

Secondly, a two-car household is unsustainable in the medium term, so if one of them is Leaf, so what? Anyway, your anecdotal example means nothing when the vast majority of cars sold outside Dublin are diesel, a polluting menace.

Thirdly, other than agriculture and tourism, there is no long-term development prospect outside of cities because the rest of the world, including our EU competitors won't have the burden of financing unviable rural areas as they are already moving away from this unsustainable model.

oscarBravo

blanch152 wrote: »

Fristly, option four isn't starving the regions of investment, it is about creating counter-weights to Dublin in the regions.

Someone who has been forced through economic hardship to move to social housing in Limerick isn't going to be particularly grateful that at least they didn't have move to Dublin.

...the vast majority of cars sold outside Dublin are diesel, a polluting menace.

I wonder what social policy we could imagine to deal with that. We could either incentivise a move away from diesel to electric cars, or we could pressure everyone to move to a city to increase pressure on already inadequate public transport.

Decisions, decisions...

Thirdly, other than agriculture and tourism, there is no long-term development prospect outside of cities because the rest of the world, including our EU competitors won't have the burden of financing unviable rural areas as they are already moving away from this unsustainable model.

It grinds my gears when city-dwellers talk about financing unviable areas. How about we remove all subsidies from all public transport and let people pay the full economic cost? That way, if any part of the city is too expensive to commute from, people can just move to a part of the city that's viable. While we're at it, maybe we should get rid of social housing - why should we finance unviable urban areas?

If that sounds ridiculous to you, you now know how it feels as a rural dweller listening to an urbanite pontificating about how any lifestyle other than his own is undesirable.

LeinsterDub

randylonghorn wrote: »

You have a point, but this happens in Dublin / the other cities / big towns as well, leading to the decimation of the local "corner shop".

It's a modern retail phenomenon more than specific to a conversation about rural / urban.

The difference is those jobs still exist in the locality. They are still driving the local economy. Towns and cities can afford for the local corner shop to become the German multiple up the road . Small towns can't afford too lose the local shop.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

Someone who has been forced through economic hardship to move to social housing in Limerick isn't going to be particularly grateful that at least they didn't have move to Dublin. I wonder what social policy we could imagine to deal with that. We could either incentivise a move away from diesel to electric cars, or we could pressure everyone to move to a city to increase pressure on already inadequate public transport.

Decisions, decisions... It grinds my gears when city-dwellers talk about financing unviable areas. How about we remove all subsidies from all public transport and let people pay the full economic cost? That way, if any part of the city is too expensive to commute from, people can just move to a part of the city that's viable. While we're at it, maybe we should get rid of social housing - why should we finance unviable urban areas?

If that sounds ridiculous to you, you now know how it feels as a rural dweller listening to an urbanite pontificating about how any lifestyle other than his own is undesirable.

I am not saying that a rural lifestyle is undesirable, I am saying that it is unsustainable. That is a very different conclusion.

As for the financing, the point being made is that the cost per rural dweller is of a magnitude greater than the cost per urban dweller, and the level of service received by the rural dweller will still be a magnitude lower.

A few years ago I was prepared to accept that if rural dwellers are prepared to accept a long-term situation of lower quality public services from education to health to broadband and will pay higher local taxes for those public services, then what was the problem. The difference since is that I have come to realise that apart from the tax burden to sustain the rural dwellers that the environmental cost is too high.

randylonghorn

Um, bit worried about taking this too much on a tangent, but fairly quickly ...

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The difference is those jobs still exist in the locality.

They still do in rural areas too, in the sense that if the supermarket is near enough to drive to for groceries, it's near enough to drive to for work too.

What is lost (whether in a rural or city location) is

- the number of jobs in the supermarket / multiple is generally less than the aggregate number of jobs in the local shops it eventually displaces

- the profits going back into the local area (to an extent at least) because while Dooleys who owned the local shop in a village in Mayo and Dempseys who owned the corner shop in Crumlin Rd. probably spent a fair bit of their money locally, the multiples won't be doing that.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Small towns can't afford to lose the local shop.

