Skip to main content
Welcome Guest! You can not login or register.

Notification

Icon
Error
5 Pages123>»
THE BIG CONVERSATION
Options
Previous Topic Next Topic
dopeyf
#1 Posted : 16 May 2008 13:27:20(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
I will warn all those that take part in the Big Conversation that is not as simple as just voting for the sale of Car Parks and Allotments to fund Schools, Roads and Swimming Pools, The problem is once these high value sites have been sold for redevelopment, apart from the misery inflicted on the neighbors to these sites,where do we go from there? when the problem arises again in 3/4/5/6 years time, as it will!
Next time round it will be YOUR Park or Childrens Play Area or your car parking place when you go to a satellite shopping area.
In 10 years time one can envisage no car parks or parks left in the borough, they will all be 1/2 bedroom flats
It may be better to bite the bullet of higher rates now, than to be left with a borough with no green and open spaces.
We need to ensure Councillors and Council Officers plan ahead instead of staggering from one yearly budget to the next, with forward Planning this whole sorry state of affairs might well have been avoided,, not to mention the £52,000 odd pounds this exercise has cost.








Back to top
annesevant
#2 Posted : 16 May 2008 17:12:55(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
I am totally with you on that dopeyf. I will wait for the paper version to read the details but, if there is a list of potential assets to be sold, why stop at the minimum necessary for current spending? Nothing will be sacred, which is already on that list.
Are we being hoodwinked by very clever people? I think there is an attempt. (They think they are clever at raising money but they are not brilliant at budgetting!)
annesevant
:doubt:
Back to top
Morris Hickey
#3 Posted : 19 May 2008 01:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,400
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
annesevant wrote:
I am totally with you on that dopeyf. I will wait for the paper version to read the details but, if there is a list of potential assets to be sold, why stop at the minimum necessary for current spending? Nothing will be sacred, which is already on that list.
Are we being hoodwinked by very clever people? I think there is an attempt. (They think they are clever at raising money but they are not brilliant at budgetting!)
annesevant
:doubt:


Not quite correct, Anne. Attempts at hoodwinking by NOT very clever people.
Back to top
cllrbond
#4 Posted : 19 May 2008 10:00:33(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
Come on Morris, it's a little too early to reach that conclusion, even for you, surely?
Back to top
dopeyf
#5 Posted : 19 May 2008 22:39:46(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
The secret to this is do what any good housewife does, work out how much money you have first, then allocate how you want to spend it, one has to wonder at the paucity of counsellors and council officers doing it the other way round, simple economics tells you that, a concept apparently completely foreign to this borough, especially the leisure portfolio, but certainly by the end, my will to live, had declined markedly.

so its pretty simple eally, raise the money first , then spend it.
Back to top
kerry4ever
#6 Posted : 20 May 2008 15:04:42(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 16/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 6
There is an argument that we shouldn't sell off the allottments and Car Parks to fund schools and roads, but I think the private sector should be responsible for building swimming pools and leisure centres; and for that matter affordable housing should be funded through planning gain. The private sector know how to run leisure facilities, and don't have to pay expensive council wages for their fitness instructors. However if the Council sold off the allottments, the car parks and the scout field it could get a nice capital sum and just use the interest after inflation to fund developments. It could then, for environmental reasons, massively increase the penalties for cars and parking offences, and provide and incentive to those who do not currently use public transport. This would help us meet our green targets and the revenue could be used to pay for the schools and roads, with a nice tidy capital sum in the bank. Everybody is a winner in this scenario.
Back to top
cllrbond
#7 Posted : 20 May 2008 16:08:33(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
a very good point, dopeyf, and one of the principal concerns I've had with the way the Cabinet was handling this last year. Indeed for two successive years the Council has had a capital programme - in the sense that it has identified a shopping list of things it wanted to spend money on - without any identified budget to show how it could be afforded. Despite this, the Council has spend millions of pounds working towards its programme - for example on consultants scoping the new Leisure Project (£1.3m) and on the Ilford Town Centre development (about £700k per year). At least now, with the Conversation to help collect views from local people, we've brought all the various capital spending items together, and scoped every possible way we could think of in which the programme can be funded.
Back to top
annesevant
#8 Posted : 20 May 2008 16:52:27(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
The question is, however, that a lot of people are not aware that you cannot sell allotments to raise capital to be spent as you wish. Any capital must be ear-marked for spending on the remaining allotments. This rule might not have been followed in the recent sales of allotments (Waterloo Road is a case I am studying with interest because I don't think the millions raised have been spent on the allotments at all.)
So, to get rid of an allotment you must prove it is surplus to requirement and under used. Neither condition applies to the four 'sacrificial sites' and the allotment holders are well aware of these facts.
We are not ready to be silenced.
annesevant
Back to top
kerry4ever
#9 Posted : 21 May 2008 10:27:11(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 16/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 6
Maybe the allotment holders should consider how priviledged they are and consider the wider good of the whole of Redbridge. Their little sacrifice could enable the Council to meet some of the capital aspirations of the wider community, who would of course thank them for their contribution.
Back to top
Edward Oliver
#11 Posted : 21 May 2008 11:24:36(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 31/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 75
I don't think many residents would thank the allotment holders for rolling over and allowing those green spaces to be built over with a load more flats.

