The report from the Dublin City Taskforce, even compared to similar endeavours, seems to be a lukewarm attempt at best. Yet, to solely perceive it as a refurbished version of the same old narrative – a perception echoed by many – is to misunderstand what the taskforce intends to achieve.
The taskforce, initiated by the recently installed Taoiseach, Simon Harris, was launched in May with the mandate to formulate a strategy for transforming “Dublin city centre into a thriving, appealing, and secure urban landscape that is sought after as a place to live, work, visit and conduct business in.”
The premise that Dublin’s city centre lacked these qualities was taken for granted, even though it might have been reasonable to begin by verifying this claim.
The taskforce is essentially a product of a narrative that has gone unchallenged in the political sphere and the media since last November’s city centre riot. This narrative, enthusiastically propagated by Harris, centres around the pledge to establish a taskforce to address city centre violence, even though the evidence supporting this portrayal of Dublin’s city centre as a kind of urban nightmare is predominantly anecdotal.
The primary goal of the taskforce is, essentially, to enable the Government to claim to have addressed an issue that largely exists in its own perception – the notion of our erstwhile revered capital being transformed into a prohibited zone for respectable individuals.
In this context, the fortuitous release of its report just ahead of the general election is, to say the least, timely.
The report’s press release features not less than seven politicians, including the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste Michael Martin, Green Party leader and Equality Minister Roderic O’Gorman, Dublin’s Lord Mayor James Geoghegan, Justice Minister Helen McEntee, Paschal Donohoe, the Minster for Public Expenditure and Reform, and Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien.
Considering the entire initiative is predicated on a grim dystopian vision utilised by politicians for personal gain, it is hardly surprising that the report’s proposed remedies are equally fantastical.
Given the taskforce’s background, it is hardly surprising that its primary recommendation is the establishment of an additional 1,000 police officers in the city’s heart.
The origin of the new guards that Dublin City’s Taskforce report suggests remains uncertain. As at July’s end, the Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, noted to the Policing Authority that the total members of An Garda Síochána were 14,064, a decrease by 35 since June’s end. It implies the challenge mounted in the course of recruitment.
It is worth noting the doubtful worthiness and difficulty of sourcing and situating an additional 1,000 guards in Dublin’s centre to enhance the apparent safety. The documentation by the taskforce consciously highlights that Dublin “feels” unsafe, avoiding the clear statement that it is indeed unsafe. Such a claim, however, cannot find any tangible backing from crime data.
The taskforce report also aims to counter the view that Dublin’s core is overrun by addicts and asylum seekers. It subtly alludes to the need to distribute emergency accommodation and processing facilities more equally and reduce street-based drug use through superior services. It equates to getting these individuals off the streets.
However, it appears that perception outweighs reality. The exact number of active intravenous drug users in Dublin remains unknown, with estimates ranging inside 400 to 3,000. It’s known that the city centre houses a lot of the services offered to these addicts, necessitating their travel for access.
The distribution of such facilities has been constrained by suburban residents’ resistance. There is little indication that politicians focused on ridding the city centre of these individuals are ready to host clinics within their regions. A similar situation exists with regards to asylum seekers processing and housing centres. Like the suggested extra guards, these solutions fall into the category of wishful thinking.
On the other hand, numerous proposed recommendations are already part of Dublin City Council and other authorities’ agendas and appear practical. Notably, the attention given to the rejuvenation of the city’s social housing complexes. Such undertakings could partly address the social deprivation that contributed to the previous year’s November riots.
The dilemma lies in the fact that all of their proposals require financial backing. The scope of the taskforce didn’t extend to securing funds for their projected plans, estimated at approximately €1 billion in terms of upfront expenditure and a yearly operational budget of up to €150 million. They did propose a few potential sources for these funds such as a tax on tourists, congestion charges, and escalated empty-property levies. Though these suggestions are valuable, they fail to gain political acceptance for various reasons.
Their report is set to be presented to a cross-departmental team on the brink of elections, a move that can be compared to a merciful termination. The taskforce has thus fulfilled its designated role.