You are correct about this though in another sense, and it goes back to the first post I made on thread: the local shop in a country village, just like the local PO or the local pub (and hell, the three were often rolled into one!) was a local social centre, and especially for older people. (I hated going into the local shop with my mother when I was a kid, because even if she only wanted a box of matches, it could stretch to a half-hour! )

Now that I'm older though, I can also see the value of that, esp. for "Auld Johnny" who we mentioned earlier. In many ways, losing that social centre in local villages has been a far bigger blow to them than the loss of jobs ... which have just moved within commuting distance anyway.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What exactly is the problem with one-off housing?

In addition to the direct costs of providing services to ribbon development there are also indirect costs.

On the continent people live in villages and towns rather than spread out. This means you can have businesses and local town halls that most people can get to without needing to get into a car.

One huge indirect cost is lots more dogs in the manger. Things like pylons or wind farms will pass near someone simply because there are so many one-off houses.

Long term FTTH will help with the broadband , but like electricity rural homes along the west coast are likely to suffer outages during winter storms.


An Post are going through another round of reducing the amount they are paying to non-viable Post Offices again. And so people will have to travel to another village and one less reason to go to the first one.

blanch152

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In addition to the direct costs of providing services to ribbon development there are also indirect costs.

On the continent people live in villages and towns rather than spread out. This means you can have businesses and local town halls that most people can get to without needing to get into a car.

One huge indirect cost is lots more dogs in the manger. Things like pylons or wind farms will pass near someone simply because there are so many one-off houses.

Long term FTTH will help with the broadband , but like electricity rural homes along the west coast are likely to suffer outages during winter storms.


An Post are going through another round of reducing the amount they are paying to non-viable Post Offices again. And so people will have to travel to another village and one less reason to go to the first one.

The pylons and wind farms are an interesting one.

So many times I find people objecting and they tell me that the pylon/wind farm is too near their house and is unsightly from an environmental point of view. They aren't too happy when I point out that the environment could do without their house as well as the pylon.

djPSB

blanch152 wrote: »

The pylons and wind farms are an interesting one.

So many times I find people objecting and they tell me that the pylon/wind farm is too near their house and is unsightly from an environmental point of view. They aren't too happy when I point out that the environment could do without their house as well as the pylon.

They should be offered shares in the wind farms like they do in other countries.

Jaggo

blanch152 wrote: »

The pylons and wind farms are an interesting one.

So many times I find people objecting and they tell me that the pylon/wind farm is too near their house and is unsightly from an environmental point of view. They aren't too happy when I point out that the environment could do without their house as well as the pylon.

Pylons are an interesting one. The reason many of the pylons are required is that is was Government policy to decentralise power generation to counties to boost employment. Then ship the power back to where it was needed. And, of course pay people off for permission to pass power lines through their land.

The last 3 private sector power plants built in ireland, two were built in Dublin, one in Cork. The last 2 public sector (the PSO ones) were built in Roscommon/Westmeath(?) and extra pylons built to ship the power back to Dublin.

I tend to think the above encapsulates why a few Dubliners tend to get annoyed at the management of the country:
1. Capital generated from taxes in surplus counties to aid rural areas (ok, all good)
2. Increased costs in maintenance in shipping that power back, (well, ok then)
3. Paying people extra to compensation to allow those power lines back through their land
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/30000-payouts-for-people-living-near-power-lines-29959488.html (hmm this is rather annoying)
4. Pay extra PSO obligation to increase the cost of the electricity.

A decentralisation deal, where the state invests our money, leading to increases in current expenditure and requiring higher bills - all to allow jobs to move to another county. Not much of deal really.

oscarBravo

Jaggo wrote: »

Pylons are an interesting one. The reason many of the pylons are required is that is was Government policy to decentralise power generation to counties to boost employment.

Yes. That's the reason a 61-turbine wind farm is planned for north Mayo instead of inner-city Dublin.

:rolleyes:

Jaggo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. That's the reason a 61-turbine wind farm is planned for north Mayo instead of inner-city Dublin.

