i360 back on track

The Argus: i360 back on track i360 back on track

After years of talks, proposals, setbacks and promises, the i360 appears to be back on track. With officials and developers drawing up a new deal, The Argus can exclusively reveal the taxpayer is now set to carry the cost of the majority of multimillion pound project. BEN JAMES and TIM RIDGWAY report.

It is a £38 million project which is designed to regenerate the whole of our historic seafront.

But despite the promises of hundreds of jobs and tens of thousands of extra visitors, developers behind the i360 viewing tower appeared to have come up short when admitting private funding fell through last year.

After months of uncertainty, The Argus can reveal the plans for a 139-metre viewing tower are back on the agenda with a new deal set to be presented to Brighton and Hove city councillors next month.

However, it will come at a price with the taxpayer set to be saddled with a £36 million loan to ensure the sky-high dream becomes a reality.

Last night, the local authority refused to comment on the exact details of the deal, which comes as |the local authority needs to make |£24 million of savings in the 2014/15 financial year.

Instead, Council leader Jason Kitcat said: “It’s back on the agenda and we continue to be committed to the regeneration of the seafront.”

Marks Barfield, the developers behind the London Eye, first revealed they were interested in bringing an attraction to Brighton seafront in March 2006.

With a 200-capacity viewing platform that moves up a spike, the i360 promised to bring much needed investment into the area near the West Pier.

But the recession dampened private backers’ appetites and with developers missing deadline after deadline, Brighton and Hove City Council helped draw up a new deal in May 2012 where it would draw down £14 million of funding from the government.

Together with a £3 million loan from the Local Enterprise Partnership, this left Marks Barfield with only about half the funding to find.

But developers admitted in November their own backers had pulled out.

Now, The Argus understands the local authority has drawn up a new agreement where it will provide £36 million – more than twice the amount previously agreed.

The loan would come from the Government’s Public Sector Loans Board, which stumps up cash for projects set to improve the economy, and be repaid over 27 years.

The council last night refused to confirm a £36.2 million loan was being put forward.

A statement said: “The council and the Local Enterprise Partnership (Coast 2 Capital) have been having ongoing discussions with the i360 team for some months regarding the best way to resolve final funding issues and achieve a start on site in 2014.

“A series of proposals are under discussion and it is hoped that a report will be taken to the council’s policy and resources committee in February.”

The attraction has always had a mixed reaction with some seeing the obvious benefits to tourism.

Yet others describe it an eyesore while some simply said the city couldn’t afford it.

Projections for the attraction are positive with experts comparing it to the likes of the London Eye, Blackpool Tower and the Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth.

It is expected some 800,000 visitors would flock to the i360 each year.

As well as prompting tourists to spend an extra £5 million a year in the city, it will encourage 18,000 a year to stay overnight in nearby hotels and B and Bs.

It is expected to create 150 jobs directly and about 440 jobs locally, while boosting businesses citywide.

The structure itself will be 139 metres high offering views of the South Downs and over to Beachy Head.

Once open, the rival Brighton Wheel, operating near Brighton’s Palace Pier, would have to cease operating under an agreement with the council.

News of the new funding agreement has split opinion once more.

Soozie Campbell, chairman of Brighton and Hove Tourism Alliance, welcomed the news provided other projects were not sidelined.

She said: “It is a good thing. My only concern is that by giving so much money to one project others could be overlooked. For example the seafront arches.

“It is a good way of financing it because the council makes money at the same time. What’s not to like?

“So I think it is good news as long as others don’t get overlooked.”

But Labour group leader Warren Morgan said his party could no longer support the plans.

He said: “I voted for this at planning committee in 2006 and we have supported it all along.

“However the last time the council was asked to increase the amount the council was putting in we said we were drawing a line.

“Now that the council is being asked to commit to borrow an enormous amount, we can no longer support the risk to the council and taxpayers - not at a time when the Government is cutting £100 million from our funding and we are facing increasing in social care and seafront infrastructure costs.”

Geoffrey Theobald, leader of the council’s Conservative Group, said: “We have yet to see any details of what is being proposed and will have to study them carefully when we have been briefed in the next couple of weeks.

“However, we had reservations about the council’s current proposed £14 million loan so it will be difficult to justify increasing the loan by almost three times this amount.”

A regular update to councillors, which will be discussed on Thursday, tells members the local authority is “continuing to work with the various partners to achieve financial close” on the i360.

The report adds that strengthening works to the west of the planned site have “largely been completed” with work to the east set to be finished in autumn 2014.

It concludes: “The council remains in active discussion with Marks Barfield Architects the developer for the site, regarding a final funding solution in order to ensure a start on site in the coming months.”

Valerie Paynter, of Save Hove conservationist group, said: “It is an absolutely ridiculous proposal.

“If the private backers are pulling out then this is clearly not a good idea. I don’t understand why the council cannot see that.

“This city cannot afford to invest that kind of money in a gamble.

“The i360 will bleed money from Brighton and Hove Council for decades. It is a stupid idea.”

It’s your voice What do you think? Email letters@theargus.co.uk, visit www.theargus.co.uk/letters or |write to us with your thoughts

Comments (105)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:55am Sat 18 Jan 14

Dave At Home says...

Of course it was always going to happen, sure isn't the thing already made and fabricated and sitting on the docks in Holland, waiting to be shipped over.

I don't understand why the wheel has to shut, 2 attractions twice the money..... sounds like someone got greedy and I suppose the Council will have to pay some compo to the Wheel operators.
Of course it was always going to happen, sure isn't the thing already made and fabricated and sitting on the docks in Holland, waiting to be shipped over. I don't understand why the wheel has to shut, 2 attractions twice the money..... sounds like someone got greedy and I suppose the Council will have to pay some compo to the Wheel operators. Dave At Home

6:54am Sat 18 Jan 14

rogerthefish says...

So before we spend £36m of residents money (£150 each man, woman and child of B&H) and endure years of travel disruption to us the residents. Will we all type into google- weymouth sea life tower visitor numbers
Scroll down to the second article and you will see "disappointing numbers" and the follow link to Argus sister paper.
The Weymouth eye is 53metre 70 capacity and finished last year by Private investors Merlin entertainments (Sealife Centre) at a cost of less than £4m,
Compare to Brighton Eye 139metre 200 capacity cost £38m 10 times price.

Basically, something privately funded is not working so why is a publically one going to or is this vanity project to beat the spinaker tower in Portsmouth ?

On this basis and before we the public suffer can we be given free coach/train journeys to see something a third of the size built for a tenth of the cost.
So before we spend £36m of residents money (£150 each man, woman and child of B&H) and endure years of travel disruption to us the residents. Will we all type into google- weymouth sea life tower visitor numbers Scroll down to the second article and you will see "disappointing numbers" and the follow link to Argus sister paper. The Weymouth eye is 53metre 70 capacity and finished last year by Private investors Merlin entertainments (Sealife Centre) at a cost of less than £4m, Compare to Brighton Eye 139metre 200 capacity cost £38m 10 times price. Basically, something privately funded is not working so why is a publically one going to or is this vanity project to beat the spinaker tower in Portsmouth ? On this basis and before we the public suffer can we be given free coach/train journeys to see something a third of the size built for a tenth of the cost. rogerthefish

7:46am Sat 18 Jan 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

HJ

Kitters has played a blinder with this one, an absolute cracker!

Just at the same time as telling the residents that Council tax won't stretch far enough, increasing non tax paying student numbers, burning vast amounts of money on unwanted cycle paths and bus lanes and calling a referendum to increase Council tax.

Gosh, pure genius
HJ Kitters has played a blinder with this one, an absolute cracker! Just at the same time as telling the residents that Council tax won't stretch far enough, increasing non tax paying student numbers, burning vast amounts of money on unwanted cycle paths and bus lanes and calling a referendum to increase Council tax. Gosh, pure genius I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

8:08am Sat 18 Jan 14

Can this be says...

Another loopy idea which is clearly not attractive to streetwise investors - £36 million Council loan? Ridiculous!

When can we have the Council Tax payers' views? Perhaps it could be added to the referendum on the other daft idea for the Green's proposed 4.75% increase in Council Tax for 2014/15?

Soozie Campbell, John Peel, Philip Jones, Mike La Rooy and Tony Mernagh should have had the business nous to add in some sense.
Another loopy idea which is clearly not attractive to streetwise investors - £36 million Council loan? Ridiculous! When can we have the Council Tax payers' views? Perhaps it could be added to the referendum on the other daft idea for the Green's proposed 4.75% increase in Council Tax for 2014/15? Soozie Campbell, John Peel, Philip Jones, Mike La Rooy and Tony Mernagh should have had the business nous to add in some sense. Can this be

8:23am Sat 18 Jan 14

Saltdean Resident says...

Why not add this to the 'referendum' and ask the people of Brighton and Hove wether they want this, I can take a pretty good guess at what they will say. Why not spend the money, or some of it, on updating the whole of thePark 920 801 seafront from Saltdean to Hove Lagoon, that would bring the tourists in. People don't just want a one off wow they want the whole day or weekend to be wow, the Lanes (and Laines), the Pavilion and seafront bring in the tourists a vanity project won't, private money can see that why can't public money. Just look at the fiasco at Stonehenge, a new £27 million centre has opened ratings have plummeted and the price of a ticket has doubled.
Why not add this to the 'referendum' and ask the people of Brighton and Hove wether they want this, I can take a pretty good guess at what they will say. Why not spend the money, or some of it, on updating the whole of thePark 920 801 seafront from Saltdean to Hove Lagoon, that would bring the tourists in. People don't just want a one off wow they want the whole day or weekend to be wow, the Lanes (and Laines), the Pavilion and seafront bring in the tourists a vanity project won't, private money can see that why can't public money. Just look at the fiasco at Stonehenge, a new £27 million centre has opened ratings have plummeted and the price of a ticket has doubled. Saltdean Resident

8:30am Sat 18 Jan 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Whilst I usually am, in principle, always in favour of any development I'm a bit uneasy about this. I have no objection to the tower on any aesthetic ground, but if the private enterprise sharks don't think it will make money then it stays on the drawing board. The deal appears to be, "Well you pay for it Brighton and Hove, and IF it's successful we'll take it off your hands and keep all the profits."

And as an aside I don't see why the Wheel would have to shut.
Whilst I usually am, in principle, always in favour of any development I'm a bit uneasy about this. I have no objection to the tower on any aesthetic ground, but if the private enterprise sharks don't think it will make money then it stays on the drawing board. The deal appears to be, "Well you pay for it Brighton and Hove, and IF it's successful we'll take it off your hands and keep all the profits." And as an aside I don't see why the Wheel would have to shut. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit

8:49am Sat 18 Jan 14

rogerthefish says...

Now Frank Gerhys buildings on Hove sea,front would have been progress not some old donut going up and down.
Now Frank Gerhys buildings on Hove sea,front would have been progress not some old donut going up and down. rogerthefish

8:52am Sat 18 Jan 14

maria m says...

what a waste of money, we need a decent swimming pool, not stuck up an expensive pole looking out to roof tops and an empty sea!!!
what a waste of money, we need a decent swimming pool, not stuck up an expensive pole looking out to roof tops and an empty sea!!! maria m

8:56am Sat 18 Jan 14

rogerthefish says...

Bring back Frank Gerhy's Hove seafront buildings if you want some visitors from all over the world rather than the chips and trackie brigade.
Bring back Frank Gerhy's Hove seafront buildings if you want some visitors from all over the world rather than the chips and trackie brigade. rogerthefish

8:58am Sat 18 Jan 14

RK_Brighton says...

Crazy to spend all this money on a copy cat attraction that other towns and cities already have.

It ain't going to bring in the visitors as it's not original enough.

Scrap the tower and put the money to better use....if it really is available.

If we want to bring in more tourists, there's way better things to spend money on. If we really need a big attraction, then go back and start thinking of a cheaper, but more original idea that will really capture people's attention.
Crazy to spend all this money on a copy cat attraction that other towns and cities already have. It ain't going to bring in the visitors as it's not original enough. Scrap the tower and put the money to better use....if it really is available. If we want to bring in more tourists, there's way better things to spend money on. If we really need a big attraction, then go back and start thinking of a cheaper, but more original idea that will really capture people's attention. RK_Brighton

9:14am Sat 18 Jan 14

Hove Actually says...

