Call for empty buildings in Cork to be used for arts and business purposes to tackle dereliction
Ms Towse raised the issue in a motion proposed to the recent meeting of Cork County Council's Western Division that asked: 'That the Western Division of Cork County Council would develop a strategy to encourage and facilitate 'meanwhile-use' of vacant and derelict buildings in West Cork.' The motion was seconded by her party colleague Ann Bambury.
Meanwhile use is the temporary use of empty buildings for various purposes while they await longer-term development or occupancy, said Ms Towse, and examples of uses include pop-up shops, street markets and exhibition spaces.
Ms Towse said: 'I am appealing to the council to do everything within its power to facilitate and indeed encourage meanwhile use, in both public and private buildings where possible. The commercial vacancy rate in Cork county is 12.4%, much higher than our European counterparts.
'This has a negative impact on a town's economy and the health and wellbeing of the community.
Meanwhile, artists are crying out for spaces to create and put on cultural activities; organisations and community groups need places to meet; and micro businesses would benefit from affordable retail spaces.
"All of this would boost economic development and innovation, attract tourism, and improve the liveability of towns, and importantly, tackle problematic vacancy and dereliction.'
Ms Towse said a good example was the case of the Clonakilty Community Arts Centre, which is facing eviction from its current location as the building was due to be sold. She said a short distance away, the former Clonakilty Fire Station building was currently unoccupied.
She added: 'Overall I think we need to develop a model for meanwhile use that would respond to the unique needs of towns and villages in West Cork. We must remember that the most sustainable building is an existing one.'
Keith Jones, director of asset management and land development at Cork County Council, said the council was committed to engaging with the owners of vacant and derelict buildings to bring them back into productive use for the social and economic benefit of communities.
Divisional manger Michael Lynch said the new formed directorate of asset management and land development was conducting a strategic review of derelict and unoccupied buildings with the aim of developing a strategy to tackle dereliction, and meanwhile use would be part of the overall plan.
This article is funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Behind the Story: Trump tariffs at Turnberry and what happens next?
A trade deal between the European Union and the US could see certain Irish exporters "at the same position" as they are now, an economist has said. The transatlantic deal, that includes a 15% tariff on EU goods entering the US and significant EU purchases of US energy and military equipment, is seen as bringing welcome clarity for European companies. However, the baseline tariff of 15% has been criticised by others as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal. The deal came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled to Scotland for talks with US President Donald Trump to push the hard-fought agreement over the line. Deloitte Ireland Chief Economist Kate English told RTÉ's Behind the Story podcast that a zero-for-zero deal was unlikely to happen. "I think a zero-for-zero tariff deal was a pipe dream for the EU – we weren't going to get that," she told Fran McNulty and Evelyn O'Rourke. "What was the alternative if a deal wasn't reached by August 1st? "It was tariffs of 30% or more coming from the US - and at that stage, the EU would have had to retaliate". Ms English said she believes retaliatory tariffs by the EU would have been "catastrophic" for the Irish economy and consumers. "We would have had a lot more pain from this", she said. Ms English said while 15% is not where we want to be, there needed to be some form of agreement that allowed businesses to plan. The Kerrygold example Ms English said there is also scope to expand the zero-for-zero tariff list, which currently includes things like aircraft, semiconductor equipment and certain agricultural products. "That [list] is not nailed down, so that is still being discussed," she explained. "It is also important to remember that we entered into where the average tariff rate between the EU and the US was 4.8% but different sectors would have been experiencing it quite differently. "I know the common example over the last few days and today is that example of Kerrygold – in place already was a tariff of 16% into the United States." Ms English said the new 15% rate is not on top of any existing rates. "What we were understanding from two weeks ago, on July 9th, was if that 10% was agreed it would have been in addition to… whatever rate was your sector," she said. "So, we've kind of ended up - in one respect - at the same position potentially today than what we were looking at two weeks [ago]. "And if some of those negotiations around those zero-for-zero goods that have been picked out as strategic areas for both the US and Europe play true, is it as negative as what we're saying?" Ms English added that pharmaceuticals are "still a real concern for Ireland".
The Journal
an hour ago
- The Journal
Are pharmaceuticals part of the EU-US tariff deal? And what's Section 232 got to do with it?