:rolleyes:

No obviously not, but of the 15 publicly owned conventional power stations in Ireland, 1 is in Dublin. Is this pure coincidence, do you not think this was planned decentralisation? Conversely, why when given the option, did the private sector choose to locate in cities?

Furthermore, on your wind power point, the Government did have a wind power strategy -remember the plan to export wind energy to the UK. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/report-questions-plan-to-export-wind-energy-to-uk-259353.html

In that plan, the Government planned to give grants wind farms and assist with exporting to the UK by building a 3.8 billion interconnector (money from taxpayers and consumers). The creation of rural jobs was the main reason given for this investment.

randylonghorn

I could see jobs being *one* factor all right, but you might want to consider a few other, probably more important ones:

- certain power-generating plants need certain locations. Ardnacrusha, Turlough Hill, or any of the hydroelectric plants couldn't have been located in Dublin (though 2 are in Dublin COUNTY). Similarly there would have been no point siting the older peat-using stations in Dublin ... it was a hell of a lot easier to bring electricity from Lanesborough or Rhode to Dublin than it was to drag trainloads of peat from the bogs which surround those stations to Dublin!

Realistically, in the future, the same argument would apply to biomass. Wave-generation is likely to centre on the west coast, and probably wind-generation too, though there's likely to be more flexibility there. Certainly, Dublin city is not the optimum location for either.

- power generation plants, or at least the older ones, tended to take up a fair bit of land. They weren't the optimum use of scarce land resources around the capital; looked at from the other side of the same coin, it would have cost far more to the taxpayer to site them in Dublin. This obviously applies equally to wind farms!

- power generation plants, or at least the older ones, tended to create smog / pollution. Standards have obviously improved a lot in this respect with more modern tech, but certainly when they were originally built, siting them in a city to add to the smog created by cars / coal fires etc. wouldn't have made sense ... and I suspect any such plans would have been resisted by the same people now complaining that they're down the country (or their parents / grandparents at least).

blanch152 wrote: »

They aren't too happy when I point out that the environment could do without their house as well as the pylon.

Yeah, I could see you being Mr. Popular with a lot of people all right!

listermint

Ireland is absolutely tiny.

There's obsession with gutting rural Ireland has to stop. When can have city's and rural Ireland in parallel.

The country is absolutely tiny. If we had more effort not wasting money at all levels of government with ineptitude them there would be more funding to improve our awful services.

The inflation of the childrens hospital and its location is a prime example of incompetence and is one of a litany of poorly thought out over run and over priced projects in the island.

We have a wait and see approach to everything there is no concerted effort to do new things try new technologies and think about the future.

We should be a hot bed of renewables we should be a hot bed of mesh 5g networks. We are a tiny country. We should be dam well more agile.


Enough of the guff about urban rural. We need measures of both its not an absolute....

Jaggo

randylonghorn wrote: »

I could see jobs being *one* factor all right, but you might want to consider a few other, probably more important ones:

Sorry, I was not clear. I only referred to conventional power (gas/coal/oil/peat) not the ones required by location, eg Hydro, wind or biomass.

When the Dublin Electric company was nationalised in 1927 it became the ESB. It had already developed its own grid and had 4 power stations. Since then, excluding poolbeg, power generation was decentralised to rural Ireland at a cost to both Dublin and (to a much lesser extent) to Ireland.

Now, for the record, I think this decentralisation was a very good thing, we transferred much needed jobs and money to where they were needed. But there was a cost, Dublin lost jobs, and Ireland electricity was made very, very marginally more expensive.

I would tend to think that any other industry like power generation should be decentralised, but we should remember that it isn't cost free. And Dublin shouldn't be last on the list for investment.

Capt'n Midnight

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. That's the reason a 61-turbine wind farm is planned for north Mayo instead of inner-city Dublin.

:rolleyes:

There's 220KV power lines running through suburbs and I've yet to hear anyone suggest undergrounding or that locals should get compo.

Most people living with pylons are urban. Anyone who ignores that is asking for massive subsidies.



