Kildare farmer objects to €8bn Intel investment...

HopsAndJumps

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So basically as far as you are concerned if a private company wants to acquire a parcel of land , once there's a few jobs in the offing the land owners rights are null and void. Fair summation?

In a debate, when asked a question, the typical response is the answer the question and not change the subject and reply with a question of your own. Fair summation?

In short 'no' is my answer. I'll elaborate once you reply to what I asked.

Plumbthedepths

HopsAndJumps wrote:

In a debate, when asked a question, the typical response is the answer the question and not change the subject and reply with a question of your own. Fair summation?

I did answer your question, in my opinion the wants of private business does not trump the property rights of a private citizen. The common good refers to society not private enterprise.

HopsAndJumps

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I did answer your question, in my opinion the wants of private business does not trump the property rights of a private citizen. The common good refers to society not private enterprise.

I asked you to explain how Intel's contribution to tax through workers is exaggerated. That has not been answered.

Plumbthedepths

HopsAndJumps wrote:

I asked you to explain how Intel's contribution to tax through workers is exaggerated. That has not been answered.

I should have worded that response better, your comment was irrelevant rather than hyperbolic the tax take has no relevance to the constitutional property rights of a private citizen. Hope that clears things up for you. I will say this however TR has taught many that not everyone has a price.

HopsAndJumps

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I should have worded that response better, your comment was irrelevant rather than hyperbolic the tax take has no relevance to the constitutional property rights of a private citizen. Hope that clears things up for you. I will say this however TR has taught many that not everyone has a price.

A CPO is a tough decision, not one I could make. It the rights of one person Vs leterally the well being of the country has to be taken into account. Our economy is largely based in direct investment from multinationals, intel Ireland just about weathered the storm when the crash hit. We were deep in recession when intel first tried to buy that land. This could have very went tits up for intel Ireland, ending up in the factory closing and other multinationals stalling investment because it's so hard to do business here. We are already on our knees with debt, this would have been the nail in the coffin, we would be a long long time getting out of a recession with little foreign investment thousands of families houses would be in jeopardy Vs one mans house. Hard decisions have to be made all the time, nobody wants incinerators near them, people are up in arms about wind turbines. CPO's maybe the most evil of these, but to progress and keep the economy going they may have to be used in extreme cases, they for the people outweighs the bad. It's unfortunate that the man that lives beside intel is the one man in the country that does not care about money.

puppieperson1

Guys he was just a man of principle and maybe not everyone in ireland believes we should lie down an allow the americans walk all over us. He took his stand and won and i respect him. The americans feel they have a cart blanche to do whatever they like wherever they like and their arrogance is abominable.

end of the road

HopsAndJumps wrote: »

It could be argued that about 5000 jobs not the common good. High wage jobs, high tax going back into the economy to fund services, is that not the common good?

See the difference?

it's not enough of a common good to allow the likes of the IDA to trample over the citizen or to allow land grabs for private companies, private companies who could be gone in a flash, possibly even leaving the tax payer to pick up the pieces depending on the industry and the company.

Seth Brundle

HopsAndJumps wrote: »

A CPO is a tough decision, not one I could make. It the rights of one person Vs leterally the well being of the country has to be taken into account. Our economy is largely based in direct investment from multinationals, intel Ireland just about weathered the storm when the crash hit. We were deep in recession when intel first tried to buy that land. This could have very went tits up for intel Ireland, ending up in the factory closing and other multinationals stalling investment because it's so hard to do business here. We are already on our knees with debt, this would have been the nail in the coffin, we would be a long long time getting out of a recession with little foreign investment thousands of families houses would be in jeopardy Vs one mans house. Hard decisions have to be made all the time, nobody wants incinerators near them, people are up in arms about wind turbines. CPO's maybe the most evil of these, but to progress and keep the economy going they may have to be used in extreme cases, they for the people outweighs the bad. It's unfortunate that the man that lives beside intel is the one man in the country that does not care about money.

