What’s the matter with Ranelagh? Before examining the economics of the last-ditch attempt to stop the country’s biggest infrastructural project, it is worth remembering why the MetroLink is ending abruptly in Charlemont in the first place: a more sensible plan to tie the metro in with the Luas Green line (offering a single, high-capacity route from Swords in the north to Bride’s Glen in the south) was shelved following similar objections from other Ranelagh residents. For the second time, a tiny minority of Dublin 6 residents are blocking the will of the vast majority.
From a democratic view of societal progress, there is something wrong with a system that indulges such hyper-minority rule. As opposed to majoritarianism, minority rule leads to a strange situation where a committed minority, who really care, can have far more influence over policy than the vast majority who don’t care enough, even though the majority all pay the price for the intransigence of the minority.
The latest Ranelagh objectors are not alone; minority rule is far more common in western societies than may think. We all assume that in a democracy the majority rules, but that’s not the case and, in many instances, those who shout loudest regularly get their own way. This leads to a situation where the economy seizes up; it’s called Banana – “Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything”.
In the case of the MetroLink, objectors are putting their interests above the national interest, but due to our common-law system, their voices might just drown out the rest of us, imposing yet more cost and delay for the average commuter and taxpayer.
Michael D Higgins rounds on Trump for ‘piggy’ remark and lack of courtesy
Ranelagh’s latest MetroLink objection highlights bananas nature of hyper-minority rule
Aimee Connolly: ‘I’m not ready to sell – I want to be a top 10 global beauty brand’
‘It was utterly sacred’: Manchán Magan’s widow on his final days, death and legacy
This saga is emblematic of a wider problem afflicting Ireland’s infrastructure, from wind farms, roads, tunnels and railways to housing delivery: a small number of objectors can stall or derail projects that offer huge benefits to the vast majority. Because of the interaction of minority rule and our common-law system, Ireland is moving from a democracy to “vetocracy”, where governance is paralysed because someone, somewhere holds a veto, whether it be against MetroLink, an apartment block or a wind farm.
Locals opposed to change often have genuine concerns. Construction is messy, new buildings might block a view or overload local roads. Far too often these modest downsides end up blocking outsize upsides, such as homes for thousands, cleaner transport for millions, economic growth for the entire nation and a more pleasant day-to-day living experience. The tyranny of the minority in planning causes real harm – soaring rents and home prices, ever-worsening traffic, and lost productivity and climate progress.
If the State wants to regain control of basic State competence and build homes, metros, tunnels, harbours, airports and the essential infrastructure that becomes a wealthy country, it needs to react. Ireland actually has mechanisms on the books to recognise this, notably the Strategic Infrastructure Development (SID) process. Under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, projects deemed of strategic importance (ports, railways, power plants, etc) can be fast-tracked by applying directly to An Coimisiún Pleanála, bypassing the normal local council permission stage.
MetroLink itself was classified as a SID. Its railway order application went straight to the national planning board, which approved it in October 2025. However, the SID process does not immunise a project from judicial review, as we see now. Even after extensive consultation and board approval, objectors can head to the High Court to challenge the process on legal grounds. The result is that strategic projects can still face strategic delay. To avoid this, other common-law jurisdictions have brought in emergency legislation to prevent judicial reviews.
Canada introduced the One Canadian Economy Act in June to accelerate “nation-building” infrastructure. The Canadian Act allows Ottawa to designate certain projects in the “national interest” and then streamline their permitting and approvals process. The cabinet can bundle together and fast-track the myriad permissions, environmental assessments and energy regulatory approvals. The aim is to cut approval times to as low as two years for major projects by using a “one project, one review” framework.
So much for the stick – what about the carrot?
We can force people to accept the national interest over their own narrow concerns, but another approach might be to incentivise local people to get behind – rather than oppose – development. Can we change behaviour by making it more attractive to back rather than block change? Is it possible to turn Nimbys (Not in my back yard) into Yimbys (Yes in my back yard)?
[ John Collison of Stripe: Ireland is going backwards. Here’s how to get it movingOpens in new window ]
At the moment, I am seeing all sorts of one-off housing in older estates around Dublin where one resident goes for planning permission to knock the old house and build five new apartments on the plot. Typically, a neighbour objects, and they fall out. Someone eventually wins and someone loses, and neighbours who lived happily beside each other for 40 years stop talking. To solve this, and recognising the importance of existing suburbs, an idea being floated in the UK is called “Street Votes”, which seeks to convert serial objectors into committed facilitators, where everyone wins.
The people on an estate come together and agree to allow more intensive development, becoming partners in the project. Imagine a 20-house suburban estate in Ireland with large 1970s gardens where 60 per cent of the owners agree to a proposal to allow three-storey apartment buildings on each plot, turning 20 old homes into 80 new apartments. The beauty of this is that the existing owners have the right to add units or sell to someone who will, and because the land is now far more valuable with that new planning permission, all the residents – not some developer – reap a windfall.
Essentially, the residents vote to get rich and also create new housing for others, a social benefit. No one is forced to move. They just have the option to participate or to sell and let others build.
Even the recalcitrant residents of Ranelagh might opt for that no-brainer.