And yes there are plans for off-shore farms all along the east coast. It's just that it costs money to provide even the tiny amount of land that a wind turbine plinth needs.

listermint

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There's 220KV power lines running through suburbs and I've yet to hear anyone suggest undergrounding or that locals should get compo.

Most people living with pylons are urban. Anyone who ignores that is asking for massive subsidies.



And yes there are plans for off-shore farms all along the east coast. It's just that it costs money to provide even the tiny amount of land that a wind turbine plinth needs.

Not off Dublin though for clarity

listermint

Jaggo wrote: »

Pylons are an interesting one. The reason many of the pylons are required is that is was Government policy to decentralise power generation to counties to boost employment. Then ship the power back to where it was needed. And, of course pay people off for permission to pass power lines through their land.

The last 3 private sector power plants built in ireland, two were built in Dublin, one in Cork. The last 2 public sector (the PSO ones) were built in Roscommon/Westmeath(?) and extra pylons built to ship the power back to Dublin.

I tend to think the above encapsulates why a few Dubliners tend to get annoyed at the management of the country:
1. Capital generated from taxes in surplus counties to aid rural areas (ok, all good)
2. Increased costs in maintenance in shipping that power back, (well, ok then)
3. Paying people extra to compensation to allow those power lines back through their land
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/30000-payouts-for-people-living-near-power-lines-29959488.html (hmm this is rather annoying)
4. Pay extra PSO obligation to increase the cost of the electricity.

A decentralisation deal, where the state invests our money, leading to increases in current expenditure and requiring higher bills - all to allow jobs to move to another county. Not much of deal really.

Without been amusing. People went ballistic about the plant in ringsend .they still are.

You wouldn't get away with a peat coal or oil generating plant in Dublin County. It's disingenuous to say you would. They don't build these in city's anywhere they are always outside so your point is invalid.

Also people are compensated for cpo. In fact id imagine you would want to be should the government want to rip up your back or front garden or even your driveway.

Im struggling to actually understand and if your arguments there as they all fall foul of reality.....

dr.fuzzenstein

djPSB wrote: »

The infrastructures of our cities are no where near good enough to facilitate abandoning rural Ireland.

Public transport systems are deplorable and housing is already a massive issue in the larger cities.

THAT!!!!
So many people here have their pom-poms out for turning rural Ireland into a desolate wasteland and this is turning into the usual "let's ruin the countryside" circle jerk.
What would happen if a million people moved into Dublin in the next 5 years?
Once you've wiped the cum from your lap you will notice that the roads are at a standstill, public transport can only handle a fraction of the commuters, there is not enough jobs, you will have to pay €2k a month to rent a tent in a park or graveyard, A&E waiting times will be days and weeks, water will become a problem, etc...
I'm sure that all the people who begrudge the countryside the very roads would scream till they're blue in the face if Dublin was turned into a gigantic building site for the next 10-15 years and billions or even trillions would have to be spent to turn it from what is basically a mid sized city with poor infrastructure into a proper, functioning city.

djPSB

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

THAT!!!!
So many people here have their pom-poms out for turning rural Ireland into a desolate wasteland and this is turning into the usual "let's ruin the countryside" circle jerk.
What would happen if a million people moved into Dublin in the next 5 years?
Once you've wiped the cum from your lap you will notice that the roads are at a standstill, public transport can only handle a fraction of the commuters, there is not enough jobs, you will have to pay €2k a month to rent a tent in a park or graveyard, A&E waiting times will be days and weeks, water will become a problem, etc...
I'm sure that all the people who begrudge the countryside the very roads would scream till they're blue in the face if Dublin was turned into a gigantic building site for the next 10-15 years and billions or even trillions would have to be spent to turn it from what is basically a mid sized city with poor infrastructure into a proper, functioning city.

Dublin is absolutely bursting at the seams as it is.

The M6 and M7 are wedged to capacity. The M50 is like a car park. Traffic in the City is grid lock.

The rental market is in crisis with very little available and prices through the roof. Homelessness is a massive issue.

It's an expensive place to live with very little to show for it in terms of infrastructure etc.

It's not showing any signs of improving any time soon, it would make sense to try divert some of the businesses to other areas of the country.