THE EU'S PHARMACEUTICAL sector could be in line for 15% tariffs as the result of a 'Section 232' investigation in the US. US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clinched a deal late yesterday that includes a baseline US tariff of 15%. This agreement came just five days before the US was due to impose 30% tariffs on many European imports. Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump met at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Scotland. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo However, there was some confusion as to whether pharmaceuticals, which are currently tariff free, would come under these tariffs of 15%. Speaking yesterday, Trump said pharmaceuticals were not covered by the deal. 'Pharmaceuticals won't be part of it because we have to have them made in the United States,' said Trump. 'Pharmaceuticals are very special. We can't be in a position where we're relying on other countries. 'Europe is going to make pharmaceuticals, drugs and everything else for us too – a lot – but we're going to also have our own.' In a letter to the Trade Forum, Tánaiste Simon Harris said his understanding from von der Leyen is that the 'rate of 15% is a ceiling on any potential tariffs that may be imposed following the conclusion of the section 232 investigations'. 'In other words, any tariff would not increase beyond 15%,' Minister for Enterprise and Trade, Peter Burke, told RTÉ this morning. File image of Tánaiste Simon Harris Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo He added: 'Von der Leyen has been very clear that 15% will be a ceiling, and Trump has been clear as well that there will be other areas that he can look at on pharmaceuticals. 'Pharmaceuticals are very complex and a lot of the product that is exported over to the US is not a complete product. 'Almost 70% of it is components of the final product that will come together. 'That's why we need to ensure that we have a very keen rate to ensure we incentivise innovation in that sector.' Section 232 investigation On 16 April, the Trump administration initiated new investigations into the imports of pharmaceuticals under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act . The purpose of a Section 232 investigation is to determine the effect of imports on US national security and whether certain imports 'threaten to impair' national security. Advertisement Such investigations are said to 'recognise the close relation of the economic welfare of the Nation to our national security'. The investigations also probe whether the 'displacement of US products by excessive imports' could result in 'substantial unemployment, decreases in government revenues, and/or loss of investment and skills'. In the context of pharmaceuticals, the investigation will look at the role of foreign supply chains in supplying the US market and the extent to which domestic US production can meet demand. The investigation will also probe potential attempts by foreign states to exert pressure by exploiting US dependencies in this sector. At the conclusion of this investigation, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick is due to recommend possible trade policy measures on the sector, including the introduction of possible additional tariffs on pharmaceutical products. The Section 232 investigation was launched on 16 April and the Trade Expansion Act compels Lutnick to submit a report to Trump within 270 of initiating the investigation. It's expected that he will file this report within the next three weeks. File image of Trump with his Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo If Lutnick determines that there is a threat to US national security, Trump has 90 days to decide whether he agrees, and if he agrees, whether to act. If Trump decides to act, he then has 15 days to implement that action. However, Trump could decide to enter into negotiations instead, should Lutnick report that there is a threat to US national security. In this scenario, if Trump enters into negotiations and no agreement is made after 180 days, or the agreement 'is not being carried out or is ineffective in eliminating the threat' to national security, Trump will take further action. Earlier this month, Trump claimed that tariffs on European pharmaceutical companies could be as much as 200%. And during Taoiseach Micheál Martin's St Patrick's visit to the White House, Trump said Martin was 'lucky' he wasn't president when US pharmaceutical companies moved to Ireland as he would have placed 200% tariffs on them. Trump's use of Section 232 Trump carried out seven Section 232 investigations during his first term and all but one found a threat to US national security. This resulted in tariffs on steel and aluminium in 2018, though this was later modified and some countries were granted exemptions. For other goods, Trump entered into negotiations with trading partners, though he didn't agree with his then-Commerce Secretary's assessment that there was a national security risk around uranium. In his second term, Trump has commenced Section 232 investigations once more on uranium, as well pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and rare earth elements. He has also revived a Section 232 investigation from his first term on cars and car parts, initiated new investigations on copper, timber, and semiconductors for manufacturing equipment, and also expanded Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminium. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
EU-US trade deal: Ursula von der Leyen stooped to conquer
