Make infrastructure happen.
This last entry on the list, goes under the sub-heading of 'blindingly obvious - Mr. Stupid'. I also thought of titling this entry 'Build Infrastructure'. But given I have a great wonder for how any building remains standing, I believe that planners are the last people to be entrusted with the actual building bit. However, moving from a position where we understand we need infrastructure (roads, water, public transport) to providing it, is the part planners do get involved in, and should be more proactive at.
Any local authority in Ireland is now strapped for cash and not in the building business. Developers can't get the cash from banks to develop. So are there any alternatives?
Well evidence from UK and US and at home highlights that utilities are a very attractive financial proposition for investors. Of course it doesn't work very well for consumers under a highly de-regulated system (i.e. California) but it can work. Utilities provide a reliable return on investment over time... because you can charge people for it over time, and get your money back with a predictable return on the investment. So what is to stop local authorities or communities progressing water treatment works etc that they can invest in, or perhaps raise bonds/shares and get on with the project?
Who would have thought 10 years ago that collecting bins could be huge business? Well, from the bills I got from 'Panda' I you would guess barristers were emptying wheelie bins. Look at National Toll Roads. Communities and local authorities should be able to make money on infrastructure development - after its built (not before which is the basis of section 38 of Planning Act).
NAMA should be looking around the country for where they can maximise investment into locations that would collectively support new infrastructure. Particularly water supply, and waste water. Infrastructure of this nature, and the capacities available, ultimately dictate where investment should go. This investment needs to be aligned with planning strategies, so that infrastructure goes where it is needed, and the pipes follow the strategic plan and not the other way around.
It's a good idea but there's a political danger. Politicians may not actually allow consumer utility rates to be set at a realistic rate, or grow to reflect costs. That was much of the problem in the California electricity market, in fact: consumer rates were still regulated and couldn't rise, even though Enron and co were driving up the wholesale price. Consumers didn't cut back on power demand when prices were high. The result was the utility companies like PG&E, caught in the middle, were driven into bankruptcy, and the incentives were to game the system rather than expand capacity. If I was an investor I would be careful about future rate caps.
ReplyDeleteThere certainly is a risk in a closed market (theoretical open market)for a utility i.e. water treatment plant, that someone is going to get exploited.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we don't have great examples at present. There are interesting innovations such as Community Land Trusts, and Mutual Companies .. with Charity status that have to reinvest profits in community..there is a lot of thinkin going on about these models at the moment, but the capacity to make a profit seems a fair ambition. I think we need solutions to be mainstream.