Kitprat really is on a crusade to destroy our City before
he is totally rejected at the first opportunity the poor suffering taxpayer gets.

Surely this upstart cannot saddle us with a massive loan without some personal responsibility....wa
tch him back peddle if he was to be held accountable for the totally predictable failure this vanity project will end as
Kitprat really is on a crusade to destroy our City before he is totally rejected at the first opportunity the poor suffering taxpayer gets. Surely this upstart cannot saddle us with a massive loan without some personal responsibility....wa tch him back peddle if he was to be held accountable for the totally predictable failure this vanity project will end as Hove Actually

9:23am Sat 18 Jan 14

jackthekipper says...

does anyone really want this?
does anyone really want this? jackthekipper

9:42am Sat 18 Jan 14

HJarrs says...

As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case.

We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power
and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.
As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case. We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city. HJarrs

10:06am Sat 18 Jan 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

If this was a money spinner, businesses would be funding it.
There's no appetite for it and we certainly shouldn't be using council money on it.
The wheel spends most of its time turning all year without any passengers like a scene from a desolate old seaside town. It's depressing.
Spend the money on extending the Volks Railway right along the seafront.
If this was a money spinner, businesses would be funding it. There's no appetite for it and we certainly shouldn't be using council money on it. The wheel spends most of its time turning all year without any passengers like a scene from a desolate old seaside town. It's depressing. Spend the money on extending the Volks Railway right along the seafront. Maxwell's Ghost

10:14am Sat 18 Jan 14

The Prophet of Doom says...

How in any shape or form can this ridiculous idea be justified? A day after the Goofy Greens want to raise the council tax above the agreed cap this surfaces again. Coincidence? Surely not.

Whilst public services suffer, the loan of such a huge sum must make the tax paying residents weep with embarrassment at being under such a self-serving, out-of-touch, idiotic administration.

The Greens are an utter shower and whilst we all vent anger and frustration on these forums the public must now pull together to legally eject them from control of the city that many are so proud to be residents of.
How in any shape or form can this ridiculous idea be justified? A day after the Goofy Greens want to raise the council tax above the agreed cap this surfaces again. Coincidence? Surely not. Whilst public services suffer, the loan of such a huge sum must make the tax paying residents weep with embarrassment at being under such a self-serving, out-of-touch, idiotic administration. The Greens are an utter shower and whilst we all vent anger and frustration on these forums the public must now pull together to legally eject them from control of the city that many are so proud to be residents of. The Prophet of Doom

10:35am Sat 18 Jan 14

Lady Smith says...

Dave At Home wrote:
Of course it was always going to happen, sure isn't the thing already made and fabricated and sitting on the docks in Holland, waiting to be shipped over.

I don't understand why the wheel has to shut, 2 attractions twice the money..... sounds like someone got greedy and I suppose the Council will have to pay some compo to the Wheel operators.
The Brighton Wheel is a temporary structure, on a five-year contract, which began 2 years ago. Can't see the i360 happening before the contract ends. If, indeed, at all. #whiteelephant
[quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: Of course it was always going to happen, sure isn't the thing already made and fabricated and sitting on the docks in Holland, waiting to be shipped over. I don't understand why the wheel has to shut, 2 attractions twice the money..... sounds like someone got greedy and I suppose the Council will have to pay some compo to the Wheel operators.[/p][/quote]The Brighton Wheel is a temporary structure, on a five-year contract, which began 2 years ago. Can't see the i360 happening before the contract ends. If, indeed, at all. #whiteelephant Lady Smith

10:39am Sat 18 Jan 14

monkeymoo says...

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha....
..Ha ha..

........Ha ha..
..Ha!!

What a joke Brighton is!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.... ..Ha ha.. ........Ha ha.. ..Ha!! What a joke Brighton is! monkeymoo

10:40am Sat 18 Jan 14

dingdong2 says...

So now we have it - the council wants us all to pay 5% more tax to pay for something that no taxpayers want. The quicker the greens are thrown out the better.
So now we have it - the council wants us all to pay 5% more tax to pay for something that no taxpayers want. The quicker the greens are thrown out the better. dingdong2

10:46am Sat 18 Jan 14

Claude Back says...

Why should the taxpayer pay for this? The money is borrowed from the government so surely if the project makes a profit the repayments can be paid out of that money? Or, is it not going to make a profit, in which case why do it?
Why should the taxpayer pay for this? The money is borrowed from the government so surely if the project makes a profit the repayments can be paid out of that money? Or, is it not going to make a profit, in which case why do it? Claude Back

10:53am Sat 18 Jan 14

saveHOVE says...

Dave At Home wrote:
Of course it was always going to happen, sure isn't the thing already made and fabricated and sitting on the docks in Holland, waiting to be shipped over.

I don't understand why the wheel has to shut, 2 attractions twice the money..... sounds like someone got greedy and I suppose the Council will have to pay some compo to the Wheel operators.
The Wheel got specific planning consent for five years or until the i360 goes up, whichever comes first. No compensation and I doubt the Wheel has been financially worth their while being here frankly, given the fact it is visibly empty most of the time and underused.
[quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: Of course it was always going to happen, sure isn't the thing already made and fabricated and sitting on the docks in Holland, waiting to be shipped over. I don't understand why the wheel has to shut, 2 attractions twice the money..... sounds like someone got greedy and I suppose the Council will have to pay some compo to the Wheel operators.[/p][/quote]The Wheel got specific planning consent for five years or until the i360 goes up, whichever comes first. No compensation and I doubt the Wheel has been financially worth their while being here frankly, given the fact it is visibly empty most of the time and underused. saveHOVE

11:00am Sat 18 Jan 14

NickBtn says...

Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message?

So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.
Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message? So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple. NickBtn

11:07am Sat 18 Jan 14

saveHOVE says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
Of course it was always going to happen, sure isn't the thing already made and fabricated and sitting on the docks in Holland, waiting to be shipped over.

I don't understand why the wheel has to shut, 2 attractions twice the money..... sounds like someone got greedy and I suppose the Council will have to pay some compo to the Wheel operators.
The Wheel got specific planning consent for five years or until the i360 goes up, whichever comes first. No compensation and I doubt the Wheel has been financially worth their while being here frankly, given the fact it is visibly empty most of the time and underused.
Actually it was not the planning consent that was five years, it was the contract with landowners BHCC for siting it on the seafront. In theory that contract could be extended were BHCC minded to do it.

The first contract was badly drawn and the developer chose the west pier site for a bespoke "Brighton O". That was seen off because the space was already partly within the i360 area an partly oversailing the Brighton Sailing Club area. And arm-wrestling got a NEW site-specific contract allowing the present wheel to go where it is now and it is a design that flat packs and can go up anywhere and be resited somewhere else.
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: Of course it was always going to happen, sure isn't the thing already made and fabricated and sitting on the docks in Holland, waiting to be shipped over. I don't understand why the wheel has to shut, 2 attractions twice the money..... sounds like someone got greedy and I suppose the Council will have to pay some compo to the Wheel operators.[/p][/quote]The Wheel got specific planning consent for five years or until the i360 goes up, whichever comes first. No compensation and I doubt the Wheel has been financially worth their while being here frankly, given the fact it is visibly empty most of the time and underused.[/p][/quote]Actually it was not the planning consent that was five years, it was the contract with landowners BHCC for siting it on the seafront. In theory that contract could be extended were BHCC minded to do it. The first contract was badly drawn and the developer chose the west pier site for a bespoke "Brighton O". That was seen off because the space was already partly within the i360 area an partly oversailing the Brighton Sailing Club area. And arm-wrestling got a NEW site-specific contract allowing the present wheel to go where it is now and it is a design that flat packs and can go up anywhere and be resited somewhere else. saveHOVE

11:10am Sat 18 Jan 14

Eugenius says...

NickBtn wrote:
Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message?

So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.
No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.
[quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message? So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.[/p][/quote]No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years. Eugenius

11:15am Sat 18 Jan 14

Eugenius says...

Claude Back wrote:
Why should the taxpayer pay for this? The money is borrowed from the government so surely if the project makes a profit the repayments can be paid out of that money? Or, is it not going to make a profit, in which case why do it?
The developers can't access the central government Public Works Loan Board money directly, the council has to be a conduit. The interest that the developers pay the council will help pay for seafront regeneration, which in turn will bring in a better level of business rates.
[quote][p][bold]Claude Back[/bold] wrote: Why should the taxpayer pay for this? The money is borrowed from the government so surely if the project makes a profit the repayments can be paid out of that money? Or, is it not going to make a profit, in which case why do it?[/p][/quote]The developers can't access the central government Public Works Loan Board money directly, the council has to be a conduit. The interest that the developers pay the council will help pay for seafront regeneration, which in turn will bring in a better level of business rates. Eugenius

11:15am Sat 18 Jan 14

clubrob6 says...

Waste of money it will only be here for a short period of time,extend the volks railway to marina and to hove lagoon something for generations to come.With the greens parking charges the seafront is just about deserted this time of year and poor summer days.Brighton wheel seems to be empty.Outside the summerI cant see the wheel being viable.Its certainly NOT green,unlike the volks railway.If its anything to do with the green council it would not be open anyway just like most of the council run tourist attractions during last summer like the mini golf cause on hove seafront.
Waste of money it will only be here for a short period of time,extend the volks railway to marina and to hove lagoon something for generations to come.With the greens parking charges the seafront is just about deserted this time of year and poor summer days.Brighton wheel seems to be empty.Outside the summer[if weather good]I cant see the wheel being viable.Its certainly NOT green,unlike the volks railway.If its anything to do with the green council it would not be open anyway just like most of the council run tourist attractions during last summer like the mini golf cause on hove seafront. clubrob6

11:24am Sat 18 Jan 14

saveHOVE says...

The underwritten loan money would not come from council tax payers. It is another funding stream altogether and that is why the council is tempted.

The sting comes when the attraction fails and ownership falls to the council as part of the deal for making the loan in the first place. Then BHCC would have the maintenance of the wretched thing in perpetuity or they would have to find someone to sell it to who would be mug enough to buy it for a knockdown price that sees the Council take a hit.

I think the Council is counting on the notion they can put the i360 into a package with the Brighton Centre to help sell Brighton to the Conference trade. I also believe that any money to be made is not in the silly ride, but rather on the ground in the building that would surround it - restaurant, cafe, so-called museum, etc.

The lack of trade for the wheel SHOULD be making BHCC wake up.

But should they be desperate for a pole ride, there is one mothballed in Blackpool they'd like to sell on. Going very cheap.

No. I strongly suspect there is a contract problem that means Marks Barfield have the city and the West Pier Trust FOOLS cornered. I would not mind betting that the West Pier Trust entered into an open contract with Marks Barfield that had no terminal date for delivering the i360. It may even be that BHCC is now in some way obligated to Marks Barfield so that they could sue either The West Pier Trust or BHCC or both if they don't do what this developer wants.

When Karis lost ING funding for the Gehry towers and failed to get new funding by a cut-off date, the development agreement between BHCC and Karis ended and only the planning consent remained, but it could not be implemented. No money. End of.

Please, somebody, make the West Pier Trust SAY whether this is the case. If it is, then Marks Barfield are free to hang about and waste the site until we all die and nobody can make them go away unless they choose to walk away. Prove my worries wrong!

The London Eye is brilliant. It never stops when it is in operation and goes so slowly that pods can be emptied and refilled with people without stopping it. The Brighton scheme needs 200 people to fill it and go up and then come down. And this is just not going to happen unless there is a whole party of people booked in.