Rain Ascending

djPSB wrote: »

Dublin is absolutely bursting at the seams as it is.

Building a counter-weight to Dublin is a laudable aim. However, re-populating rural areas is not the way to do it. The demand for Dublin accommodation is driven by the availability of jobs. To replicate that level of availability requires an urban-based strategy.

My preferred option would be to build on existing strengths in Cork, Galway and Limerick. The first two at least have one or two sectors each which they are internationally competitive -- pharma in Cork and bio-medical in Galway. Galway also has a pretty strong international reputation for cultural activities.

That potential for job creation would be extremely difficult to replicate in true rural environments (one-off houses, villages, and small towns with less than a thousand people). Note that I'm not saying that there is no justification for supporting our rural population, just that the challenge of providing a serious alternative to big population growth in Dublin leads to a different conclusion.

randylonghorn

I agree, Rain.

And that was pretty much the approach of the 2002 National Spatial Strategy which Oscar mentioned at the start of the thread, though I remember thinking at the time that they probably spread themselves a bit too thin in terms of the second-tier hubs. It was never implemented anyway, so the latter didn't make any difference in the end.

There has to be a middle ground between shoving everything and everybody into Dublin, and turning it into a teeming anthill which is fairly unpleasant for everyone to live in, and turning the countryside into landfill sites to service it, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the IDA building an "industrial park" on the outskirts of every medium-sized town in the country and hoping to attract foreign investment to fill it, egged on by the local TD.

The latter approach is no longer defensible or feasible (and in fairness, I think they're pretty much moved away from that approach themselves). True, there will always be some companies happy to locate to a small town because (a) it doesn't really matter where they locate (b) they don't require a workforce with pre-existing specialist skills (c) they're therefore happy to locate where there is little competition in the labour market, and they can probably get away with paying less. Unfortunately, in modern times these 3 factors might have them looking outside Ireland altogether though (indeed, maybe outside Europe) unless there is a decent market in Ireland for what they're producing, and it is bulky / costly to transport. And companies such as this are probably looking more and more to automation anyway.

One variant of this type of company, though, is what we could call the FEXCO type ... providing services or service co-ordination globally (or at least to a wide geographical area) which is largely internet / telecoms based. True, they're headquartered in Killorglin because of Brian MacCarthy, but the underlying important point is that it is of no particular disadvantage to them to be located there, and there's actually some advantages (we're back to competition in the labour market).

Now, there aren't and will probably never be 100 FEXCOs to spread around the country, but these are one type of company which could be induced outside the cities to "hubs" (to use the NSS 2002 terminology) with really good broadband connectivity etc. There's a few have done it already ... State Street are in Drogheda, Kilkenny and Naas for example as well as Dublin.

blanch152

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Building a counter-weight to Dublin is a laudable aim. However, re-populating rural areas is not the way to do it. The demand for Dublin accommodation is driven by the availability of jobs. To replicate that level of availability requires an urban-based strategy.

My preferred option would be to build on existing strengths in Cork, Galway and Limerick. The first two at least have one or two sectors each which they are internationally competitive -- pharma in Cork and bio-medical in Galway. Galway also has a pretty strong international reputation for cultural activities.

That potential for job creation would be extremely difficult to replicate in true rural environments (one-off houses, villages, and small towns with less than a thousand people). Note that I'm not saying that there is no justification for supporting our rural population, just that the challenge of providing a serious alternative to big population growth in Dublin leads to a different conclusion.

Excellent analysis and conclusion. There is also the point that building up those cities will bring benefit to their hinterlands.

If we have capital to invest, the priorities should be firstly, to improve the status of the secondary cities - Cork, Limerick and Galway - meaning that the M20, Galway bypass, hospital and third level investment as well as new public transport initiatives in those cities (Luas possibly?) and secondly, to improve the quality of life in Dublin which mainly requires investment in public transport - DART Underground, Metro North and extension of Luas.

randylonghorn

And given that all those cities including Dublin are coastal, investment in future-proofing, flood-proofing and flood mitigation.