On a separate note, it would surely be terrible publicity for the council if they booted the Scout Association off that site near Wanstead Park - you would hope the local council would be supportive of such a worthwhile voluntary organisation.
Back to top
Edward Oliver
#12 Posted : 21 May 2008 12:08:13(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 31/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 75
kerry4ever's suggestion that the allotment holders should make a "little sacrifice" sounds completely unfair to the allotment holders - and illustrates that if the council finds itself short of money (even if it is self-inflicted), the fairest way of raising extra is to increase council tax, thus sharing the pain as evenly as possible, with the bonus of not having to sell any irreplaceable assets (such as green space). If this fails to raise sufficient income, then simply cut the cloth according to the wind and don't spend so much on stuff we don't really need (Olympic-sized swimming pool, new town square). One would think a Conservative council would be keen to follow Mrs Thatcher's simple principle of "handbag economics" - don't spend what you haven't got.
Back to top
Morris Hickey
#13 Posted : 21 May 2008 14:17:09(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,400
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
Edward Oliver wrote:
kerry4ever's suggestion that the allotment holders should make a "little sacrifice" sounds completely unfair to the allotment holders - and illustrates that if the council finds itself short of money (even if it is self-inflicted), the fairest way of raising extra is to increase council tax, thus sharing the pain as evenly as possible, with the bonus of not having to sell any irreplaceable assets (such as green space). If this fails to raise sufficient income, then simply cut the cloth according to the wind and don't spend so much on stuff we don't really need (Olympic-sized swimming pool, new town square). One would think a Conservative council would be keen to follow Mrs Thatcher's simple principle of "handbag economics" - don't spend what you haven't got.


Absolutely - my own feelings succinctly expressed.
Back to top
 |  Edit by user
kerry4ever
#16 Posted : 21 May 2008 15:52:47(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 16/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 6
The Redbridge 'You Choose' section says that Scout Site has potential for residential re-development. If that is the case it would be worth a lot more than £600,000 pounds. The Council could then give the Scouts £200,000, which they could use to rent somewhere else, with the proviso that they only use the interest. The Scouts would have not problem getting another space with that amount of money, the Council would probably gain about £500,000, but would still get the good publicity of the Mayor handing over a big cheque. I don't think this would be bad publicity at all, as at the moment the Scouts are relying on the Council's charity, and this would put them on a sound business footing.
Back to top
nickaffleck
#17 Posted : 23 May 2008 22:28:18(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 12/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1
This is wrong on a big scale. This nasty, over-simplistic little simulation plants the idea that the only way to pay for dilapidated services is a damaging series of ill-conceived asset stripping in terms such as selling off irreplaceable green space, removing community-building amenities, for a one-off payment that will doubtless be frittered.

The email sent post-survey gives the nature of this survey away - it's a classic of the genre invented by New Labour in their heyday. 1. Decide on course of action 2. Produce survey data claiming people want this course of action based on closed questioning or sympathetic sampling groups 3. Proceed.

"We will produce a report for Councillors that shows residents views about different issues raised in the Redbridge Conversation. The results will be published in the summer, and we will be explaining the findings to registered Redbridge i users."

This kind of thing is best kept to harmless computer games.
Back to top
annesevant
#10 Posted : 25 May 2008 08:10:30(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
kerry4ever wrote:
Maybe the allotment holders should consider how priviledged they are and consider the wider good of the whole of Redbridge. Their little sacrifice could enable the Council to meet some of the capital aspirations of the wider community, who would of course thank them for their contribution.


Since we have been sent the traditional bank holiday weather, I am browsing.
Since kerry4ever has sent decent messages after this one and is not a total hot head, I reply to the one in the quote.
Even if us allotment holders were going to keel over for the good of the rest of you, does it mean that the council can happily break the law of the land and pocket the money? No!
The law is not clear, that's the privilege of British Law! First, all the receipts from the sale of allotments had to be ploughed back into the rest of the allotments, then there was an amendment: if necessary the council can only spent 50% of the capital on allotments and keep the rest for other projects. (I have printed this from Hansard!)
Now, the member of Cabinet who was in charge before things were changed has quoted 5%, as the figure to be retained to spentd on allotments, on many occasions. Could this be proven in print (from a reliable source, of course)?
Perhaps the new Cabinet member in charge could reply to this.
annesevant
Back to top
ramsaym1
#18 Posted : 28 May 2008 11:48:49(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3
I agree totally with Dopeyf. Selling off playing fields, scouting land and green belt is a short term fix to a problem that requires a permanent solution. What happens when the money from the sale of land has run out? Sell off more land? And when the land runs out, what then? SELLING OFF COUNCIL LAND TO FUND SCHOOL REPAIRS IS LIKE SELLING OFF YOUR GARDEN TO FIX YOUR ROOF. You just wouldn't do it!! Come on Redbridge council apply a bit more intelligence to the funding issues.
Back to top
dopeyf
#19 Posted : 28 May 2008 12:41:22(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
Land is a finite resource,which is exactly why the cost spirals, you cannot create more land ( with very very small exceptions), once the land is sold the future cost of replacing it is prohibitive, so it will be whittled away and never replaced.
Back to top
annesevant
#20 Posted : 29 May 2008 11:58:25(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
A million thanks to the Ilford Recorder for finding out when the paper version of the Big Conversation will be available: 2nd June 2008, in libraries. I hope they have big stocks, because lots of us want to participate on paper.
And I was going to waste my time going to the Barkingside Library event, this Saturday 31st May 2008 hoping to collect my paper form!
What is the sense in having a continental cafe allowing people to discuss a situation but not having the paperwork ready?
annesevant
Back to top
Morris Hickey
#21 Posted : 29 May 2008 12:04:49(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,400
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
Because the council does not know on what next to waste money that it claims not to have.
Back to top
redimanager
#22 Posted : 29 May 2008 17:22:01(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/12/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,025
'The You Choose paper version will be available for residents to complete at the Redbridge Conversation Cafés. A paper copy will also be sent out to every household week beginning 2 June.'

Find out more about the Redbridge Conversation Cafés by following this link - http://www.redbridge.gov...and_culture/events.aspx

Regards,

Redimanager
Back to top
 |  Edit by user
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET

All areas