And as a planning consultant observed to me, what if 100-200 passengers stand on one side of the donut looking over the town and downs and there is nobody on the sea side....what are the weight load-bearing issues? This was not in the planning application by the way as even a possibility.
The underwritten loan money would not come from council tax payers. It is another funding stream altogether and that is why the council is tempted. The sting comes when the attraction fails and ownership falls to the council as part of the deal for making the loan in the first place. Then BHCC would have the maintenance of the wretched thing in perpetuity or they would have to find someone to sell it to who would be mug enough to buy it for a knockdown price that sees the Council take a hit. I think the Council is counting on the notion they can put the i360 into a package with the Brighton Centre to help sell Brighton to the Conference trade. I also believe that any money to be made is not in the silly ride, but rather on the ground in the building that would surround it - restaurant, cafe, so-called museum, etc. The lack of trade for the wheel SHOULD be making BHCC wake up. But should they be desperate for a pole ride, there is one mothballed in Blackpool they'd like to sell on. Going very cheap. No. I strongly suspect there is a contract problem that means Marks Barfield have the city and the West Pier Trust FOOLS cornered. I would not mind betting that the West Pier Trust entered into an open contract with Marks Barfield that had no terminal date for delivering the i360. It may even be that BHCC is now in some way obligated to Marks Barfield so that they could sue either The West Pier Trust or BHCC or both if they don't do what this developer wants. When Karis lost ING funding for the Gehry towers and failed to get new funding by a cut-off date, the development agreement between BHCC and Karis ended and only the planning consent remained, but it could not be implemented. No money. End of. Please, somebody, make the West Pier Trust SAY whether this is the case. If it is, then Marks Barfield are free to hang about and waste the site until we all die and nobody can make them go away unless they choose to walk away. Prove my worries wrong! The London Eye is brilliant. It never stops when it is in operation and goes so slowly that pods can be emptied and refilled with people without stopping it. The Brighton scheme needs 200 people to fill it and go up and then come down. And this is just not going to happen unless there is a whole party of people booked in. And as a planning consultant observed to me, what if 100-200 passengers stand on one side of the donut looking over the town and downs and there is nobody on the sea side....what are the weight load-bearing issues? This was not in the planning application by the way as even a possibility. saveHOVE

11:25am Sat 18 Jan 14

smallie says...

What a waste of time and money .Put the money into something deserving like the NHS.
What a waste of time and money .Put the money into something deserving like the NHS. smallie

11:25am Sat 18 Jan 14

Pebbles says...

Look people... dont you get it?

The Greens know they are on the way out and this is the final symbolic 'finger' to the city!
Look people... dont you get it? The Greens know they are on the way out and this is the final symbolic 'finger' to the city! Pebbles

11:35am Sat 18 Jan 14

saveHOVE says...

Eugenius wrote:
NickBtn wrote:
Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message?

So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.
No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.
The revenue from the interest payments, is only valid if the business remains viable and does not default and end up turned over to BHCC ownership.

A great worry too is that this massive (and it is massive in scale as it relates to the surrounding townscape) donut-on-a-pole fairground attraction will cheapen the Metropole Hotel and compromise its trading position as an expensive destination hotel.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message? So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.[/p][/quote]No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.[/p][/quote]The revenue from the interest payments, is only valid if the business remains viable and does not default and end up turned over to BHCC ownership. A great worry too is that this massive (and it is massive in scale as it relates to the surrounding townscape) donut-on-a-pole fairground attraction will cheapen the Metropole Hotel and compromise its trading position as an expensive destination hotel. saveHOVE

12:03pm Sat 18 Jan 14

whatevernext2013 says...

HJarrs wrote:
As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case.

We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power
and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.
if over 800000 extra people come to the city why is the expected extra revenue only expected to be 5 million ,that would not even cover the parking fees or the cost of a ride on the pole ,and what about all them extra cars coming in to the city were are they going to park ,even more madness been pushed on us by the greens who in this case don t appear to be doing the green thing
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case. We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.[/p][/quote]if over 800000 extra people come to the city why is the expected extra revenue only expected to be 5 million ,that would not even cover the parking fees or the cost of a ride on the pole ,and what about all them extra cars coming in to the city were are they going to park ,even more madness been pushed on us by the greens who in this case don t appear to be doing the green thing whatevernext2013

12:06pm Sat 18 Jan 14

NickBtn says...

Eugenius wrote:
NickBtn wrote:
Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message?

So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.
No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.
The council is spending a lot of time and resources on this - so yes, money is being spent from current budgets

The loan structure that you describe is a useful addition to the Argus article. You imply that B&HC are to become a bank - borrowing the money and then lending on. And making £25m by becoming bankers (which is an interesting thing for the greens to do!).

Sure that there are risks to this, such as loan defaults, interest rate rises. As HJarrs points out the visitor numbers do look hugely optimistic (especially when you see the lack of visitors to the wheel which offers similar). So B&H could be landed with an expensive white elephant to pay for at a time when council's have even less income

Why not leave this type of speculation to the private sector? They are better and more experienced at it. They have abandoned the scheme - there is a message there!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message? So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.[/p][/quote]No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.[/p][/quote]The council is spending a lot of time and resources on this - so yes, money is being spent from current budgets The loan structure that you describe is a useful addition to the Argus article. You imply that B&HC are to become a bank - borrowing the money and then lending on. And making £25m by becoming bankers (which is an interesting thing for the greens to do!). Sure that there are risks to this, such as loan defaults, interest rate rises. As HJarrs points out the visitor numbers do look hugely optimistic (especially when you see the lack of visitors to the wheel which offers similar). So B&H could be landed with an expensive white elephant to pay for at a time when council's have even less income Why not leave this type of speculation to the private sector? They are better and more experienced at it. They have abandoned the scheme - there is a message there! NickBtn

12:14pm Sat 18 Jan 14

upsidedowntuctuc says...

GO NOIW!
What a total waste of tax payers money.
Kitkat concerned about the Social budget for vulnerable people REALLY???
All the Greens are interested in is reinstating the Multiple traffic lights by Preston Street once again to grid lock the City and hit the Motorist.
GO NOIW! What a total waste of tax payers money. Kitkat concerned about the Social budget for vulnerable people REALLY??? All the Greens are interested in is reinstating the Multiple traffic lights by Preston Street once again to grid lock the City and hit the Motorist. upsidedowntuctuc

12:19pm Sat 18 Jan 14

ripmaxman says...

Proposed 4.75% increase in council tax!!!

If the project fails who picks up the tab. In the end how ever yoy slice the pie it will fall on the council tax payers.

How to ruin a City "Vote Green"!!!
Proposed 4.75% increase in council tax!!! If the project fails who picks up the tab. In the end how ever yoy slice the pie it will fall on the council tax payers. How to ruin a City "Vote Green"!!! ripmaxman

1:27pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Eugenius says...

NickBtn wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
NickBtn wrote:
Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message?

So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.
No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.
The council is spending a lot of time and resources on this - so yes, money is being spent from current budgets

The loan structure that you describe is a useful addition to the Argus article. You imply that B&HC are to become a bank - borrowing the money and then lending on. And making £25m by becoming bankers (which is an interesting thing for the greens to do!).

Sure that there are risks to this, such as loan defaults, interest rate rises. As HJarrs points out the visitor numbers do look hugely optimistic (especially when you see the lack of visitors to the wheel which offers similar). So B&H could be landed with an expensive white elephant to pay for at a time when council's have even less income

Why not leave this type of speculation to the private sector? They are better and more experienced at it. They have abandoned the scheme - there is a message there!
It's a fixed interest deal and the interest on the Public Works Board Loan is fixed too so the council's income is guaranteed over the 25 year term. One of the conditions is that the council loan is the first thing to be paid back. Middle of the road projections for visits (checked independently 4 times over) deliver 3 times more income than needed to repay the loan.

Yes, agree that many will see this as a surprising move for a local authority but to get major projects off the ground in the current climate you need to think outside the box.
[quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message? So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.[/p][/quote]No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.[/p][/quote]The council is spending a lot of time and resources on this - so yes, money is being spent from current budgets The loan structure that you describe is a useful addition to the Argus article. You imply that B&HC are to become a bank - borrowing the money and then lending on. And making £25m by becoming bankers (which is an interesting thing for the greens to do!). Sure that there are risks to this, such as loan defaults, interest rate rises. As HJarrs points out the visitor numbers do look hugely optimistic (especially when you see the lack of visitors to the wheel which offers similar). So B&H could be landed with an expensive white elephant to pay for at a time when council's have even less income Why not leave this type of speculation to the private sector? They are better and more experienced at it. They have abandoned the scheme - there is a message there![/p][/quote]It's a fixed interest deal and the interest on the Public Works Board Loan is fixed too so the council's income is guaranteed over the 25 year term. One of the conditions is that the council loan is the first thing to be paid back. Middle of the road projections for visits (checked independently 4 times over) deliver 3 times more income than needed to repay the loan. Yes, agree that many will see this as a surprising move for a local authority but to get major projects off the ground in the current climate you need to think outside the box. Eugenius

1:41pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Plantpot says...

Eugenius wrote:
NickBtn wrote:
Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message?

So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.
No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.
This type of comment is utterly infuriating. Govt, central or local, generates no cash except for that raised from taxpayers. So whilst the money for the i360 doesn't come from a specific B&H taxpayers pot, it is taxpayers money all the same.

The fact that private enterprise don't want to fund this project should ring warning bells.

Please can someone explain what happens to the loan in the event of the i360 operators defaulting/going bust etc.? Surely we the B&H taxpayer are liable then?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message? So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.[/p][/quote]No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.[/p][/quote]This type of comment is utterly infuriating. Govt, central or local, generates no cash except for that raised from taxpayers. So whilst the money for the i360 doesn't come from a specific B&H taxpayers pot, it is taxpayers money all the same. The fact that private enterprise don't want to fund this project should ring warning bells. Please can someone explain what happens to the loan in the event of the i360 operators defaulting/going bust etc.? Surely we the B&H taxpayer are liable then? Plantpot

1:41pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Richada says...

This is a JOKE surely?

Not a very funny one with a punchline that they want to increase the bill we pay by 4.75%, but a joke all the same.

NO WAY should the council tax payers be expected to spend a single penny towards this whilst basic services (according to the council themselves) are grossly under-funded.

We want our bins emptied, our streets properly lit, our "vulnerable" protected - how on earth is risking all this tax-payers money on this venture going to do ANY of that.

We, the people who fund it, really are being conned, and in turn fleeced, by this hideous "experiment" - which then has the nerve to call us the "moanerati" for daring to speak out against it.

If the majority in opposition to the current administration don't get together and oust this then neither of the mainstream parties deserve our vote either.
This is a JOKE surely? Not a very funny one with a punchline that they want to increase the bill we pay by 4.75%, but a joke all the same. NO WAY should the council tax payers be expected to spend a single penny towards this whilst basic services (according to the council themselves) are grossly under-funded. We want our bins emptied, our streets properly lit, our "vulnerable" protected - how on earth is risking all this tax-payers money on this venture going to do ANY of that. We, the people who fund it, really are being conned, and in turn fleeced, by this hideous "experiment" - which then has the nerve to call us the "moanerati" for daring to speak out against it. If the majority in opposition to the current administration don't get together and oust this then neither of the mainstream parties deserve our vote either. Richada

1:50pm Sat 18 Jan 14

i360 looks shite says...

If the council have a spare £38 million to throw around I suggest we build a monorail.

It worked for Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook.
If the council have a spare £38 million to throw around I suggest we build a monorail. It worked for Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook. i360 looks shite

1:52pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Richada says...

monkeymoo wrote:
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha....
..Ha ha..

........Ha ha..
..Ha!!

What a joke Brighton is!
I disagree, Brighton is no joke - the administration who can't run it are.

The only consolation is that Brighton will be here long, long after they are gone.

We as Brightonions have to share culpability for this shambles though - simply because the majority are too apathetic, or two busy to vote.

My one hope from all of this is that enough council tax paying residents will be sufficiently aggrieved to actually go out and vote - how they vote is less important than that they DO. Whoever replaces this administration couldn't possibly be worse........

