all at least admit that the real problem isn't the destruction of a rural idyll, but rather the difficulty of providing infrastructure and services in a country where settlement is widely dispersed. Let's remember that the builders of one-off houses also want electricity, phones, roads, transport, hospitals, schools and jobs.When I started this thread, my problem was with (a) the national planning board's intervention and (b) and the national planning board's reliance on An Taisce.
I'm not against all planning regulations, but when the locally elected body has approved an application for a new house, I can see no reason for a central body to be involved in the process. It should be the local government's responsibility to judge what the infrastructural needs are. And, those who have applied for such permissions could easily be charged for telephone & electricity installations. The more remote the site, the greater these costs will be.
Jon also objects to my use of the word "fascist" with regards to An Taisce. In fact, I said An Taisce is "just short of being environmental fascists". The right to private property is a fundamental right. An Taisce is attempting to use the power of the central government in opposition to the local authorities and the rights of property owners.
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.{UPDATE 10:16 — just noticed that Frank had pretty much covered this one already.}
— John Adams