Hang on. Intel had difficulties because of a slump in pc sales and issues with security, speed and then the disaster in terms of mobile chips. Absolutely nothing to do with our recession despite your post aiming to link the two.

Now if you think a company's interests trump those of the individual then do you believe that a blocking apartments should be taken to build a multi storey car park? Yes or no?

end of the road

HopsAndJumps wrote: »

A CPO is a tough decision, not one I could make. It the rights of one person Vs leterally the well being of the country has to be taken into account. Our economy is largely based in direct investment from multinationals, intel Ireland just about weathered the storm when the crash hit. We were deep in recession when intel first tried to buy that land. This could have very went tits up for intel Ireland, ending up in the factory closing and other multinationals stalling investment because it's so hard to do business here. We are already on our knees with debt, this would have been the nail in the coffin, we would be a long long time getting out of a recession with little foreign investment thousands of families houses would be in jeopardy Vs one mans house. Hard decisions have to be made all the time, nobody wants incinerators near them, people are up in arms about wind turbines. CPO's maybe the most evil of these, but to progress and keep the economy going they may have to be used in extreme cases, they for the people outweighs the bad. It's unfortunate that the man that lives beside intel is the one man in the country that does not care about money.

all of this is irrelevant to the fact that the person's rights come before that of a private company. investment, jobs, good of the country, come second in such cases.

deravarra

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So basically as far as you are concerned if a private company wants to acquire a parcel of land , once there's a few jobs in the offing the land owners rights are null and void. Fair summation?

I love the way you call thousands of jobs "a few".
Let's not forget that one job could be supporting a family of perhaps 3 or 4 people, maybe more. So, those 8,000 (5,000 direct and 3,000 contingent) jobs could be supporting 24,000 to 32,000 people or more.

Now, does that equate to a few?

Boggles

HopsAndJumps wrote: »

It's unfortunate that the man that lives beside intel is the one man in the country that does not care about money.

He didn't always live beside Intel, they moved in beside him.

Brian?

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Surely a question like that is rhetorical? Everyone in the country took cuts! Your facetious parting shot shows at least you are beginning to absorb what I'm saying and it's not sitting easy with you.

Like most of this thread, you are directing towards the wrong focus, I urge you to direct your vitriol towards the Corporations and their facilitators, I'm just a very small local employer.

I worked at Intel through the recession. I got bonuses and pay raises every year, except 2011 where I only got bonuses and no pay rise.

So no, everyone in the country didn't take cuts. We were actually grand. That's the high quality of job Intel provides.

Brian?

Why are people still arguing the CPO. No one is trying to CPO his land anymore.

Intel don't need the land anyway.

Boggles

Brian? wrote: »

So no, everyone in the country didn't take cuts. We were actually grand. That's the high quality of job Intel provides.

Were you exempt from the tax rises and lack of investment in services too?

Brian?

Boggles wrote: »

Were you exempt from the tax rises and lack of investment in services too?

Yep. My pay rises outstripped the tax increases.

Boggles

Brian? wrote: »

Yep. My pay rises outstripped the tax increases.

That was a 2 part question.

You answered the first part. Not the second I notice.

Ush1

Keep fighting "da man" comrades. It's all a bit sad really.

Brian?

Boggles wrote: »

That was a 2 part question.

You answered the first part. Not the second I notice.

The 2nd part was entirely subjective. I didn’t feel the impact in cuts to public expenditure. So how do I answer it?


The assertion I was rebutting was that everyone suffered cuts, with the implication being it was cuts to take home pay.

McMurphy

Brian? wrote: »

Why are people still arguing the CPO. No one is trying to CPO his land anymore.

Intel don't need the land anyway.

I think some people think the way the attempted cpo was carried out was both underhanded, and worrying that a state agency would operate in such shady circumstances.

Boggles

Brian? wrote: »

The 2nd part was entirely subjective. I didn’t feel the impact in cuts to public expenditure. So how do I answer it?


The assertion I was rebutting was that everyone suffered cuts, with the implication being it was cuts to take home pay.

You did receive a cut to take home pay, it's moot you got a pay rise.