.........standing by in two years time to eat these words ha ha ha..........
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.... ..Ha ha.. ........Ha ha.. ..Ha!! What a joke Brighton is![/p][/quote]I disagree, Brighton is no joke - the administration who can't run it are. The only consolation is that Brighton will be here long, long after they are gone. We as Brightonions have to share culpability for this shambles though - simply because the majority are too apathetic, or two busy to vote. My one hope from all of this is that enough council tax paying residents will be sufficiently aggrieved to actually go out and vote - how they vote is less important than that they DO. Whoever replaces this administration couldn't possibly be worse........ .........standing by in two years time to eat these words ha ha ha.......... Richada

2:03pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Eugenius says...

i360 looks **** wrote:
If the council have a spare £38 million to throw around I suggest we build a monorail.

It worked for Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook.
I would love a monorail!

If the i360 construction goes ahead maybe it will pave the way for further investment.
[quote][p][bold]i360 looks ****[/bold] wrote: If the council have a spare £38 million to throw around I suggest we build a monorail. It worked for Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook.[/p][/quote]I would love a monorail! If the i360 construction goes ahead maybe it will pave the way for further investment. Eugenius

2:06pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Morpheus says...

What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election, Morpheus

2:19pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

HJarrs wrote:
As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case.

We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power
and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.
Usual nonsense from the usual miscrent poster

Laughable
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case. We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.[/p][/quote]Usual nonsense from the usual miscrent poster Laughable Somethingsarejustwrong

2:37pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Eugenius says...

Labour's Warren Morgan is leading his team up a blind alley, playing politics with the city's future. If they are serious about running the city in 2015 they need to get behind regeneration plans like this and support our referendum to protect the tax base which has fallen below the cost of inflation. If they don't then the next administration from 2015-2019 is going to have a miserable time of it and the people of Brighton and Hove are the ones who are going to suffer.
Labour's Warren Morgan is leading his team up a blind alley, playing politics with the city's future. If they are serious about running the city in 2015 they need to get behind regeneration plans like this and support our referendum to protect the tax base which has fallen below the cost of inflation. If they don't then the next administration from 2015-2019 is going to have a miserable time of it and the people of Brighton and Hove are the ones who are going to suffer. Eugenius

2:41pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Brighton citizen says...

We already have some of the highest council tax in the uk thanks to the policing it takes to manage the binge drinkers that come to Brighton and the hospital treatment many need? Brighton has never been short of tourists, I live in Central Brighton and you already cannot move on the beach in the summer? Brighton is an iconic place that people always want to visit. The royal pavilion is our main feature and the council want to balls that up too by putting a fence round the gardens and charging people to get in. With women's refuges and homeless centres being shut down, day centres for the mentally ill and elderly closed due to a lack of money, it is a total insult to borrow money for this, if it fails which other similar projects have, hence the backing out of investors, we will be picking up the bill for years to the further detriment ent of our citizens. I don't want it and I don't think it's good for Brighton.
We already have some of the highest council tax in the uk thanks to the policing it takes to manage the binge drinkers that come to Brighton and the hospital treatment many need? Brighton has never been short of tourists, I live in Central Brighton and you already cannot move on the beach in the summer? Brighton is an iconic place that people always want to visit. The royal pavilion is our main feature and the council want to balls that up too by putting a fence round the gardens and charging people to get in. With women's refuges and homeless centres being shut down, day centres for the mentally ill and elderly closed due to a lack of money, it is a total insult to borrow money for this, if it fails which other similar projects have, hence the backing out of investors, we will be picking up the bill for years to the further detriment ent of our citizens. I don't want it and I don't think it's good for Brighton. Brighton citizen

2:51pm Sat 18 Jan 14

1styummymummy says...

36 million, has the council gone barking mad I wonder? 36 million needs to be invested in the City's housing crisis. How many affordable homes could the council buy with that amount of money? If the private investers are backing out then they should look to invest in their own city (hopefully it'll be Brighton) and help the council to look after it's own, thats the people who live here. We dont want another eye sore thank you very much. We want reasonable, affordable homes and what better way than to get local buisiness's in the area to put funding forward. After all, to sustain business you need people to wotk in them and loive locally and at the moment afforable homes are in short supply with private landlords ripping off tenants and adding to the vacuum of spiraling costs which in turn see's people looking to the council for top ups to help pay the extortionate high rents which currently exceeds most average, realistic I hasten to add, wages. If the council go ahead with this scheme, then the residents of this glorious city should vote with their heads and do something about it.
36 million, has the council gone barking mad I wonder? 36 million needs to be invested in the City's housing crisis. How many affordable homes could the council buy with that amount of money? If the private investers are backing out then they should look to invest in their own city (hopefully it'll be Brighton) and help the council to look after it's own, thats the people who live here. We dont want another eye sore thank you very much. We want reasonable, affordable homes and what better way than to get local buisiness's in the area to put funding forward. After all, to sustain business you need people to wotk in them and loive locally and at the moment afforable homes are in short supply with private landlords ripping off tenants and adding to the vacuum of spiraling costs which in turn see's people looking to the council for top ups to help pay the extortionate high rents which currently exceeds most average, realistic I hasten to add, wages. If the council go ahead with this scheme, then the residents of this glorious city should vote with their heads and do something about it. 1styummymummy

3:00pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

1styummymummy wrote:
36 million, has the council gone barking mad I wonder? 36 million needs to be invested in the City's housing crisis. How many affordable homes could the council buy with that amount of money? If the private investers are backing out then they should look to invest in their own city (hopefully it'll be Brighton) and help the council to look after it's own, thats the people who live here. We dont want another eye sore thank you very much. We want reasonable, affordable homes and what better way than to get local buisiness's in the area to put funding forward. After all, to sustain business you need people to wotk in them and loive locally and at the moment afforable homes are in short supply with private landlords ripping off tenants and adding to the vacuum of spiraling costs which in turn see's people looking to the council for top ups to help pay the extortionate high rents which currently exceeds most average, realistic I hasten to add, wages. If the council go ahead with this scheme, then the residents of this glorious city should vote with their heads and do something about it.
Forgive me stating the obvious

The council seems more concerned with matters other than the tax paying residents it should represent

Wasters
[quote][p][bold]1styummymummy[/bold] wrote: 36 million, has the council gone barking mad I wonder? 36 million needs to be invested in the City's housing crisis. How many affordable homes could the council buy with that amount of money? If the private investers are backing out then they should look to invest in their own city (hopefully it'll be Brighton) and help the council to look after it's own, thats the people who live here. We dont want another eye sore thank you very much. We want reasonable, affordable homes and what better way than to get local buisiness's in the area to put funding forward. After all, to sustain business you need people to wotk in them and loive locally and at the moment afforable homes are in short supply with private landlords ripping off tenants and adding to the vacuum of spiraling costs which in turn see's people looking to the council for top ups to help pay the extortionate high rents which currently exceeds most average, realistic I hasten to add, wages. If the council go ahead with this scheme, then the residents of this glorious city should vote with their heads and do something about it.[/p][/quote]Forgive me stating the obvious The council seems more concerned with matters other than the tax paying residents it should represent Wasters Somethingsarejustwrong

3:02pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Warren Morgan says...

Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one. Warren Morgan

3:24pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Eugenius says...

1styummymummy wrote:
36 million, has the council gone barking mad I wonder? 36 million needs to be invested in the City's housing crisis. How many affordable homes could the council buy with that amount of money? If the private investers are backing out then they should look to invest in their own city (hopefully it'll be Brighton) and help the council to look after it's own, thats the people who live here. We dont want another eye sore thank you very much. We want reasonable, affordable homes and what better way than to get local buisiness's in the area to put funding forward. After all, to sustain business you need people to wotk in them and loive locally and at the moment afforable homes are in short supply with private landlords ripping off tenants and adding to the vacuum of spiraling costs which in turn see's people looking to the council for top ups to help pay the extortionate high rents which currently exceeds most average, realistic I hasten to add, wages. If the council go ahead with this scheme, then the residents of this glorious city should vote with their heads and do something about it.
£28million capital investment for council housing in 2014/15 was agreed this week. The city plan deals with enduring there is sufficient incentive and opportunity for private sector housing development.
[quote][p][bold]1styummymummy[/bold] wrote: 36 million, has the council gone barking mad I wonder? 36 million needs to be invested in the City's housing crisis. How many affordable homes could the council buy with that amount of money? If the private investers are backing out then they should look to invest in their own city (hopefully it'll be Brighton) and help the council to look after it's own, thats the people who live here. We dont want another eye sore thank you very much. We want reasonable, affordable homes and what better way than to get local buisiness's in the area to put funding forward. After all, to sustain business you need people to wotk in them and loive locally and at the moment afforable homes are in short supply with private landlords ripping off tenants and adding to the vacuum of spiraling costs which in turn see's people looking to the council for top ups to help pay the extortionate high rents which currently exceeds most average, realistic I hasten to add, wages. If the council go ahead with this scheme, then the residents of this glorious city should vote with their heads and do something about it.[/p][/quote]£28million capital investment for council housing in 2014/15 was agreed this week. The city plan deals with enduring there is sufficient incentive and opportunity for private sector housing development. Eugenius

3:51pm Sat 18 Jan 14

PorkBoat says...

HJarrs wrote:
As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case.

We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power
and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.
"Optimistic" is a bit of an understatement. "Pulled out of thin air and worked out on the back of a fag packet in the pub" is more accurate.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case. We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.[/p][/quote]"Optimistic" is a bit of an understatement. "Pulled out of thin air and worked out on the back of a fag packet in the pub" is more accurate. PorkBoat

4:40pm Sat 18 Jan 14

scoobysnax says...

I live directly in front of this mess. Preston St is an absolute dive full of junkies on legal highs. I love the way Kitpratt talks about regenerating this area when council has approved another Hostel in Regency Square. Many businesses around Preston St are angry and sick of legal high junkies sleeping in their doorways every morning. The legal high junkies that get kicked out of these hostels every night end up on local business doorsteps threatening shop owners as they want to open up shop. Yes folks there are going to be 3 hostels in Regency Square by this march. I also know some of the owners of the Hotels that sit empty all year round next door to these hostels and they are losing thousands each year. Who is going to be stupid enough to stay the night and get woken up at 3 or 4 in the morning by legal high junkies screaming their heads off when they can come to Brighton from London for the day? Oh I forgot, this green councils answer to noise pollution is "your paranoid, it's all just noises in your head". They know no one polices the drink drug licenses they hand out to all the clubs in the area. Police say since cuts have happened the councils licensing dept are responsible or irresponsible, who cares? Regeneration...more empty seafront shops and legal high junkie night clubs?

We all knew there was some dodgy deal was going on and I think "saveHOVE' has hit the nail on the head by saying that Marks Barfield has hoodwinked this absolute, total and utter brainless council and could easily threaten legal action.

But it's all about money isn't it? Who needs a job that could cost £3.8 million as offered by Alton Towers, when it could cost £38 million? This council needs all this money in BRIBES (legal fees and planning permits) and Kickbacks it can get, The same way they deal with their dodgy licensing department. BRIBES and KICKBACKS rule Brighton!!!!
I live directly in front of this mess. Preston St is an absolute dive full of junkies on legal highs. I love the way Kitpratt talks about regenerating this area when council has approved another Hostel in Regency Square. Many businesses around Preston St are angry and sick of legal high junkies sleeping in their doorways every morning. The legal high junkies that get kicked out of these hostels every night end up on local business doorsteps threatening shop owners as they want to open up shop. Yes folks there are going to be 3 hostels in Regency Square by this march. I also know some of the owners of the Hotels that sit empty all year round next door to these hostels and they are losing thousands each year. Who is going to be stupid enough to stay the night and get woken up at 3 or 4 in the morning by legal high junkies screaming their heads off when they can come to Brighton from London for the day? Oh I forgot, this green councils answer to noise pollution is "your paranoid, it's all just noises in your head". They know no one polices the drink drug licenses they hand out to all the clubs in the area. Police say since cuts have happened the councils licensing dept are responsible or irresponsible, who cares? Regeneration...more empty seafront shops and legal high junkie night clubs? We all knew there was some dodgy deal was going on and I think "saveHOVE' has hit the nail on the head by saying that Marks Barfield has hoodwinked this absolute, total and utter brainless council and could easily threaten legal action. But it's all about money isn't it? Who needs a job that could cost £3.8 million as offered by Alton Towers, when it could cost £38 million? This council needs all this money in BRIBES (legal fees and planning permits) and Kickbacks it can get, The same way they deal with their dodgy licensing department. BRIBES and KICKBACKS rule Brighton!!!! scoobysnax

4:48pm Sat 18 Jan 14

scoobysnax says...