This week's events in Houston / Texas / Louisiana, and recent events in Donegal, should remind us that this is not something we can afford to leave aside for a rainy day!!

EPA video looking at some of the initial work done to tackle flood-risk in Dublin.

blanch152

randylonghorn wrote: »

And given that all those cities including Dublin are coastal, investment in future-proofing, flood-proofing and flood mitigation.

This week's events in Houston / Texas / Louisiana, and recent events in Donegal, should remind us that this is not something we can afford to leave aside for a rainy day!!

EPA video looking at some of the initial work done to tackle flood-risk in Dublin.

It could be worse, Dublin could be tidal like Cork

donaghs

Since the title is "rural decline", rural ireland as we know it is dead and gone.
To bring it back you'd need some Khmer Rouge type policy to bring back small farms, and remove farm mechanization so there would be lots of agricultural labourers again, and force people in rural areas to only shop in local shops, close down all the mega tescos, etc. Maybe bring back protectionist policies and end free trade.

But, more seriously, as has been mentioned already, there is the possibility of making a serious attempt a developing regional centres as counterweights to Dublin. Its familiar stuff, incentives for businesses to move there, for people tp live there. Good transport links, education and amenities, etc.

We don't really need houses in every single townland in Ireland with a tarmac road, electricity and high-speed broadband connection to them.

oscarBravo

donaghs wrote: »

Since the title is "rural decline", rural ireland as we know it is dead and gone.

That's kind of an oxymoron. Rural Ireland as I know it is still very much here.

If you want to argue that rural Ireland as it was fifty years ago is dead and gone, fair enough - but I don't think you'll find anyone arguing for bringing back the past. All that's being asked is some recognition of how things are, rather than basing policy on how we'd like to pretend they are.

We don't really need houses in every single townland in Ireland with a tarmac road, electricity and high-speed broadband connection to them.

That's fascinating and all, but we already have houses in rural Ireland with tarmac roads, electricity, and (in a small but growing percentage of cases) high-speed broadband. Some of the uppity feckers even have indoor plumbing!

We can either accept that we have a dispersed rural population and design policy to deal with it; or we can come up with a brand-new policy that says we need to incentivise a huge chunk of the population to abandon their existing homes and move to cities.

Now, if anyone wants to have a stab at making a case for increasing the number of vacant homes in the country while simultaneously vastly increasing the demand for accommodation in the cities, let's be having you. It should make for entertaining reading, at least.

Or people could just keep bitching about rural dwellers, which seems to be the primary point of threads like this in the first place.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's kind of an oxymoron. Rural Ireland as I know it is still very much here.

If you want to argue that rural Ireland as it was fifty years ago is dead and gone, fair enough - but I don't think you'll find anyone arguing for bringing back the past. All that's being asked is some recognition of how things are, rather than basing policy on how we'd like to pretend they are. That's fascinating and all, but we already have houses in rural Ireland with tarmac roads, electricity, and (in a small but growing percentage of cases) high-speed broadband. Some of the uppity feckers even have indoor plumbing!

We can either accept that we have a dispersed rural population and design policy to deal with it; or we can come up with a brand-new policy that says we need to incentivise a huge chunk of the population to abandon their existing homes and move to cities.

Now, if anyone wants to have a stab at making a case for increasing the number of vacant homes in the country while simultaneously vastly increasing the demand for accommodation in the cities, let's be having you. It should make for entertaining reading, at least.

Or people could just keep bitching about rural dwellers, which seems to be the primary point of threads like this in the first place.

In the short term a policy of incentivising a huge chunk of the population to move to the cities is a costly one.

However, in the medium to long-term, it is the only affordable policy. Our forthcoming plan - Ireland 2040, or whatever it is called - must have two main objectives (1) improving the quality of urban life and (2) developing significant counter-weights to Dublin

oscarBravo

blanch152 wrote: »

In the short term a policy of incentivising a huge chunk of the population to move to the cities is a costly one.