Now his assertion was "everyone suffered cuts", which probably isn't entirely true. But it would be close enough, I'd be pretty sure he didn't just mean wages.

But If the recession and what it caused had absolute no effect on you at all during it or now. Then fair dues.

I can't imagine it didn't though. Unless you have lived in a tent, hunting your own food the past decade.

Brian?

Boggles wrote: »

You did receive a cut to take home pay, it's moot you got a pay rise.

Now his assertion was "everyone suffered cuts", which probably isn't entirely true. But it would be close enough, I'd be pretty sure he didn't just mean wages.

But If the recession and what it caused had absolute no effect on you at all during it or now. Then fair dues.

I can't imagine it didn't though. Unless you have lived in a tent, hunting your own food the past decade.

I never said the recession had no effect on me. It just had no monetary effect on me. It was the same for a lot of people who worked in good jobs through the recession, it just wasn’t the done thing to hold you your hand and say “actually I’m grand” while it had a terrible effect on hundred so of thousands of people.

I’m not sure why you want to fight this battle. But I’ll revise my statement: Thanks to my job at intel the recession effected me far less than other people. I felt very little effect, I can’t think of one tangible negative effect on my monetary situation.

Brian?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I think some people think the way the attempted cpo was carried out was both underhanded, and worrying that a state agency would operate in such shady circumstances.

I know.

But that’s done and dusted now. The planning application is a completely different issue.

McMurphy

Brian? wrote: »

I know.

But that’s done and dusted now. The planning application is a completely different issue.

Done and dusted, but only done and dusted in Reid's favour due to their skullduggery being inadvertently revealed in court.

If that error hadnt of been revealed, who knows where Reid would be now, my guess is on a memorial card with a little prayer.

Looked a fairly fragile man from what I can see.

Brian?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Done and dusted, but only done and dusted in Reid's favour due to their skullduggery being inadvertently revealed in court.

If that error hadnt of been revealed, who knows where Reid would be now, my guess is on a memorial card with a little prayer.

Looked a fairly fragile man from what I can see.

Ok. What has it got to do with the planning application?

Boggles

Brian? wrote: »

I’m not sure why you want to fight this battle. But I’ll revise my statement: Thanks to my job at intel the recession effected me far less than other people. I felt very little effect,

There is no one fighting, I just thought your original statement was a bit bizarre.

Brian? wrote: »

I can’t think of one tangible negative effect on my monetary situation.

Well you must have lived somewhere, unless you lived with your parents.

If you rented, bought property, sold property, paid Vat on something, drove a car, took public transport.

Those and a million other things would have had a negative effect on your monetary situation.

When they talk about X % of drop in income or rise in expenditure, that is an average, the reality is the vast majority of people did, it was indeed ironically for the "Common Good".

McMurphy

Brian? wrote: »

Ok. What has it got to do with the planning application?

The man has an axe to grind, understandably.

Boggles

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The man has an axe to grind, understandably.

I don't think he does TBF.

He firmly believes they will come for his land again and honestly I believe him, as the only honest person in this whole saga, why wouldn't I?

His lands are not any less desirable and in 10 years time when Intel want to open Fab 4, I think there is a strong chance the IDA will be back, armed with a change in legislation which they got off the back of this case.

This type of skulduggery will only lead to more objections in the future, where people would have had no problem with an industry moving in beside their lands, they most certainly will now if there is even a slight chance some arrogant prick rides up 20 years later telling you to get out, "greater good", unlucky!

Brian?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The man has an axe to grind, understandably.

Ok. But do people honestly support him in grinding said axe? He’s objecting purely based on a grudge, we think that’s ok now?

Brian?

Boggles wrote: »

I don't think he does TBF.

He firmly believes they will come for his land again and honestly I believe him, as the only honest person in this whole saga, why wouldn't I?

His lands are not any less desirable and in 10 years time when Intel want to open Fab 4, I think there is a strong chance the IDA will be back, armed with a change in legislation which they got off the back of this case.