Where are forensic accountants when you need them?
Where are forensic accountants when you need them? scoobysnax

5:10pm Sat 18 Jan 14

kmhove says...

With most other high rise attractions such as the London Eye there is something worth going up there to look at! What on earth is there that will attract 200 people a time to go up and see on Brighton seafront? There's not a lot can be seen from the Brighton wheel as it is. I've often flown along the coast to and from Shoreham and it's not that interesting even from that height so what on earth is anyone going to pay to go up that pole to see at a mere 300 odd feet or whatever it is?
With most other high rise attractions such as the London Eye there is something worth going up there to look at! What on earth is there that will attract 200 people a time to go up and see on Brighton seafront? There's not a lot can be seen from the Brighton wheel as it is. I've often flown along the coast to and from Shoreham and it's not that interesting even from that height so what on earth is anyone going to pay to go up that pole to see at a mere 300 odd feet or whatever it is? kmhove

5:15pm Sat 18 Jan 14

fredflintstone1 says...

scoobysnax wrote:
Where are forensic accountants when you need them?
Probably too busy looking into the £20 million issue involving the council's Housing Department and its suspended head......? I
[quote][p][bold]scoobysnax[/bold] wrote: Where are forensic accountants when you need them?[/p][/quote]Probably too busy looking into the £20 million issue involving the council's Housing Department and its suspended head......? I fredflintstone1

5:18pm Sat 18 Jan 14

John Steed says...

hopefully some of those 800,000 tourists that will "Flock" to the i360 will also "Flock" to the brighton eye and use a few of those empty seats that it always has but somehow I think it wll be the final nail in the coffin of the brighton eye white elephant meanwhile is it only me who knows that you can see the isle of white from loads of locations in brighton but not beachy head that can just be seen from the end of worthing pier but you need to get further round the bay to see that at the moment and then the weather condions have to be right. however looking down on it from that height will be novel but not mind blowing or worth the cost of the ticket.
hopefully some of those 800,000 tourists that will "Flock" to the i360 will also "Flock" to the brighton eye and use a few of those empty seats that it always has but somehow I think it wll be the final nail in the coffin of the brighton eye white elephant meanwhile is it only me who knows that you can see the isle of white from loads of locations in brighton but not beachy head that can just be seen from the end of worthing pier but you need to get further round the bay to see that at the moment and then the weather condions have to be right. however looking down on it from that height will be novel but not mind blowing or worth the cost of the ticket. John Steed

5:24pm Sat 18 Jan 14

John Steed says...

oops silly me, didnt read the article properly, the brighton eye, a white elephant from the begining automatically goes once the new giant white elephant starts to operate. with private finance having done the sums and worked it out as a rather deep hole not a financialy viable pile, the city council boldly go where others fear to tread, brighton tax payers should get an automatic discount , at least untill the council get left holding the baby and it closes down
oops silly me, didnt read the article properly, the brighton eye, a white elephant from the begining automatically goes once the new giant white elephant starts to operate. with private finance having done the sums and worked it out as a rather deep hole not a financialy viable pile, the city council boldly go where others fear to tread, brighton tax payers should get an automatic discount , at least untill the council get left holding the baby and it closes down John Steed

5:32pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Richada says...

PorkBoat wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case.

We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power
and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.
"Optimistic" is a bit of an understatement. "Pulled out of thin air and worked out on the back of a fag packet in the pub" is more accurate.
Yes, but the fag packet, like the figures, was / were recyclable.
[quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case. We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.[/p][/quote]"Optimistic" is a bit of an understatement. "Pulled out of thin air and worked out on the back of a fag packet in the pub" is more accurate.[/p][/quote]Yes, but the fag packet, like the figures, was / were recyclable. Richada

5:36pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
Claude Back wrote:
Why should the taxpayer pay for this? The money is borrowed from the government so surely if the project makes a profit the repayments can be paid out of that money? Or, is it not going to make a profit, in which case why do it?
The developers can't access the central government Public Works Loan Board money directly, the council has to be a conduit. The interest that the developers pay the council will help pay for seafront regeneration, which in turn will bring in a better level of business rates.
And who pays the government back if the developer goes bust ?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Claude Back[/bold] wrote: Why should the taxpayer pay for this? The money is borrowed from the government so surely if the project makes a profit the repayments can be paid out of that money? Or, is it not going to make a profit, in which case why do it?[/p][/quote]The developers can't access the central government Public Works Loan Board money directly, the council has to be a conduit. The interest that the developers pay the council will help pay for seafront regeneration, which in turn will bring in a better level of business rates.[/p][/quote]And who pays the government back if the developer goes bust ? Fight_Back

5:51pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Christophe Hawtree says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
Who told the Argus about this ahead of the full details being discussed, when in fact it is a idea-in-progress that might or might not happen?
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.[/p][/quote]Who told the Argus about this ahead of the full details being discussed, when in fact it is a idea-in-progress that might or might not happen? Christophe Hawtree

5:55pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Fight_Back says...

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
Who told the Argus about this ahead of the full details being discussed, when in fact it is a idea-in-progress that might or might not happen?
Come on - you're a councillor - regardless of the figure being £14m or £38m - who pays the loan back if the developer can't ?
[quote][p][bold]Christophe Hawtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.[/p][/quote]Who told the Argus about this ahead of the full details being discussed, when in fact it is a idea-in-progress that might or might not happen?[/p][/quote]Come on - you're a councillor - regardless of the figure being £14m or £38m - who pays the loan back if the developer can't ? Fight_Back

6:04pm Sat 18 Jan 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
Who told the Argus about this ahead of the full details being discussed, when in fact it is a idea-in-progress that might or might not happen?
Could it have been your fearless leader, giving us what he thought would be good news, following on from his statement about the need to increase council tax?? After all, he's the one quoted at the start of the article .....
[quote][p][bold]Christophe Hawtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.[/p][/quote]Who told the Argus about this ahead of the full details being discussed, when in fact it is a idea-in-progress that might or might not happen?[/p][/quote]Could it have been your fearless leader, giving us what he thought would be good news, following on from his statement about the need to increase council tax?? After all, he's the one quoted at the start of the article ..... fredflintstone1

6:13pm Sat 18 Jan 14

clubrob6 says...

Brighton citizen wrote:
We already have some of the highest council tax in the uk thanks to the policing it takes to manage the binge drinkers that come to Brighton and the hospital treatment many need? Brighton has never been short of tourists, I live in Central Brighton and you already cannot move on the beach in the summer? Brighton is an iconic place that people always want to visit. The royal pavilion is our main feature and the council want to balls that up too by putting a fence round the gardens and charging people to get in. With women's refuges and homeless centres being shut down, day centres for the mentally ill and elderly closed due to a lack of money, it is a total insult to borrow money for this, if it fails which other similar projects have, hence the backing out of investors, we will be picking up the bill for years to the further detriment ent of our citizens. I don't want it and I don't think it's good for Brighton.
The council already have the money they just wont spend it on services for like you say the mentally ill etc.i360 wont be viable especially out of season the seafront is deserted especially now people know of the rip off parking charges.I must disagree about your policing comment visable police have disappeared from our streets after dark.The nightlife is policed by private door security backed up by private security in cars parked where police cars used to be.Look outside of dr brightons pub you quite often see three private security cars parked there replacing the job the police no longer can do after the cuts.Police cant even respond to all 999 calls.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton citizen[/bold] wrote: We already have some of the highest council tax in the uk thanks to the policing it takes to manage the binge drinkers that come to Brighton and the hospital treatment many need? Brighton has never been short of tourists, I live in Central Brighton and you already cannot move on the beach in the summer? Brighton is an iconic place that people always want to visit. The royal pavilion is our main feature and the council want to balls that up too by putting a fence round the gardens and charging people to get in. With women's refuges and homeless centres being shut down, day centres for the mentally ill and elderly closed due to a lack of money, it is a total insult to borrow money for this, if it fails which other similar projects have, hence the backing out of investors, we will be picking up the bill for years to the further detriment ent of our citizens. I don't want it and I don't think it's good for Brighton.[/p][/quote]The council already have the money they just wont spend it on services for like you say the mentally ill etc.i360 wont be viable especially out of season the seafront is deserted especially now people know of the rip off parking charges.I must disagree about your policing comment visable police have disappeared from our streets after dark.The nightlife is policed by private door security backed up by private security in cars parked where police cars used to be.Look outside of dr brightons pub you quite often see three private security cars parked there replacing the job the police no longer can do after the cuts.Police cant even respond to all 999 calls. clubrob6

6:16pm Sat 18 Jan 14

the red head says...

Is this the final erection of a dieing council? If so, I hope they cark it before any more damage is done.
Is this the final erection of a dieing council? If so, I hope they cark it before any more damage is done. the red head

6:51pm Sat 18 Jan 14

brightonian57 says...

Kitkat, we don't wast this, the small amount of money it will make as a novelty when its new, won't cover the repairs it needs after the first big storm. Sort out the Madeira drive arches, and extend Volks railway with the money. Isn't it possible;e to add something about this to the council tax referendum
Kitkat, we don't wast this, the small amount of money it will make as a novelty when its new, won't cover the repairs it needs after the first big storm. Sort out the Madeira drive arches, and extend Volks railway with the money. Isn't it possible;e to add something about this to the council tax referendum brightonian57

7:15pm Sat 18 Jan 14

PorkBoat says...

I should've written "...worked out on the back of a fag packet in the pub at lunchtime". The way I previously wrote it implies that they spent a bit of time and effort on it.
I should've written "...worked out on the back of a fag packet in the pub at lunchtime". The way I previously wrote it implies that they spent a bit of time and effort on it. PorkBoat

8:00pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
Thank you Warren. Unfortunately there are only 14 Labour Cllrs and how will the Tories vote on this?
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.[/p][/quote]Thank you Warren. Unfortunately there are only 14 Labour Cllrs and how will the Tories vote on this? Valerie Paynter

8:06pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Valerie Paynter says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
scoobysnax wrote:
Where are forensic accountants when you need them?
Probably too busy looking into the £20 million issue involving the council's Housing Department and its suspended head......? I
What £20m is this for/from?
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scoobysnax[/bold] wrote: Where are forensic accountants when you need them?[/p][/quote]Probably too busy looking into the £20 million issue involving the council's Housing Department and its suspended head......? I[/p][/quote]What £20m is this for/from? Valerie Paynter

8:11pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Morpheus says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
If the Labour group don't support it then why haven't you had any impact on the scheme so far? It should never have reached this new stage. It has to be a combined effort with the Tories and as far as I can see there is no chance of you agreeing to work together on anything. So the city both parties are supposed to serve suffers because political ideology is more important to both parties.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.[/p][/quote]If the Labour group don't support it then why haven't you had any impact on the scheme so far? It should never have reached this new stage. It has to be a combined effort with the Tories and as far as I can see there is no chance of you agreeing to work together on anything. So the city both parties are supposed to serve suffers because political ideology is more important to both parties. Morpheus

8:16pm Sat 18 Jan 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

Great news...

We are going to put a bus lane and enhance the cycle path at 'the vogue' to ensure we get rid of some more cash and also to congest the city at a key pinch point to ruin the lives of thousands - thousands of residents who work and have no option but to travel in their vans and cars.

HJ - we have nailed it !
Great news... We are going to put a bus lane and enhance the cycle path at 'the vogue' to ensure we get rid of some more cash and also to congest the city at a key pinch point to ruin the lives of thousands - thousands of residents who work and have no option but to travel in their vans and cars. HJ - we have nailed it ! I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

8:24pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Falmer Wizard says...