However, in the medium to long-term, it is the only affordable policy. Our forthcoming plan - Ireland 2040, or whatever it is called - must have two main objectives (1) improving the quality of urban life and (2) developing significant counter-weights to Dublin

Fine, but stop dancing around it: tell the good people of Ireland that they need to vote for a policy of simultaneously massively reducing the available housing stock while massively increasing demand.

Let me know how you get on.

lisasimpson

Broadband is the big one.. no doubt about it.there are many towns and villages in rural ireland where it terrible. Some of these town and villages are close to the rail network. Many people could work from home a few days a week and commute by rail to citied. Company i work for encourage work from home and i know of many IT and finance companies doing the same. For the employee it v benifical not to be doing long commutes 5 days a wk and improves their family life too. Rural life isnt just about 1 off housing. Plenty of small towns and villages that buildings that just need some TLC to revive area withot building a new house 2/3 miles out the road

Another way to help rural ireland would be if they could redirect some of the brexit jobs to cork limerick galway waterford etc spinoffs would be felt in local business for miles around.
Decentralisation has been mentioned here...works if its planned properly..plus there was a recruitment freeze for years if didnt help either

Rates businesses are paying and insurance cost dont help either. There has been cases where a supermarket chain has pulled out of towns in one county with rates one of the main reasons mentioned.

Its not always down to government or state agencies either. People power too can help too. Small business been flexible with heir opening time esp in area where people commute from. No point closing 5/5.30 each day when people aint going to be around. Ensure rural areas attractive by making sure people that move to these area know about local clubs and societies..how many times would you hear young people say o theres nothing to do around here Unfortunately to this day there is still the whole "your only a blow in" going on in some places.

There have been some successes in rural ireland such as the waterford greenway, ballyhoura mountians.these need to be used as examples of what can be done but need more than food and tourism industries

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fine, but stop dancing around it: tell the good people of Ireland that they need to vote for a policy of simultaneously massively reducing the available housing stock while massively increasing demand.

Let me know how you get on.

That is not what I said.

You start by eliminating rural subsidies, you continue by banning one-off housing, neither of those force anyone to move.

You build the M20, you build public transport in Cork and Limerick, you upgrade universities, hospitals, schools, and industry infrastructure in those cities. Zone land along the public transport corridors e.g. train to Limerick Junction/Sixmilebridge etc.

The move to the cities is already happening, in Census 2016 the urban population was up 4.9%, while the rural population was only up 2%.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I was looking into why decentralisation didn't work when it was tried before. I think if you want to operate a pro-rural policy you need to lead from the top.

So if I were Taoiseach and wanted to make real change I would give serious thought to moving all government offices to somewhere more central e.g. the Midlands. I don't think there would be any reality to moving the parliament, but the Dail only sits something like 123 days a year (source), which is roughly 3 days a week for 41 weeks.

This way, civil servants wouldn't have an excuse of saying "I have to be based in Dublin because that is where the department/minister is based."

Also, it isn't exactly an arduous journey to travel from Dublin to Athlone or Tullamore or somewhere if the senior civil servants want to remain living in Dublin.

This would have the benfit of bringing jobs to smaller towns and of reducing the demand for housing, traffic in Dublin.

In reality, this is never going to happen. The convenience of having everything in Dublin and the resistance likely to be found towards relocating would mean that it would be a big mess. But it seems to me that this would be the most logical practical step the government could do to resolve a number of matters. It would also vacate a number of prime office locations just in time for Brexit, should any companies want to relocate here.

So basically, if any government were serious about saving rural Ireland they would get behind a massive decentralisation plan and do it properly rather than the half hearted way it was done in the past.

Story bud

How many civil servants did you poll for the thesis there?

Ever think of asking any of them if they wouldn't rather live somewhere cheaper, easier to get around, safer than Dublin or had you your answers ready in your head before you started yr thorough research?
The
There is zero career advancement in civil service outside of Dublin. And for everything that's stated above that's true about moving public sector operations, and you're not all wrong at all, the same is essentially true for private sector entities.

The challenge is to stop everyone thinking that location is important in a country three hours wide that deals mainly in services. There's damn all reason for *all* government to be in any one place, anywhere, no more so than having all tech companies in five square miles of Dublin or whatever.