>Will the State own the hospital? Yes it will — it will be the national, state-owned hospital, built and funded by the State. The State will own it on a leasehold basis for the next 299 years.
Not really ownership there is it
The church giving away a site that’s worth fifty or sixty million?
You gotta be dubious.
I would rather they delay it and move it somewhere the church has zero skin in.
I would say this for just about everything involving church owned land. We should be confiscating their property to repay the damage they have caused. Not paying 300 year leases.
The fact we are even having negotiations with them is bad enough.
Huge amounts of misinformation on this. There’s people on twitter making up stuff about ectopic pregnancies not being managed with medication in Irish hospitals and complaining that the pharmacy in Vincents doesnt sell condoms. There’s no public pharmacy in Vincents. There are some absolute loons out there.
After the shitshow that is the childrens hospital, id like to see the government try and do better than this.
Maybe it’s all fine and should go ahead. BUT here’s the thing as far as I’m concerned, at least. I may be (setting myself up here lads, I know) spectacularly thick, but I don’t understand the reasoning behind the very convoluted ownership and rental structure if it’s all above board. And why can nobody promoting it explain the reasons for it adequately? That makes me suspicious, even if there’s no reason for it.
Also, I’m interested in the clinical need clause. Why does a bunch of nuns need this to rent some land out?
I hate this argument that “sure it’s too late to change things now. This is how we always do it”. This is a mess of the government’s own doing and they have been warned for years that it will be unpopular among the electorate.
1) Why are we saying leasehold is ownership? If it’s effective ownership then why don’t SoC just give up actual ownership?
2) When will the State stop paying billions to hand over State assets to private entities? Are our civil servants lacking in such ambition that they think this is the way it has to be because it’s how we have always done it? National Broadband Plan is another example of where we just transfer ownership for no clear reason.
Seeing as we’re entering a deal with the folks who stiffed the state in the deal to move to the current Vincent’s site back in the day, we’re right to be suspicious.
8 comments
>Will the State own the hospital? Yes it will — it will be the national, state-owned hospital, built and funded by the State. The State will own it on a leasehold basis for the next 299 years.
Not really ownership there is it
The church giving away a site that’s worth fifty or sixty million?
You gotta be dubious.
I would rather they delay it and move it somewhere the church has zero skin in.
I would say this for just about everything involving church owned land. We should be confiscating their property to repay the damage they have caused. Not paying 300 year leases.
The fact we are even having negotiations with them is bad enough.
Huge amounts of misinformation on this. There’s people on twitter making up stuff about ectopic pregnancies not being managed with medication in Irish hospitals and complaining that the pharmacy in Vincents doesnt sell condoms. There’s no public pharmacy in Vincents. There are some absolute loons out there.
After the shitshow that is the childrens hospital, id like to see the government try and do better than this.
Maybe it’s all fine and should go ahead. BUT here’s the thing as far as I’m concerned, at least. I may be (setting myself up here lads, I know) spectacularly thick, but I don’t understand the reasoning behind the very convoluted ownership and rental structure if it’s all above board. And why can nobody promoting it explain the reasons for it adequately? That makes me suspicious, even if there’s no reason for it.
Also, I’m interested in the clinical need clause. Why does a bunch of nuns need this to rent some land out?
I hate this argument that “sure it’s too late to change things now. This is how we always do it”. This is a mess of the government’s own doing and they have been warned for years that it will be unpopular among the electorate.
1) Why are we saying leasehold is ownership? If it’s effective ownership then why don’t SoC just give up actual ownership?
2) When will the State stop paying billions to hand over State assets to private entities? Are our civil servants lacking in such ambition that they think this is the way it has to be because it’s how we have always done it? National Broadband Plan is another example of where we just transfer ownership for no clear reason.
Seeing as we’re entering a deal with the folks who stiffed the state in the deal to move to the current Vincent’s site back in the day, we’re right to be suspicious.