You are all missing the obvious advantage of having the i360 tower,the queues to go on it will stretch between the Marina and Hove Lagoon,the attraction watching the thousands of visitors arriving to join the same queues,Brighton & Hove will be the place to come too,congratulations to the Greens for spotting this money spinner which will lead to regular reductions in our Council Tax
You are all missing the obvious advantage of having the i360 tower,the queues to go on it will stretch between the Marina and Hove Lagoon,the attraction watching the thousands of visitors arriving to join the same queues,Brighton & Hove will be the place to come too,congratulations to the Greens for spotting this money spinner which will lead to regular reductions in our Council Tax Falmer Wizard

8:29pm Sat 18 Jan 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
scoobysnax wrote:
Where are forensic accountants when you need them?
Probably too busy looking into the £20 million issue involving the council's Housing Department and its suspended head......? I
What £20m is this for/from?
It's here, Valerie, and well worth reading:-

http://issuu.com/bri
ghton-and-hove-indep
endent/docs/123-10-j
anuary-2014 with a follow-up piece this week.

It makes me wonder just how widespread nepotism and croneyism is in the council? A proper, independent investigation would be a much better use of public resources to investigate this, rather than indulge in ridiculous investigations like the recent gollywog witchhunt. Come to think of it, that should be investigated too......
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scoobysnax[/bold] wrote: Where are forensic accountants when you need them?[/p][/quote]Probably too busy looking into the £20 million issue involving the council's Housing Department and its suspended head......? I[/p][/quote]What £20m is this for/from?[/p][/quote]It's here, Valerie, and well worth reading:- http://issuu.com/bri ghton-and-hove-indep endent/docs/123-10-j anuary-2014 with a follow-up piece this week. It makes me wonder just how widespread nepotism and croneyism is in the council? A proper, independent investigation would be a much better use of public resources to investigate this, rather than indulge in ridiculous investigations like the recent gollywog witchhunt. Come to think of it, that should be investigated too...... fredflintstone1

10:02pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Saltdean Resident says...

Eugenius wrote:
Labour's Warren Morgan is leading his team up a blind alley, playing politics with the city's future. If they are serious about running the city in 2015 they need to get behind regeneration plans like this and support our referendum to protect the tax base which has fallen below the cost of inflation. If they don't then the next administration from 2015-2019 is going to have a miserable time of it and the people of Brighton and Hove are the ones who are going to suffer.
What is there to regenerate! It's a bit of the seafront, the only money being spent is to reinforce tge seafront to take the weight of the structure. Money could have been better spent across the whole of the seafront, that's regeneration, this is a vanity project!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: Labour's Warren Morgan is leading his team up a blind alley, playing politics with the city's future. If they are serious about running the city in 2015 they need to get behind regeneration plans like this and support our referendum to protect the tax base which has fallen below the cost of inflation. If they don't then the next administration from 2015-2019 is going to have a miserable time of it and the people of Brighton and Hove are the ones who are going to suffer.[/p][/quote]What is there to regenerate! It's a bit of the seafront, the only money being spent is to reinforce tge seafront to take the weight of the structure. Money could have been better spent across the whole of the seafront, that's regeneration, this is a vanity project! Saltdean Resident

11:06pm Sat 18 Jan 14

pumpkineater23 says...

Distressing that this is still going ahead. An enormous and hugely expensive **** will ruin a very special and beautiful part of Brighton. Like so many others I too am extremely skeptical as to whether it will turn over much money. Having read through the comments section here I find far better ideas.* Please* listen to the people of Brighton.
Distressing that this is still going ahead. An enormous and hugely expensive **** will ruin a very special and beautiful part of Brighton. Like so many others I too am extremely skeptical as to whether it will turn over much money. Having read through the comments section here I find far better ideas.* Please* listen to the people of Brighton. pumpkineater23

1:19am Sun 19 Jan 14

Gribbet says...

B.A.N.A.N.A.
B.A.N.A.N.A. Gribbet

5:30am Sun 19 Jan 14

fiveways says...

i360 looks **** wrote:
If the council have a spare £38 million to throw around I suggest we build a monorail. It worked for Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook.
Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!
[quote][p][bold]i360 looks ****[/bold] wrote: If the council have a spare £38 million to throw around I suggest we build a monorail. It worked for Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook.[/p][/quote]Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! fiveways

8:20am Sun 19 Jan 14

Kedge says...

It's well-documented in the corporate world that a major pointer to an organisation going down the pan is that it starts spending large sums on unnecessary projects and fripperies in an attempt to big itself up.
It's well-documented in the corporate world that a major pointer to an organisation going down the pan is that it starts spending large sums on unnecessary projects and fripperies in an attempt to big itself up. Kedge

8:29am Sun 19 Jan 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

HJ says that is exactly why we Greens embarked on our programme (sic) of building cycle paths, bus lanes and painting 20 mph on the roads as soon as we got in.
HJ says that is exactly why we Greens embarked on our programme (sic) of building cycle paths, bus lanes and painting 20 mph on the roads as soon as we got in. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

9:10am Sun 19 Jan 14

brighton bluenose says...

SOMETHING DOESNT ADD UP!!
Perhaps our intrepid Argus reporters should investigate some of the figures being bandied about as 800,000 visitors spending an alleged £5million equates to just £6.25 per head - this at the same time as we are being told that an additional 18,000 hotel/b&b beds will be used - for simplicities sake assuming these are all couples paying an average £100 per night that would be an additional £9million into the local economy PLUS the addition food and drink at again say another £100 per couple would make a total of £18million from these 18k over-nighter alone and thats if they stayed just one night!!
SOMETHING DOESNT ADD UP!! Perhaps our intrepid Argus reporters should investigate some of the figures being bandied about as 800,000 visitors spending an alleged £5million equates to just £6.25 per head - this at the same time as we are being told that an additional 18,000 hotel/b&b beds will be used - for simplicities sake assuming these are all couples paying an average £100 per night that would be an additional £9million into the local economy PLUS the addition food and drink at again say another £100 per couple would make a total of £18million from these 18k over-nighter alone and thats if they stayed just one night!! brighton bluenose

9:32am Sun 19 Jan 14

Richada says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
Great news...

We are going to put a bus lane and enhance the cycle path at 'the vogue' to ensure we get rid of some more cash and also to congest the city at a key pinch point to ruin the lives of thousands - thousands of residents who work and have no option but to travel in their vans and cars.

HJ - we have nailed it !
Don't start giving them ideas.........

........Maybe the i360 - renamed i180, as it would only need to look up and down Lewes Road - could be relocated in the middle of the Vogue for the Councillors responsible to sit and admire the huge traffic jams they have created, they could also use it to direct emergency service vehicles through the chaos to attend to mown down cyclists and pedestrians due to the crazy junction layouts at all of the roads leading off of the Lewes Road between the Vogue and Coldean lane.

Being a 180 degree viewing platform would, of course, offer the tremendous advantage that they would NOT be able to observe the goings on at the nearby Hollingdean Depot and therefore have the perfect excuse for being clueless as to the non-collection of our refuse.

Oh dear, I've just invented the most extravagantly expensive pair of blinkers in history - entirely in character then, that'll go through planning on a nod.
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: Great news... We are going to put a bus lane and enhance the cycle path at 'the vogue' to ensure we get rid of some more cash and also to congest the city at a key pinch point to ruin the lives of thousands - thousands of residents who work and have no option but to travel in their vans and cars. HJ - we have nailed it ![/p][/quote]Don't start giving them ideas......... ........Maybe the i360 - renamed i180, as it would only need to look up and down Lewes Road - could be relocated in the middle of the Vogue for the Councillors responsible to sit and admire the huge traffic jams they have created, they could also use it to direct emergency service vehicles through the chaos to attend to mown down cyclists and pedestrians due to the crazy junction layouts at all of the roads leading off of the Lewes Road between the Vogue and Coldean lane. Being a 180 degree viewing platform would, of course, offer the tremendous advantage that they would NOT be able to observe the goings on at the nearby Hollingdean Depot and therefore have the perfect excuse for being clueless as to the non-collection of our refuse. Oh dear, I've just invented the most extravagantly expensive pair of blinkers in history - entirely in character then, that'll go through planning on a nod. Richada

10:10am Sun 19 Jan 14

Camp Nigel says...

Well, what a kerfuffle. I would rather be taken up the Spinnaker. Portsmouth has got so much more to offer.
Well, what a kerfuffle. I would rather be taken up the Spinnaker. Portsmouth has got so much more to offer. Camp Nigel

10:27am Sun 19 Jan 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Valerie and save hove. Can you explain the engineering challenges the project faces for it's proposed location and the estimated costs for solving them and the challenge of getting specific costs for solving them and the contractual liabilities which make the project too risky for private business hence the loss of interest. Can you explain how these serious engineering challenges means the project costs are far higher than Weymouth and the spinnaker towers.
Valerie you are good at digging out detail, so let us all know as it will help the public get a better understanding as to why private business interest is falling away.
Valerie and save hove. Can you explain the engineering challenges the project faces for it's proposed location and the estimated costs for solving them and the challenge of getting specific costs for solving them and the contractual liabilities which make the project too risky for private business hence the loss of interest. Can you explain how these serious engineering challenges means the project costs are far higher than Weymouth and the spinnaker towers. Valerie you are good at digging out detail, so let us all know as it will help the public get a better understanding as to why private business interest is falling away. Maxwell's Ghost

1:44pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

HJarrs. Will it sell vacuum cleaners?

Laughable
HJarrs. Will it sell vacuum cleaners? Laughable Somethingsarejustwrong

2:36pm Sun 19 Jan 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
SOMETHING DOESNT ADD UP!!
Perhaps our intrepid Argus reporters should investigate some of the figures being bandied about as 800,000 visitors spending an alleged £5million equates to just £6.25 per head - this at the same time as we are being told that an additional 18,000 hotel/b&b beds will be used - for simplicities sake assuming these are all couples paying an average £100 per night that would be an additional £9million into the local economy PLUS the addition food and drink at again say another £100 per couple would make a total of £18million from these 18k over-nighter alone and thats if they stayed just one night!!
HJ says you don't add up. Every post you make just shows up our Green party for how bad we really are.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: SOMETHING DOESNT ADD UP!! Perhaps our intrepid Argus reporters should investigate some of the figures being bandied about as 800,000 visitors spending an alleged £5million equates to just £6.25 per head - this at the same time as we are being told that an additional 18,000 hotel/b&b beds will be used - for simplicities sake assuming these are all couples paying an average £100 per night that would be an additional £9million into the local economy PLUS the addition food and drink at again say another £100 per couple would make a total of £18million from these 18k over-nighter alone and thats if they stayed just one night!![/p][/quote]HJ says you don't add up. Every post you make just shows up our Green party for how bad we really are. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

3:29pm Sun 19 Jan 14

RottingdeanRant says...

If private finance cannot be acquired it would signify that they don’t think it will make a profit. Therefore, there is NO way that our council should risk any of our money on this doomed scheme. Another, stupid idea by a stupid council. Stop wasting our money, focus on your key responsibilities and keep your budget within your income (its what households have to do!). STOP THE REFERENDUM which will waste even more money. if it goes ahead I don’t suppose there is any chance that people will actually have to had paid council tax within the past year?
If private finance cannot be acquired it would signify that they don’t think it will make a profit. Therefore, there is NO way that our council should risk any of our money on this doomed scheme. Another, stupid idea by a stupid council. Stop wasting our money, focus on your key responsibilities and keep your budget within your income (its what households have to do!). STOP THE REFERENDUM which will waste even more money. if it goes ahead I don’t suppose there is any chance that people will actually have to had paid council tax within the past year? RottingdeanRant

5:05pm Sun 19 Jan 14

PorkBoat says...