The trade deal agreed between the United States and the European Union on Sunday is on its face a humiliation for Europe and a triumph for Donald Trump 's strong-arm tariff diplomacy . But in acknowledging Europe's strategic weakness and giving Trump a public victory, Ursula von der Leyen may have stooped to conquer. The terms of the deal could hardly be more one-sided, with European exports to the US facing a 15 per cent tariff while American goods enter the EU with no tariff at all. The EU also agreed to spend $750 billion (€644 billion) on US energy products like liquefied natural gas (LNG) over the next three years, to invest $600 billion (€515 billion) in the US and to buy hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of American weapons. READ MORE The EU fumbled the negotiations from the start, dithering over retaliatory measures after Trump announced his 'reciprocal tariffs' in April. China was more defiant, matching Trump's tariffs and using as leverage its chokehold on rare earth minerals that many US manufacturers need. China and the EU were never likely to work together against the US, but both trading giants resisting Trump at the same time would have had more impact than either acting alone. Negotiations between China and the US, which continue in Stockholm this week, and the 15 per cent tariff deal with Japan this month left the EU at risk of being the last major trading partner without an agreement. A 15 per cent tariff will make European goods more expensive for American importers but the fact that it is in line with that of other major exporters should limit its impact on their competitiveness. Keir Starmer secured a slightly lower tariff of 10 per cent, but while Britain is a major exporter of services, it is no longer a leading goods exporter. [ EU and US reach deal on 15% tariffs, averting potential trade war Opens in new window ] The tariff, which will be paid by American importers, is high enough to raise significant revenue for the US government, but it is probably too low to persuade many manufacturers to move their operations from Europe to the US. And there may be less to von der Leyen's other promises than immediately meets the eye. She said that the EU would seek to spend $250 billion (€215 billion) a year over the next three years on US energy products, but inadequate infrastructure to turn LNG back into gas could limit such imports. And the $600 billion in new European investment in the US is less a promise than an aspiration, because it will be for businesses rather than the European Commission to make those decisions. Von der Leyen's deal doubles down on Europe's security dependency on the US. Photograph: Tierney L. Cross/ The New York Times [ Ireland 'no doubt' in challenging position over tariffs, says Minister Opens in new window ] The deal's most important function is that it averts a trade war with the US in which the EU could never have prevailed. Some Europeans talked tough about using the EU's Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) to target US services and intellectual property rights, but the threat was always an empty one. This is because the US can meet any such dramatic escalation by the EU with its own ultimate and unanswerable threat: the withdrawal of the transatlantic security guarantee. Such a move would have been unthinkable under previous US presidents, but Trump has shown clearly that he has no ideological or emotional affinity with the idea of the transatlantic alliance. Von der Leyen's pledge to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to buy more US weapons is, in one view, almost cartoonish in its illustration of Europe's vassalage. But it may also serve to bind Washington more closely to European security interests by offering the kind of incentive Trump responds to, a financial one. He has already made clear to Japan and South Korea that he sees the security guarantee the US offers them as a kind of protection racket and that the price is going up. His agreement to continue supplying weapons to Ukraine if the Europeans pay for them reflects the same approach to America's alliances. Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy understood this when he agreed a deal with Trump earlier this year to give the US a stake in the exploitation of the country's minerals. The idea was that, if the US has an economic interest in Ukraine's mines, Washington will be more likely to resist a Russian attempt to seize them. Von der Leyen's deal doubles down on Europe's security dependency on the US, potentially undermining any drive towards strategic autonomy. But after years of talking, that has so far amounted to little more than a commitment to reorientate much of Europe's industry towards defence, funded by debt. [ How EU and US news front pages see the tariffs deal Opens in new window ] Von der Leyen's deal with Trump reflects the primacy of Europe's current interest in maintaining and securing its partnership with the US. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/ AFP via Getty Images What Europe needs is a candid debate about its strategic future that goes beyond how to become a more self-reliant subaltern to the US. Fifty years after the Helsinki Accords, it will require imaginative but clear-sighted thinking about how to share the Eurasian land mass with Russia. The EU needs to look again at its relationship with China and whether its identification of Beijing as a partner for co-operation, an economic competitor and systemic rival remains the most useful one. The EU is now closer to China than the US on a growing number of policy areas, including climate change, the rules-based trading system and development aid. A strategic review would also examine the EU's relationship with the Global South and particularly how its influence is diminishing in Africa at a time when that continent's economic potential is becoming more evident. And the emerging reality of a multipolar world demands a new relationship with middle powers like those in the Brics based on mutual respect, rather than Europe's increasingly implausible sense of moral superiority. There is little sign of such fresh strategic thinking at the top of the EU, least of all by von der Leyen. In the meantime, her deal with Trump reflects the primacy of Europe's current interest in maintaining and securing its partnership with the US, unequal and undignified as it may be.