This type of skulduggery will only lead to more objections in the future, where people would have had no problem with an industry moving in beside their lands, they most certainly will now if there is even a slight chance some arrogant prick rides up 20 years later telling you to get out, "greater good", unlucky!

Even if this is all true, why are people cheering his objections to the current planning application? He’s objecting based on spite, as far as I can see. Why is that a good thing?

Patrick2010

Brian? wrote: »

Even if this is all true, why are people cheering his objections to the current planning application? He’s objecting based on spite, as far as I can see. Why is that a good thing?

Because they see it as sticking it to "the man", because they don't like multinationals and it won't affect them if Intel go somewhere else.

You'd imagine prospective multinationals will look at this case and the aborted Apple data centre and reckon coming here isn't worth the hassle when any crank with a grudge can stop or delay a building construction.

Boggles

Brian? wrote: »

Even if this is all true, why are people cheering his objections to the current planning application? He’s objecting based on spite, as far as I can see. Why is that a good thing?

He isn't, he said that he objecting based on the IDA moving the goal posts and his firm belief that they will come for his lands again with further expansion down the line.

I believe, there absolutely no reason why that is not a possibility.

Unless you are privy to knowledge none of us have?

McMurphy

Boggles wrote: »

I don't think he does TBF.

He firmly believes they will come for his land again and honestly I believe him, as the only honest person in this whole saga, why wouldn't I?

His lands are not any less desirable and in 10 years time when Intel want to open Fab 4, I think there is a strong chance the IDA will be back, armed with a change in legislation which they got off the back of this case.

This type of skulduggery will only lead to more objections in the future, where people would have had no problem with an industry moving in beside their lands, they most certainly will now if there is even a slight chance some arrogant prick rides up 20 years later telling you to get out, "greater good", unlucky!

Sorry, worded badly on my part, yeah, he's on the defensive and who could blame him.

Paul_Mc1988

Boggles wrote:

If you rented, bought property, sold property, paid Vat on something, drove a car, took public transport.

Boggles wrote:

Those and a million other things would have had a negative effect on your monetary situation.

But if he bought a house during the recession it would have had a positive effect on his monetary situation!. He would be a a couple 100k in positive equity.

Boggles

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Because they see it as sticking it to "the man", because they don't like multinationals and it won't affect them if Intel go somewhere else.

Who that doesn't have some sort of acute brain injury doesn't like multinationals?

If Intel go somewhere else, that will be Intel and Intel alone, absolutely nothing to do with Thomas Reid.

I think this case has resonated with people, because we don't like bullies and in classic bully style when the bully doesn't get the upper hand they are first ones shouting stop.

Patrick2010 wrote: »

You'd imagine prospective multinationals will look at this case and the aborted Apple data centre and reckon coming here isn't worth the hassle when any crank with a grudge can stop or delay a building construction.

I doubt it. I imagine they will look at us the exact same way they have done the past 30 odd years.

Tax Haven. Free Access to largest market in the world. Settled society. Skilled workforce.

They may look at the failed data centre for Apple, but then I imagine they would swiftly look at the 20 odd million the state will end up paying in trying to give Apple back the 15 billion he Eu claim they owe.

Honestly I can see much more as we as a country can do for Multi Nationals, apart from letting them write laws, which they are effectively doing now.

We have had law change on the back of Athenry and this case.

Boggles

Paul_Mc1988 wrote: »

But if he bought a house during the recession it would have had a positive effect on his monetary situation!. He would be a a couple 100k in positive equity.

Did he?

Paul_Mc1988

Boggles wrote:

Did he?

Don't know. Just pointing that you said it affected negatively which is factually incorrect!

Brian?

Boggles wrote: »

He isn't, he said that he objecting based on the IDA moving the goal posts and his firm belief that they will come for his lands again with further expansion down the line.

I believe, there absolutely no reason why that is not a possibility.

Unless you are privy to knowledge none of us have?

They will come for his land again, if it’s legal.

It has zero to do with the current application though.

Boggles

Brian? wrote: »

They will come for his land again, if it’s legal.

It has zero to do with the current application though.