Camp Nigel wrote:
Well, what a kerfuffle. I would rather be taken up the Spinnaker. Portsmouth has got so much more to offer.
Hello sailor!
[quote][p][bold]Camp Nigel[/bold] wrote: Well, what a kerfuffle. I would rather be taken up the Spinnaker. Portsmouth has got so much more to offer.[/p][/quote]Hello sailor! PorkBoat

5:38pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Fight_Back says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
Who told the Argus about this ahead of the full details being discussed, when in fact it is a idea-in-progress that might or might not happen?
Come on - you're a councillor - regardless of the figure being £14m or £38m - who pays the loan back if the developer can't ?
STILL waiting Cllr Hawtree - who pays the loan repayments if the developer can't ? Oh, silly me - it will the US, the Brighton and Hove tax payer but of course you won't state that because it would kill your argument dead.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Christophe Hawtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.[/p][/quote]Who told the Argus about this ahead of the full details being discussed, when in fact it is a idea-in-progress that might or might not happen?[/p][/quote]Come on - you're a councillor - regardless of the figure being £14m or £38m - who pays the loan back if the developer can't ?[/p][/quote]STILL waiting Cllr Hawtree - who pays the loan repayments if the developer can't ? Oh, silly me - it will the US, the Brighton and Hove tax payer but of course you won't state that because it would kill your argument dead. Fight_Back

5:46pm Sun 19 Jan 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Christophe Hawtree wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
Who told the Argus about this ahead of the full details being discussed, when in fact it is a idea-in-progress that might or might not happen?
Come on - you're a councillor - regardless of the figure being £14m or £38m - who pays the loan back if the developer can't ?
STILL waiting Cllr Hawtree - who pays the loan repayments if the developer can't ? Oh, silly me - it will the US, the Brighton and Hove tax payer but of course you won't state that because it would kill your argument dead.
The green council reps are at best ridiculous and dangerous. I wouldn't lend any one of them so much as a penny, never mind allow them to borrow sizable sums on behalf of the residents.

I can't wait for them to be ousted.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Christophe Hawtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.[/p][/quote]Who told the Argus about this ahead of the full details being discussed, when in fact it is a idea-in-progress that might or might not happen?[/p][/quote]Come on - you're a councillor - regardless of the figure being £14m or £38m - who pays the loan back if the developer can't ?[/p][/quote]STILL waiting Cllr Hawtree - who pays the loan repayments if the developer can't ? Oh, silly me - it will the US, the Brighton and Hove tax payer but of course you won't state that because it would kill your argument dead.[/p][/quote]The green council reps are at best ridiculous and dangerous. I wouldn't lend any one of them so much as a penny, never mind allow them to borrow sizable sums on behalf of the residents. I can't wait for them to be ousted. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

6:35pm Sun 19 Jan 14

the red head says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
SOMETHING DOESNT ADD UP!!
Perhaps our intrepid Argus reporters should investigate some of the figures being bandied about as 800,000 visitors spending an alleged £5million equates to just £6.25 per head - this at the same time as we are being told that an additional 18,000 hotel/b&b beds will be used - for simplicities sake assuming these are all couples paying an average £100 per night that would be an additional £9million into the local economy PLUS the addition food and drink at again say another £100 per couple would make a total of £18million from these 18k over-nighter alone and thats if they stayed just one night!!
Forget the beach, the shops, the downs, the festival, the theatres, the restaurants, the pier, the exhibitions, the pavilion, the museums, the art galleries, the antique shops and so on, and so on.... Because of course what this town really needs and the thing that will boost our cities economy by the amount you suggest is a great big pole that they can ride up to see the view as long as the suns out.
Ah, ok.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: SOMETHING DOESNT ADD UP!! Perhaps our intrepid Argus reporters should investigate some of the figures being bandied about as 800,000 visitors spending an alleged £5million equates to just £6.25 per head - this at the same time as we are being told that an additional 18,000 hotel/b&b beds will be used - for simplicities sake assuming these are all couples paying an average £100 per night that would be an additional £9million into the local economy PLUS the addition food and drink at again say another £100 per couple would make a total of £18million from these 18k over-nighter alone and thats if they stayed just one night!![/p][/quote]Forget the beach, the shops, the downs, the festival, the theatres, the restaurants, the pier, the exhibitions, the pavilion, the museums, the art galleries, the antique shops and so on, and so on.... Because of course what this town really needs and the thing that will boost our cities economy by the amount you suggest is a great big pole that they can ride up to see the view as long as the suns out. Ah, ok. the red head

7:14pm Sun 19 Jan 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

the red head wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
SOMETHING DOESNT ADD UP!!
Perhaps our intrepid Argus reporters should investigate some of the figures being bandied about as 800,000 visitors spending an alleged £5million equates to just £6.25 per head - this at the same time as we are being told that an additional 18,000 hotel/b&b beds will be used - for simplicities sake assuming these are all couples paying an average £100 per night that would be an additional £9million into the local economy PLUS the addition food and drink at again say another £100 per couple would make a total of £18million from these 18k over-nighter alone and thats if they stayed just one night!!
Forget the beach, the shops, the downs, the festival, the theatres, the restaurants, the pier, the exhibitions, the pavilion, the museums, the art galleries, the antique shops and so on, and so on.... Because of course what this town really needs and the thing that will boost our cities economy by the amount you suggest is a great big pole that they can ride up to see the view as long as the suns out.
Ah, ok.
I think you may have forgotten the travelers, street drinkers, bus lanes, cycle paths, prohibitive parking charges, congestion and protest groups. We Greens offer all these benefits as a priority and the 'pole' will offer a highly visible hub for many of these to converge.

We are the Greens
[quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: SOMETHING DOESNT ADD UP!! Perhaps our intrepid Argus reporters should investigate some of the figures being bandied about as 800,000 visitors spending an alleged £5million equates to just £6.25 per head - this at the same time as we are being told that an additional 18,000 hotel/b&b beds will be used - for simplicities sake assuming these are all couples paying an average £100 per night that would be an additional £9million into the local economy PLUS the addition food and drink at again say another £100 per couple would make a total of £18million from these 18k over-nighter alone and thats if they stayed just one night!![/p][/quote]Forget the beach, the shops, the downs, the festival, the theatres, the restaurants, the pier, the exhibitions, the pavilion, the museums, the art galleries, the antique shops and so on, and so on.... Because of course what this town really needs and the thing that will boost our cities economy by the amount you suggest is a great big pole that they can ride up to see the view as long as the suns out. Ah, ok.[/p][/quote]I think you may have forgotten the travelers, street drinkers, bus lanes, cycle paths, prohibitive parking charges, congestion and protest groups. We Greens offer all these benefits as a priority and the 'pole' will offer a highly visible hub for many of these to converge. We are the Greens I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

7:23pm Sun 19 Jan 14

the red head says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
the red head wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
SOMETHING DOESNT ADD UP!!
Perhaps our intrepid Argus reporters should investigate some of the figures being bandied about as 800,000 visitors spending an alleged £5million equates to just £6.25 per head - this at the same time as we are being told that an additional 18,000 hotel/b&b beds will be used - for simplicities sake assuming these are all couples paying an average £100 per night that would be an additional £9million into the local economy PLUS the addition food and drink at again say another £100 per couple would make a total of £18million from these 18k over-nighter alone and thats if they stayed just one night!!
Forget the beach, the shops, the downs, the festival, the theatres, the restaurants, the pier, the exhibitions, the pavilion, the museums, the art galleries, the antique shops and so on, and so on.... Because of course what this town really needs and the thing that will boost our cities economy by the amount you suggest is a great big pole that they can ride up to see the view as long as the suns out.
Ah, ok.
I think you may have forgotten the travelers, street drinkers, bus lanes, cycle paths, prohibitive parking charges, congestion and protest groups. We Greens offer all these benefits as a priority and the 'pole' will offer a highly visible hub for many of these to converge.

We are the Greens
Yeah, the pole will do all of this. And when it's covered in seagull poop, urinated on, used as a stabiliser for conjugal late night antics and rusted to hell by the sea, we can remember that yay! this is boosting our economy.
Yay!
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: SOMETHING DOESNT ADD UP!! Perhaps our intrepid Argus reporters should investigate some of the figures being bandied about as 800,000 visitors spending an alleged £5million equates to just £6.25 per head - this at the same time as we are being told that an additional 18,000 hotel/b&b beds will be used - for simplicities sake assuming these are all couples paying an average £100 per night that would be an additional £9million into the local economy PLUS the addition food and drink at again say another £100 per couple would make a total of £18million from these 18k over-nighter alone and thats if they stayed just one night!![/p][/quote]Forget the beach, the shops, the downs, the festival, the theatres, the restaurants, the pier, the exhibitions, the pavilion, the museums, the art galleries, the antique shops and so on, and so on.... Because of course what this town really needs and the thing that will boost our cities economy by the amount you suggest is a great big pole that they can ride up to see the view as long as the suns out. Ah, ok.[/p][/quote]I think you may have forgotten the travelers, street drinkers, bus lanes, cycle paths, prohibitive parking charges, congestion and protest groups. We Greens offer all these benefits as a priority and the 'pole' will offer a highly visible hub for many of these to converge. We are the Greens[/p][/quote]Yeah, the pole will do all of this. And when it's covered in seagull poop, urinated on, used as a stabiliser for conjugal late night antics and rusted to hell by the sea, we can remember that yay! this is boosting our economy. Yay! the red head

7:27pm Sun 19 Jan 14

the red head says...

White night hasn't happened due to lack of funding. The burning of the clocks is now tenuous each year because of lack of funding. The festival is overtaken by the rich because of the exorbitant registration fees. Pride is under threat each year. All of these things brought in tourism. The council should be showing support for these proven crowd pullers.
Sorry to comment so often but feel very cheated by this.
White night hasn't happened due to lack of funding. The burning of the clocks is now tenuous each year because of lack of funding. The festival is overtaken by the rich because of the exorbitant registration fees. Pride is under threat each year. All of these things brought in tourism. The council should be showing support for these proven crowd pullers. Sorry to comment so often but feel very cheated by this. the red head

8:41pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Ihopenoonehasthisusername says...

Eugenius wrote:
NickBtn wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
NickBtn wrote:
Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message?

So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.
No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.
The council is spending a lot of time and resources on this - so yes, money is being spent from current budgets

The loan structure that you describe is a useful addition to the Argus article. You imply that B&HC are to become a bank - borrowing the money and then lending on. And making £25m by becoming bankers (which is an interesting thing for the greens to do!).

Sure that there are risks to this, such as loan defaults, interest rate rises. As HJarrs points out the visitor numbers do look hugely optimistic (especially when you see the lack of visitors to the wheel which offers similar). So B&H could be landed with an expensive white elephant to pay for at a time when council's have even less income

Why not leave this type of speculation to the private sector? They are better and more experienced at it. They have abandoned the scheme - there is a message there!
It's a fixed interest deal and the interest on the Public Works Board Loan is fixed too so the council's income is guaranteed over the 25 year term. One of the conditions is that the council loan is the first thing to be paid back. Middle of the road projections for visits (checked independently 4 times over) deliver 3 times more income than needed to repay the loan.

Yes, agree that many will see this as a surprising move for a local authority but to get major projects off the ground in the current climate you need to think outside the box.
Who cares? The fact is most people who live in Brighton and Hove don't want this monstrosity blighting their city. It really don't matter how it's funded.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Yet more proof that the council has spare money! And no financial sense - if the private sector have pulled out then isn't that a pretty clear message? So lets stop yet another vanity project and use this money to remove the need for a council tax increase. Simple.[/p][/quote]No, the council is not spending council tax payer's money on this. The council is accessing a central government loan and then loaning this onto the i360 developers at a higher rate of interest. The deal will raise about £1m extra revenue for the council a year, for the next 25 years.[/p][/quote]The council is spending a lot of time and resources on this - so yes, money is being spent from current budgets The loan structure that you describe is a useful addition to the Argus article. You imply that B&HC are to become a bank - borrowing the money and then lending on. And making £25m by becoming bankers (which is an interesting thing for the greens to do!). Sure that there are risks to this, such as loan defaults, interest rate rises. As HJarrs points out the visitor numbers do look hugely optimistic (especially when you see the lack of visitors to the wheel which offers similar). So B&H could be landed with an expensive white elephant to pay for at a time when council's have even less income Why not leave this type of speculation to the private sector? They are better and more experienced at it. They have abandoned the scheme - there is a message there![/p][/quote]It's a fixed interest deal and the interest on the Public Works Board Loan is fixed too so the council's income is guaranteed over the 25 year term. One of the conditions is that the council loan is the first thing to be paid back. Middle of the road projections for visits (checked independently 4 times over) deliver 3 times more income than needed to repay the loan. Yes, agree that many will see this as a surprising move for a local authority but to get major projects off the ground in the current climate you need to think outside the box.[/p][/quote]Who cares? The fact is most people who live in Brighton and Hove don't want this monstrosity blighting their city. It really don't matter how it's funded. Ihopenoonehasthisusername

10:30pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Warren Morgan says...

