Irish Examiner view: Who decides what is for the greater good?
Ireland is still dealing with the fallout from the Celtic Tiger era and tempting to play fast and loose with the legislative framework which governs planning and housing. Stock picture: Denis Minihane
The ongoing housing crisis is still one of the great challenges of modern Irish life, contaminating and complicating the employment and education sectors as well as driving young people to emigration. There appears to be no limit to the problems caused by the lack of affordable accommodation.
Now, a significant stakeholder in this area has called for a change.
As reported in the by Tadgh McNally, major players in the housing sector have not just called on the Government to get tough with objectors to housing and infrastructure projects, one has said there should be a social stigma associated with objections to developments that serve the “greater good”.
To be precise, the chief executive of the State’s Land Development Agency, John Coleman, said this week:
This could be read as a representation of the seriousness of the housing crisis, but when the head of a State agency is calling for people to be stigmatised for engaging in a democratic process, then that raises an entirely separate set of questions.
Is Mr Coleman really calling for people to be shamed in public for their involvement in the planning process?
Inconvenient though it might be to some of those involved in housing or building, it is entirely appropriate and legal for people to register objections and raise concerns in planning matters.
This call to shame people fails to answer the most obvious flaw in its own argument: A proposal may be framed as working for the “greater good”, but who is the arbiter of that greater good if not the public through engaging in a lawful process?
It should not be forgotten either that Ireland has a disastrous history when it comes to playing fast and loose with the legislative framework which governs planning and housing.
We are still dealing with the results of errors made during Celtic Tiger building era, and should let that example guide us here.
Tricolours have been hung without permission on lamp-posts and other street infrastructure in several parts of Dublin, leading residents in some areas to write to the local council asking for the flags to be removed.
It has been reported that some of those residents have objected on the basis that the flags have been hung up by a “minority political grouping” which could “undermine people’s respect for the flag as a symbol of national unity”.
This is a brisk articulation of the conundrum at the heart of this issue. The argument in favour of allowing the flags to remain where they are is, presumably, that they are an expression of national pride and that Irish people should be entitled to hang up their national flag in their own home town.
However, this is a disingenuous presentation of the facts. It must be accepted that the presentation of flags in this way is being done specifically to intimidate people — foreign residents, to be precise. One local councillor in Dublin has said the flag is being weaponised to intimidate people, and he is correct.
The irony, of course, is that the far-right agitators hanging tricolours in Dublin are shamelessly copying their counterparts in Britain, who are festooning public spaces with flags carrying St George’s Cross: so-called Irish patriots aping so-called English patriots, sharing nothing more than xenophobia.
There should be no concession on the national flag — no abandoning it to a small group intent on spreading fear and hatred within this country.
The tricolour belongs to all of us, and represents all of us. It was conceived originally as a visual representation of very different traditions being brought together in the name of peace and unity — green, white, and orange. That message is as valid today as it ever was.
The presidential election has now been confirmed for October 24, which means an end is in sight for what feels like the longest pre-campaign of all time.
We learned recently that Bob Geldof was ‘mulling’ a run for the Áras, while former TV weather presenter Joanna Donnelly is seeking the support of county councils to enter the race. For the last year, almost every interview with a well-known Irish person gauged their interest in the presidency, with almost all of them declining to rule themselves out.
Political parties are fond of high-profile individuals with good name recognition, and Fianna Fáil’s nominee, Jim Gavin, falls into the celebrity category as a former Dublin football manager.
It would be helpful, however, to have some evidence of Mr Gavin’s views on the pressing political issues of the day: his opinion on Irish neutrality would be of particular interest given his years in the Defence Forces, for instance.
For context, President Michael D Higgins has very high approval ratings with the public, but he has also tested the boundaries of his role with interventions on housing and neutrality.
Many Irish citizens agreed with those interventions, but what if the interventions of his successor do not meet such wide approval?
That is why we need close scrutiny of all candidates, particularly those new to the political scene, in order to avoid any unpleasant surprises after the victor is sworn in.