The original planning application had nothing to do with him either, but I'm sure if he knew what was going to happen to him he would have objected back then too.

At this moment in time, no. The current planning has no effect on him. But it could have an effect on the environment, will have to see how it goes. In the future, you certainly don't know and I certainly don't know, but I will concede to the expert in this, Thomas thinks there is a possibility. Thomas unlike the IDA is not breaking any laws, he is entitled to object to the planning application under our current laws.

Brian?

Boggles wrote: »

The original planning application had nothing to do with him either, but I'm sure if he knew what was going to happen to him he would have objected back then too.

At this moment in time, no. The current planning has no effect on him. But it could have an effect on the environment, will have to see how it goes. In the future, you certainly don't know and I certainly don't know, but I will concede to the expert in this, Thomas thinks there is a possibility. Thomas unlike the IDA is not breaking any laws, he is entitled to object to the planning application under our current laws.

He’s entitled to object, but painting him as a hero sticking it to the man is ridiculous.

Boggles

Brian? wrote: »

He’s entitled to object, but painting him as a hero sticking it to the man is ridiculous.

Jesus the stink of bitter begrudgery off you.

He has acted with nothing but honesty and integrity against an arm of the state who tried to illegally take his farm and hand it to a private company.

I do despair at some people and on how far we have moved and forgotten about what should matter.

Must be 8 years of Fine Gael.

Mrsmum

The only one looking out for Thomas Reid is himself. Is he not entitled to do that ??

Easy to say never mind about down the road when one fundamentally doesn't care what happens to him down the road. The very people guessing that Intel will go if this and that doesn't please them in the future don't seem to get that TR is also guessing what Intel will do in the future and based on his negative experience of them, it will not be good for him. But sure he should cop himself on and realise other people are far more important than himself. Isn't that right !

Brian?

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus the stink of bitter begrudgery off you.

What possible reason do I have to begrudge the man anything? That’s some serious projection there horse.

He has acted with nothing but honesty and integrity against an arm of the state who tried to illegally take his farm and hand it to a private company.

I do despair at some people and on how far we have moved and forgotten about what should matter.

Must be 8 years of Fine Gael.

He acted honestly during the fight against the cpo. Now he’s objecting out of spite.

Boggles

Brian? wrote: »

What possible reason do I have to begrudge the man anything?

It is a mystery all right.

Brian? wrote: »

He acted honestly during the fight against the cpo. Now he’s objecting out of spite.

How do you know? We can only take his word for it. What else have you heard?

That would be nothing wouldn't it horse?

Bowlardo

He should sell but by god the man should get paid way more than the land is worth.

Brian?

Boggles wrote: »

It is a mystery all right.

I no longer work for intel. So it is.

How do you know? We can only take his word for it. What else have you heard?

That would be nothing wouldn't it horse?

Have you seen his hand written objections to the planning? I have.

Brian?

Bowlardo wrote: »

He should sell but by god the man should get paid way more than the land is worth.

Rumour is he was offered 10m. That’s way more than it’s worth.

Boggles

Brian? wrote: »

I no longer work for intel. So it is.

I know, at least that would be some sort of excuse.

Brian? wrote: »

Have you seen his hand written objections to the planning? I have.

No, would love to.

Link them up if you can please.

Boggles

Brian? wrote: »

Rumour is he was offered 10m. That’s way more than it’s worth.

It's not even close to what it's worth.

Plumbthedepths

Brian? wrote:

Rumour is he was offered 10m. That’s way more than it’s worth.

Novel concept but some people regardless of price cannot be bought. He places no monetary value on the land. I know several farmers exactly like this man. They see themselves as only having guardianship of the land.

Brian?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Novel concept but some people regardless of price cannot be bought. He places no monetary value on the land. I know several farmers exactly like this man. They see themselves as only having guardianship of the land.

Yes. I know. I understand why he didn't sell. It's entirely up to him if he sells. I'm glad he won his fight against the CPO. I think it's bizarre some of the replies I'm getting.

My only point is that his current objection is out of spite.