Morpheus wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
If the Labour group don't support it then why haven't you had any impact on the scheme so far? It should never have reached this new stage. It has to be a combined effort with the Tories and as far as I can see there is no chance of you agreeing to work together on anything. So the city both parties are supposed to serve suffers because political ideology is more important to both parties.
All the Tories have to do is put their hands up at the same time as as my colleagues and I when this is voted on. Simple as that.
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.[/p][/quote]If the Labour group don't support it then why haven't you had any impact on the scheme so far? It should never have reached this new stage. It has to be a combined effort with the Tories and as far as I can see there is no chance of you agreeing to work together on anything. So the city both parties are supposed to serve suffers because political ideology is more important to both parties.[/p][/quote]All the Tories have to do is put their hands up at the same time as as my colleagues and I when this is voted on. Simple as that. Warren Morgan

10:30pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Warren Morgan says...

Morpheus wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
If the Labour group don't support it then why haven't you had any impact on the scheme so far? It should never have reached this new stage. It has to be a combined effort with the Tories and as far as I can see there is no chance of you agreeing to work together on anything. So the city both parties are supposed to serve suffers because political ideology is more important to both parties.
All the Tories have to do is put their hands up at the same time as as my colleagues and I when this is voted on. Simple as that.
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.[/p][/quote]If the Labour group don't support it then why haven't you had any impact on the scheme so far? It should never have reached this new stage. It has to be a combined effort with the Tories and as far as I can see there is no chance of you agreeing to work together on anything. So the city both parties are supposed to serve suffers because political ideology is more important to both parties.[/p][/quote]All the Tories have to do is put their hands up at the same time as as my colleagues and I when this is voted on. Simple as that. Warren Morgan

10:30pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Warren Morgan says...

Morpheus wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,
If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.
If the Labour group don't support it then why haven't you had any impact on the scheme so far? It should never have reached this new stage. It has to be a combined effort with the Tories and as far as I can see there is no chance of you agreeing to work together on anything. So the city both parties are supposed to serve suffers because political ideology is more important to both parties.
All the Tories have to do is put their hands up at the same time as as my colleagues and I when this is voted on. Simple as that.
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: What are the other councillors doing? The Greens don't have a majority. If the others don't block this crazy expenditure then none of them deserve a vote at the next election,[/p][/quote]If you read the story it clearly states that the Labour group will vote against. The council and residents simply cannot be exposed to a risk that the private sector are not willing to take one.[/p][/quote]If the Labour group don't support it then why haven't you had any impact on the scheme so far? It should never have reached this new stage. It has to be a combined effort with the Tories and as far as I can see there is no chance of you agreeing to work together on anything. So the city both parties are supposed to serve suffers because political ideology is more important to both parties.[/p][/quote]All the Tories have to do is put their hands up at the same time as as my colleagues and I when this is voted on. Simple as that. Warren Morgan

9:06am Mon 20 Jan 14

goldstone says...

Put the money towards the rebuilding of the West Pier.
Put the money towards the rebuilding of the West Pier. goldstone

9:07am Mon 20 Jan 14

Plantpot says...

South Today (BBC) this morning talking about the loan being £36 million. What happens if the developer defaults?
South Today (BBC) this morning talking about the loan being £36 million. What happens if the developer defaults? Plantpot

9:12am Mon 20 Jan 14

RottingdeanRant says...

Plantpot wrote:
South Today (BBC) this morning talking about the loan being £36 million. What happens if the developer defaults?
We have to pay!
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: South Today (BBC) this morning talking about the loan being £36 million. What happens if the developer defaults?[/p][/quote]We have to pay! RottingdeanRant

9:14am Mon 20 Jan 14

Plantpot says...

Also,

If we lend £36 million to a particular party, what assets do they have and how much could be reclaimed? Could someone reveal their credit and asset status?
Also, If we lend £36 million to a particular party, what assets do they have and how much could be reclaimed? Could someone reveal their credit and asset status? Plantpot

4:00pm Mon 20 Jan 14

ThinkBrighton says...

HJarrs wrote:
As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case.

We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power
and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.
"Labour cares nothing for this city", now that's a stupid statement, because your green friends care even less, with the imbicile leader saying in one breath that the city has to have a vote for more money, and then offering this vast sum for a project which has lame duck written all over it, but it is well in the green promise to waste as much money as possible
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: As part of the development of an area and drawing business to the city it works financially. However, as an attraction paying its way in its own right, I am not convinced. The visitor numbers seem very optimistic. As a part privately financed project it looked like the tax payer would take ownership for half the build cost, this is not now the case. We will never find out in the Argus whether or not this project is a goer and Labour cares nothing for this city other than to get into power and would cancel the project for a few votes, even if it made a barrel load of money for the city.[/p][/quote]"Labour cares nothing for this city", now that's a stupid statement, because your green friends care even less, with the imbicile leader saying in one breath that the city has to have a vote for more money, and then offering this vast sum for a project which has lame duck written all over it, but it is well in the green promise to waste as much money as possible ThinkBrighton

4:14pm Mon 20 Jan 14

John Fallon says...

According to DueDil (at 31 December 2012), Marks Barfield Ltd has a net worth of -£1.8 million but no adverse information recorded against it. Assets were £272,000, net assets £604,000, liabilities £349,000 and there was £8 in the bank. Caution - over the last year this could have changed a lot. Register for free at DueDil to see more: https://www.duedil.c
om/company/02444149/
marks-barfield-ltd/f
inancials
According to DueDil (at 31 December 2012), Marks Barfield Ltd has a net worth of -£1.8 million but no adverse information recorded against it. Assets were £272,000, net assets £604,000, liabilities £349,000 and there was £8 in the bank. Caution - over the last year this could have changed a lot. Register for free at DueDil to see more: https://www.duedil.c om/company/02444149/ marks-barfield-ltd/f inancials John Fallon

4:16pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Richada says...

Plantpot wrote:
Also,

If we lend £36 million to a particular party, what assets do they have and how much could be reclaimed? Could someone reveal their credit and asset status?
Ah yes, but we're NOT lending it to a party - we are lending it to ourselves so that a party can build, on our behalf, a huge single finger salute to us all.

If private finance can't make the figures add up here, the council - of any colour - should have nothing to do with it.

Private enterprise has to work to a budget, otherwise it ceases to exist. The council has the pockets of the local tax payers to fall back on, what's another £36 million "between friends"?
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: Also, If we lend £36 million to a particular party, what assets do they have and how much could be reclaimed? Could someone reveal their credit and asset status?[/p][/quote]Ah yes, but we're NOT lending it to a party - we are lending it to ourselves so that a party can build, on our behalf, a huge single finger salute to us all. If private finance can't make the figures add up here, the council - of any colour - should have nothing to do with it. Private enterprise has to work to a budget, otherwise it ceases to exist. The council has the pockets of the local tax payers to fall back on, what's another £36 million "between friends"? Richada

5:55pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Dealing with idiots says...

Having recently shut down his loss making business Swing Digital Ltd, master Kitcat now shows a new diretorship on the companies house register.
Surprise, surprise JK is now a director of Coast 2 Capital ( mentioned above ) who are speaking to the council. Does no one else feel there is a teenie bit of a conflict of interest? How much remuneration is he receiving to push this?
Time for the Conservatives and Labour groups to step in and Hand Jace the old P 45.
Having recently shut down his loss making business Swing Digital Ltd, master Kitcat now shows a new diretorship on the companies house register. Surprise, surprise JK is now a director of Coast 2 Capital ( mentioned above ) who are speaking to the council. Does no one else feel there is a teenie bit of a conflict of interest? How much remuneration is he receiving to push this? Time for the Conservatives and Labour groups to step in and Hand Jace the old P 45. Dealing with idiots

1:19am Tue 21 Jan 14

Fight_Back says...

Dealing with idiots wrote:
Having recently shut down his loss making business Swing Digital Ltd, master Kitcat now shows a new diretorship on the companies house register.
Surprise, surprise JK is now a director of Coast 2 Capital ( mentioned above ) who are speaking to the council. Does no one else feel there is a teenie bit of a conflict of interest? How much remuneration is he receiving to push this?
Time for the Conservatives and Labour groups to step in and Hand Jace the old P 45.
Looking at the Directors list of this company there are a number of councillors who are Directors - something smells fishy and it isn't the sea !
[quote][p][bold]Dealing with idiots[/bold] wrote: Having recently shut down his loss making business Swing Digital Ltd, master Kitcat now shows a new diretorship on the companies house register. Surprise, surprise JK is now a director of Coast 2 Capital ( mentioned above ) who are speaking to the council. Does no one else feel there is a teenie bit of a conflict of interest? How much remuneration is he receiving to push this? Time for the Conservatives and Labour groups to step in and Hand Jace the old P 45.[/p][/quote]Looking at the Directors list of this company there are a number of councillors who are Directors - something smells fishy and it isn't the sea ! Fight_Back

4:42pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Fairfax Aches says...

Колелото ще бъде добро с работни места!
(Bulgarian for: The Wheel for more jobs yes please)
Колелото ще бъде добро с работни места! (Bulgarian for: The Wheel for more jobs yes please) Fairfax Aches

3:21pm Thu 23 Jan 14

sussexartbeat says...

We need iconic landmarks that the public can engage with to remain in the eye of the media and attract tourists and creative industries - but it would be great to invite local artists to contribute to schemes like this. Brighton lacks a substantial public art gallery. Chichester has Pallant House, Eastbourne has Towner, and Hastings has the Jerwood. Brighton has great private galleries and good but limited museums. Circus Street promises a hub for creative industries. But wouldn't a world class contemporary gallery provide more scope for more people than a revolving restaurant? Lets review our options before making this major commitment. For more info on the Brighton and Sussex art scene, take a look at our blog http://sussexartbeat
.wordpress.com/
We need iconic landmarks that the public can engage with to remain in the eye of the media and attract tourists and creative industries - but it would be great to invite local artists to contribute to schemes like this. Brighton lacks a substantial public art gallery. Chichester has Pallant House, Eastbourne has Towner, and Hastings has the Jerwood. Brighton has great private galleries and good but limited museums. Circus Street promises a hub for creative industries. But wouldn't a world class contemporary gallery provide more scope for more people than a revolving restaurant? Lets review our options before making this major commitment. For more info on the Brighton and Sussex art scene, take a look at our blog http://sussexartbeat .wordpress.com/ sussexartbeat

2:24pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Drew18 says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
HJ

Kitters has played a blinder with this one, an absolute cracker!

Just at the same time as telling the residents that Council tax won't stretch far enough, increasing non tax paying student numbers, burning vast amounts of money on unwanted cycle paths and bus lanes and calling a referendum to increase Council tax.

Gosh, pure genius
I'm not keen on the plans either but the facts are the loan will come from the Government - not the local tax player.

Council budgets are ring fenced which means cycle lane/road redevelopment money comes from the transport budget - although most of the current schemes were paid for by external grants.

The referendum is to increase council tax to pay for adult social care. Staff across the board report services have been cut to the bone through cost-saving in previous years and they can no longer guarantee statutory services. Legally, funds cannot be transferred from i360 loans or the transport budget.
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: HJ Kitters has played a blinder with this one, an absolute cracker! Just at the same time as telling the residents that Council tax won't stretch far enough, increasing non tax paying student numbers, burning vast amounts of money on unwanted cycle paths and bus lanes and calling a referendum to increase Council tax. Gosh, pure genius[/p][/quote]I'm not keen on the plans either but the facts are the loan will come from the Government - not the local tax player. Council budgets are ring fenced which means cycle lane/road redevelopment money comes from the transport budget - although most of the current schemes were paid for by external grants. The referendum is to increase council tax to pay for adult social care. Staff across the board report services have been cut to the bone through cost-saving in previous years and they can no longer guarantee statutory services. Legally, funds cannot be transferred from i360 loans or the transport budget. Drew18

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree