i360 set to go ahead next week after Brighton and Hove Tories join Greens to offer £36m loan

The Argus: £36m i360 loan set to go ahead next week after Brighton and Hove Tories join Greens £36m i360 loan set to go ahead next week after Brighton and Hove Tories join Greens

The i360 tower is set to receive the financial backing it needs to get off the ground after Brighton and Hove Conservative councillors confirmed they would join the Greens in supporting the ambitious project.

After months of speculation surrounding the plan the Conservative group on Brighton and Hove City Council’s policy and resource committee – who will have the final say on the project next week – confirmed they would now support it with a £36 million loan.

With the Green party in favour of the project and Labour’s members standing firmly against it, all eyes had been on the Tory contingent to see which way they would go.

And following a closed door meeting, group leader Geoffrey Theobald confirmed what his party’s intention will be.

“This hasn’t been an easy decision and we have given it very careful consideration over a number of weeks but in the end we believe that it will be in the long-term interests of the city to take this bold step,” he said.

“If we don’t grasp the nettle now, the seafront which is our shop window, will suffer a slow and inevitable decline for decades to come.”

He added: “We believe that the i360 project will bring huge benefits to the city in terms of increased visitor numbers, job creation and regeneration of a run-down and underused section of the seafront.

"It will give the message loud and clear to other potential investors that Brighton & Hove is well and truly open for business and this should encourage other developments and boost trade in the vicinity.”

Planning permission for the 464ft tower has already been granted and if the decision now goes ahead as expected the structure could be completed as early as next year.

Final details of the deal are expected to be introduced next week.

As well as the £36 million loan from the council, which will be funded with central government money, the developers have also secured a £3 million loan from Coast to Capital, the area’s Government-funded local enterprise partnership.

Green Party council leader Jason Kitcat welcomed this latest development but said there was still a long way to go.

He said: “My position at the moment is that I think the i360 is a fantastic project. We’re very lucky to have a world class team who developed the London Eye wanted to make their next attraction here in Brighton & Hove.

“I’m pleased to hear the Conservatives will be supporting it.”

But Labour group leader Warren Morgan said the other two parties were set to condemn taxpayers to years of debt.

He told The Argus: “In Thursday's council tax debate the Conservatives will again trot out their lines about ‘the mess Labour left us in’ and about ‘being responsible with taxpayers money’.

"Yet next week they will be committing two generations of council taxpayers to nearly forty million pounds of debt on a project that no private investor will support.

“Even their own local MP says the project is a black hole.”

Comments (122)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:57am Wed 26 Feb 14

whatevernext2013 says...

bit early for april s fool ,so the tory s don t want to be in the next council either ,after all what fool would waste a vote on them next time ,this city is well and truly -ucked ,its a shame the council dont repair the roads first ,i was on a bus yesterday going up the lewes road i it felt like we were driving along a cobbled road there must be a pot hole every few meters
bit early for april s fool ,so the tory s don t want to be in the next council either ,after all what fool would waste a vote on them next time ,this city is well and truly -ucked ,its a shame the council dont repair the roads first ,i was on a bus yesterday going up the lewes road i it felt like we were driving along a cobbled road there must be a pot hole every few meters whatevernext2013

11:10am Wed 26 Feb 14

Richada says...

whatevernext2013 wrote:
bit early for april s fool ,so the tory s don t want to be in the next council either ,after all what fool would waste a vote on them next time ,this city is well and truly -ucked ,its a shame the council dont repair the roads first ,i was on a bus yesterday going up the lewes road i it felt like we were driving along a cobbled road there must be a pot hole every few meters
I may have phrased it differently, but with this post I totally agree.

As a floating voter, the Tories have just lost my vote - I am totally convinced that the majority in this city are not in favour of the one-trick pony i360, especially if financed in this way.

There are SO many important and URGENT things that this kind of money could be spent on here, merely exposing the council tax payers to this "risk" should have deemed it non-sensical.

Mr Theobold is a wealthy man with a very long history in politics in B&H, if he sees this as some kind of monument to his success then, sadly, he is as deluded as the current council leader.
[quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: bit early for april s fool ,so the tory s don t want to be in the next council either ,after all what fool would waste a vote on them next time ,this city is well and truly -ucked ,its a shame the council dont repair the roads first ,i was on a bus yesterday going up the lewes road i it felt like we were driving along a cobbled road there must be a pot hole every few meters[/p][/quote]I may have phrased it differently, but with this post I totally agree. As a floating voter, the Tories have just lost my vote - I am totally convinced that the majority in this city are not in favour of the one-trick pony i360, especially if financed in this way. There are SO many important and URGENT things that this kind of money could be spent on here, merely exposing the council tax payers to this "risk" should have deemed it non-sensical. Mr Theobold is a wealthy man with a very long history in politics in B&H, if he sees this as some kind of monument to his success then, sadly, he is as deluded as the current council leader. Richada

11:14am Wed 26 Feb 14

brightonline says...

No!
No! brightonline

11:16am Wed 26 Feb 14

VoodooGangbanger says...

this kind of crap is why your trash doesn't get collected and why firemen will be late to put out a fire at your house.

But please tell me once again how tourism benefits me.
this kind of crap is why your trash doesn't get collected and why firemen will be late to put out a fire at your house. But please tell me once again how tourism benefits me. VoodooGangbanger

11:19am Wed 26 Feb 14

spa301 says...

Madness. Our city is run (or will be run) by complete idiots. A massive amount of Brighton & Hove taxpayers money being promised on a purely vanity project. The London Eye has a 360 degree view of historic London. We will have half our view of ..................th
e sea! wow! and the rest will be residential buildings backing up to the Downs! Fascinating.
This town needs a complete cosmetic overhaul which will be far more enticing to potential visitors than a trip up a tower to see not very much at all.
We deserve so much better than this.
Madness. Our city is run (or will be run) by complete idiots. A massive amount of Brighton & Hove taxpayers money being promised on a purely vanity project. The London Eye has a 360 degree view of historic London. We will have half our view of ..................th e sea! wow! and the rest will be residential buildings backing up to the Downs! Fascinating. This town needs a complete cosmetic overhaul which will be far more enticing to potential visitors than a trip up a tower to see not very much at all. We deserve so much better than this. spa301

11:23am Wed 26 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Very risky from the Tories!

Not sure how a giant tower will tell investors we're 'open for business'?

Can't imagine investors base decisions on whether cities have giant towers or not?!
Very risky from the Tories! Not sure how a giant tower will tell investors we're 'open for business'? Can't imagine investors base decisions on whether cities have giant towers or not?! J_Brightonandhove

11:27am Wed 26 Feb 14

roystony says...

Eyesore...why not restore the West pier.
Eyesore...why not restore the West pier. roystony

11:35am Wed 26 Feb 14

rayellerton says...

The Conservatives have in one stroke lost any chance of becoming the next Brighton Council...as someone who would have leaned towards voting for them, i will now not. I hope there are lots of Independent candidates who have the interests of us residents to heart, and not tourists, students, travellers, demonstrators and corporates. Brighton has become a political plaything for all the wannabe MP's and MEP's who are only interested in their own personal agendas...
The Conservatives have in one stroke lost any chance of becoming the next Brighton Council...as someone who would have leaned towards voting for them, i will now not. I hope there are lots of Independent candidates who have the interests of us residents to heart, and not tourists, students, travellers, demonstrators and corporates. Brighton has become a political plaything for all the wannabe MP's and MEP's who are only interested in their own personal agendas... rayellerton

11:36am Wed 26 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

I'll repeat the question I've constantly asked and this time aim it at the Tories ( the Greens have failed to answer it previously ) :

"Who pays the loan repayments if the developer can't ? "
I'll repeat the question I've constantly asked and this time aim it at the Tories ( the Greens have failed to answer it previously ) : "Who pays the loan repayments if the developer can't ? " Fight_Back

11:37am Wed 26 Feb 14

RottingdeanRant says...

Say no and email simon.kirby.mp@parli
ament.co.uk and brighton@tory.org
Say no and email simon.kirby.mp@parli ament.co.uk and brighton@tory.org RottingdeanRant

11:39am Wed 26 Feb 14

DGee says...

Why oh why couldn't this money be used to restore our beloved West Pier. This tower is a complete waste of money. We also need more leisure facilities, an ice rink for example so that we can bring our Tigers back what a great legacy that would be. Bristol are going to build the biggest Snow Dome and snow board facility in the country soon, the youth of this city need these type of facilities. Its a backwood looking council, shame on them.
Why oh why couldn't this money be used to restore our beloved West Pier. This tower is a complete waste of money. We also need more leisure facilities, an ice rink for example so that we can bring our Tigers back what a great legacy that would be. Bristol are going to build the biggest Snow Dome and snow board facility in the country soon, the youth of this city need these type of facilities. Its a backwood looking council, shame on them. DGee

11:40am Wed 26 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere. Eugenius

11:40am Wed 26 Feb 14

chemicaljax says...

Mega-bad news! I am appalled that the Tories are giving their approval to this! They were in a strong position after voting against the council tax price increase...
I like the big wheel & would like that to remain - it suits Brighton as it has the look of a fairground about it. Unfortunately, if this ugly tower is built, the wheel has to go.
The tower doesn't fit in with the Brighton seafront architecture - it will be completely out of place. I hear that the West Pier Trust are backing it & also giving all their millions they have saved up from our donations to the project - let's see, shall we? !
Very upset
Mega-bad news! I am appalled that the Tories are giving their approval to this! They were in a strong position after voting against the council tax price increase... I like the big wheel & would like that to remain - it suits Brighton as it has the look of a fairground about it. Unfortunately, if this ugly tower is built, the wheel has to go. The tower doesn't fit in with the Brighton seafront architecture - it will be completely out of place. I hear that the West Pier Trust are backing it & also giving all their millions they have saved up from our donations to the project - let's see, shall we? ! Very upset chemicaljax

11:46am Wed 26 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

DGee wrote:
Why oh why couldn't this money be used to restore our beloved West Pier. This tower is a complete waste of money. We also need more leisure facilities, an ice rink for example so that we can bring our Tigers back what a great legacy that would be. Bristol are going to build the biggest Snow Dome and snow board facility in the country soon, the youth of this city need these type of facilities. Its a backwood looking council, shame on them.
I would personally have preferred a restored West Pier but the West Pier Trust couldn't make the sums work, a pier has higher maintenance costs than an observation tower, would be less profitable and therefore a riskier venture.
[quote][p][bold]DGee[/bold] wrote: Why oh why couldn't this money be used to restore our beloved West Pier. This tower is a complete waste of money. We also need more leisure facilities, an ice rink for example so that we can bring our Tigers back what a great legacy that would be. Bristol are going to build the biggest Snow Dome and snow board facility in the country soon, the youth of this city need these type of facilities. Its a backwood looking council, shame on them.[/p][/quote]I would personally have preferred a restored West Pier but the West Pier Trust couldn't make the sums work, a pier has higher maintenance costs than an observation tower, would be less profitable and therefore a riskier venture. Eugenius

11:47am Wed 26 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Its the design of it that gets me, we have stunning regency buildings and then a giant silver and glass doughnut on a stick.

It just doesn't go, much like the glass pyramid outside the Louvre in Paris, it doesn't make sense and doesn't fit in
Its the design of it that gets me, we have stunning regency buildings and then a giant silver and glass doughnut on a stick. It just doesn't go, much like the glass pyramid outside the Louvre in Paris, it doesn't make sense and doesn't fit in J_Brightonandhove

11:52am Wed 26 Feb 14

Tailgaters Anonymous says...

Only saving grace will be that 180 degrees of the view from it will be away from Brighton over the sea!!
Only saving grace will be that 180 degrees of the view from it will be away from Brighton over the sea!! Tailgaters Anonymous

11:57am Wed 26 Feb 14

Richada says...

Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
Even from "central government" this is still hard earned tax payers money, which very many of us would prefer to see spent to the benefit of all residents and council tax payers here.

Being utterly selfish about this, what use is the i360 to me when the dustbins go un-emptied, the recycling un-collected, the pot holes un filled........

.......like everyone else we pay both income tax and council tax for these services to be provided for. If the i360 was such a profitable venture it would have been funded by private enterprise years ago, which makes it all the more surprising that the Conservative Party are backing it, effectively, as a state financed project.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Even from "central government" this is still hard earned tax payers money, which very many of us would prefer to see spent to the benefit of all residents and council tax payers here. Being utterly selfish about this, what use is the i360 to me when the dustbins go un-emptied, the recycling un-collected, the pot holes un filled........ .......like everyone else we pay both income tax and council tax for these services to be provided for. If the i360 was such a profitable venture it would have been funded by private enterprise years ago, which makes it all the more surprising that the Conservative Party are backing it, effectively, as a state financed project. Richada

12:02pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Richada wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
Even from "central government" this is still hard earned tax payers money, which very many of us would prefer to see spent to the benefit of all residents and council tax payers here.

Being utterly selfish about this, what use is the i360 to me when the dustbins go un-emptied, the recycling un-collected, the pot holes un filled........

.......like everyone else we pay both income tax and council tax for these services to be provided for. If the i360 was such a profitable venture it would have been funded by private enterprise years ago, which makes it all the more surprising that the Conservative Party are backing it, effectively, as a state financed project.
It's a loan, which the developer will repay. The council gains £25m in interest over the term of the loan and receives a share of the ticket sales in perpetuity, which will help pay for seafront maintenance.

Explain to me how the council can take out a loan to pay for rubbish collection and pot holes, even if this was legally possible how would the council repay the interest on such a loan?
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Even from "central government" this is still hard earned tax payers money, which very many of us would prefer to see spent to the benefit of all residents and council tax payers here. Being utterly selfish about this, what use is the i360 to me when the dustbins go un-emptied, the recycling un-collected, the pot holes un filled........ .......like everyone else we pay both income tax and council tax for these services to be provided for. If the i360 was such a profitable venture it would have been funded by private enterprise years ago, which makes it all the more surprising that the Conservative Party are backing it, effectively, as a state financed project.[/p][/quote]It's a loan, which the developer will repay. The council gains £25m in interest over the term of the loan and receives a share of the ticket sales in perpetuity, which will help pay for seafront maintenance. Explain to me how the council can take out a loan to pay for rubbish collection and pot holes, even if this was legally possible how would the council repay the interest on such a loan? Eugenius

12:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
I'll ask yet again ( but this time in caps so you Greens and now the Tories might actually hear ) :

" WHO PAYS THE LOAN IF THE DEVELOPER CAN'T ????"
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]I'll ask yet again ( but this time in caps so you Greens and now the Tories might actually hear ) : " WHO PAYS THE LOAN IF THE DEVELOPER CAN'T ????" Fight_Back

12:15pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Richada says...

rayellerton wrote:
The Conservatives have in one stroke lost any chance of becoming the next Brighton Council...as someone who would have leaned towards voting for them, i will now not. I hope there are lots of Independent candidates who have the interests of us residents to heart, and not tourists, students, travellers, demonstrators and corporates. Brighton has become a political plaything for all the wannabe MP's and MEP's who are only interested in their own personal agendas...
SPOT ON!
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: The Conservatives have in one stroke lost any chance of becoming the next Brighton Council...as someone who would have leaned towards voting for them, i will now not. I hope there are lots of Independent candidates who have the interests of us residents to heart, and not tourists, students, travellers, demonstrators and corporates. Brighton has become a political plaything for all the wannabe MP's and MEP's who are only interested in their own personal agendas...[/p][/quote]SPOT ON! Richada

12:18pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Richada says...

Eugenius wrote:
Richada wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
Even from "central government" this is still hard earned tax payers money, which very many of us would prefer to see spent to the benefit of all residents and council tax payers here.

Being utterly selfish about this, what use is the i360 to me when the dustbins go un-emptied, the recycling un-collected, the pot holes un filled........

.......like everyone else we pay both income tax and council tax for these services to be provided for. If the i360 was such a profitable venture it would have been funded by private enterprise years ago, which makes it all the more surprising that the Conservative Party are backing it, effectively, as a state financed project.
It's a loan, which the developer will repay. The council gains £25m in interest over the term of the loan and receives a share of the ticket sales in perpetuity, which will help pay for seafront maintenance.

Explain to me how the council can take out a loan to pay for rubbish collection and pot holes, even if this was legally possible how would the council repay the interest on such a loan?
AND IF THE DEVELOPER GOES BUST?

My obviously ham-fisted point is that the council should get its priorities right and put its own house in order before indulging in this vanity project.

You don't NEED a loan to cover these services - we pay you to do that.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Even from "central government" this is still hard earned tax payers money, which very many of us would prefer to see spent to the benefit of all residents and council tax payers here. Being utterly selfish about this, what use is the i360 to me when the dustbins go un-emptied, the recycling un-collected, the pot holes un filled........ .......like everyone else we pay both income tax and council tax for these services to be provided for. If the i360 was such a profitable venture it would have been funded by private enterprise years ago, which makes it all the more surprising that the Conservative Party are backing it, effectively, as a state financed project.[/p][/quote]It's a loan, which the developer will repay. The council gains £25m in interest over the term of the loan and receives a share of the ticket sales in perpetuity, which will help pay for seafront maintenance. Explain to me how the council can take out a loan to pay for rubbish collection and pot holes, even if this was legally possible how would the council repay the interest on such a loan?[/p][/quote]AND IF THE DEVELOPER GOES BUST? My obviously ham-fisted point is that the council should get its priorities right and put its own house in order before indulging in this vanity project. You don't NEED a loan to cover these services - we pay you to do that. Richada

12:29pm Wed 26 Feb 14

rayellerton says...

Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid? rayellerton

12:37pm Wed 26 Feb 14

NicoUnderground says...

Nobody wants the iSore!
Nobody wants the iSore! NicoUnderground

12:39pm Wed 26 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

Monorail!
Monorail! cynic_the

12:41pm Wed 26 Feb 14

billy goat-gruff says...

Folly!!!
Folly!!! billy goat-gruff

12:45pm Wed 26 Feb 14

RottingdeanRant says...

Tell the conservatives NO.

The email addressees I use earlier don’t work (p.s. taken from their web sites!. So use these instead office@kemptownconse
rvatives.com, simon.kirby.mp@parli
ament.uk
Tell the conservatives NO. The email addressees I use earlier don’t work (p.s. taken from their web sites!. So use these instead office@kemptownconse rvatives.com, simon.kirby.mp@parli ament.uk RottingdeanRant

12:53pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Mark_Hove says...

Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it.
that's some feat.
Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it. that's some feat. Mark_Hove

1:08pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

rayellerton wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?
I was dealing with the insinuation that this was a misuse of council tax - it's nothing to do with council tax or the budget which is being debated tomorrow.

It has been assessed as a low risk investment by both the council and the Local Economic Partnership who are the other contributor. The same scheme is being used to fund capital projects around the country, I'll see if I can get a list of these together for next week.
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?[/p][/quote]I was dealing with the insinuation that this was a misuse of council tax - it's nothing to do with council tax or the budget which is being debated tomorrow. It has been assessed as a low risk investment by both the council and the Local Economic Partnership who are the other contributor. The same scheme is being used to fund capital projects around the country, I'll see if I can get a list of these together for next week. Eugenius

1:12pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

I usually am always in favour or any development in Brighton, residential, retail, industrial or leisure. I've always maintained that Brighton is a living, evolving city not a museum piece and I always try and shout down the reactionary Luddites whose knee-jerk reaction is always to oppose.

Consequently I should be warmly welcoming this scheme, and I AM in favour (Mr Kitkat's benefit analysis is correct) - but why couldn't private money be found? What return will we see on our investment? What happens if the repayments can't be made? Given the parlous state of the City's finances this does seem a bit of an unnecessary risk.
I usually am always in favour or any development in Brighton, residential, retail, industrial or leisure. I've always maintained that Brighton is a living, evolving city not a museum piece and I always try and shout down the reactionary Luddites whose knee-jerk reaction is always to oppose. Consequently I should be warmly welcoming this scheme, and I AM in favour (Mr Kitkat's benefit analysis is correct) - but why couldn't private money be found? What return will we see on our investment? What happens if the repayments can't be made? Given the parlous state of the City's finances this does seem a bit of an unnecessary risk. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit

1:16pm Wed 26 Feb 14

gazzamagoo says...

It'll boost trade if people can afford to park here by the time it's built.
It'll boost trade if people can afford to park here by the time it's built. gazzamagoo

1:22pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Fight_Back wrote:
I'll repeat the question I've constantly asked and this time aim it at the Tories ( the Greens have failed to answer it previously ) :

"Who pays the loan repayments if the developer can't ? "
The taxpayer does. And what is more this would be preceded by BHCC throwing as many bucketloads of cash into emergency marketing as it could divert in order to rescue ticket sales or even filling it with free parties of school kids or something pour encourager les autres to buy tickets.

Then the city would not only have to repay the loan out of council tax/local grant/bank reserves, but it would then have to either spend money trying to sell on the i360 it then owns or spend money running and maintaining it.

There is no known way of dismantling it. Nothing planned. Ever.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: I'll repeat the question I've constantly asked and this time aim it at the Tories ( the Greens have failed to answer it previously ) : "Who pays the loan repayments if the developer can't ? "[/p][/quote]The taxpayer does. And what is more this would be preceded by BHCC throwing as many bucketloads of cash into emergency marketing as it could divert in order to rescue ticket sales or even filling it with free parties of school kids or something pour encourager les autres to buy tickets. Then the city would not only have to repay the loan out of council tax/local grant/bank reserves, but it would then have to either spend money trying to sell on the i360 it then owns or spend money running and maintaining it. There is no known way of dismantling it. Nothing planned. Ever. Valerie Paynter

1:22pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

If the very optimistic visitor numbers don't materialise, and the attraction fails, the developer will go bust and the taxpayer will be left with the debt, along with an attraction which is anything but and which has no alternative uses.

The Greens and the Tories have failed to deliver any major projects - no new swimming pool, leisure centre, conference centre - and hardly any new housing. If this type of financing is such a safe and sensible idea, why haven't they used it to fund those?

I've just received the agenda for next Thursday's meeting, where the Greens and Tories will vote for the i360 loan. Where the detailed report setting out the financing, the risk and information on why the private sector won't risk any money on this project should be, it just says "to follow".
If the very optimistic visitor numbers don't materialise, and the attraction fails, the developer will go bust and the taxpayer will be left with the debt, along with an attraction which is anything but and which has no alternative uses. The Greens and the Tories have failed to deliver any major projects - no new swimming pool, leisure centre, conference centre - and hardly any new housing. If this type of financing is such a safe and sensible idea, why haven't they used it to fund those? I've just received the agenda for next Thursday's meeting, where the Greens and Tories will vote for the i360 loan. Where the detailed report setting out the financing, the risk and information on why the private sector won't risk any money on this project should be, it just says "to follow". Warren Morgan

1:25pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
This is only true so long as there are hundreds of ticket sales DAILY ad infinitum. Or at least for 36 or so years. Otherwise BHCC has to repay whatever is left of the unpaid loan.

Who do YOU think is going to be indemnifying the loan against i360 failure?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]This is only true so long as there are hundreds of ticket sales DAILY ad infinitum. Or at least for 36 or so years. Otherwise BHCC has to repay whatever is left of the unpaid loan. Who do YOU think is going to be indemnifying the loan against i360 failure? Valerie Paynter

1:30pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Never imagined an arch Tory like Geoffrey Theobald would back a nationalised, state-backed begging bowl handout newbuild seafront toy.

As some kind of incentive to other developers too. Who will all now use he precedent to claim they cannot get backing for their 'transformative' ventures so please can BHCC stump up?
Never imagined an arch Tory like Geoffrey Theobald would back a nationalised, state-backed begging bowl handout newbuild seafront toy. As some kind of incentive to other developers too. Who will all now use he precedent to claim they cannot get backing for their 'transformative' ventures so please can BHCC stump up? Valerie Paynter

1:34pm Wed 26 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Unbelievable! Nobody wants this and I guarantee that none of the councillors voting for this folly would gamble their own money on it. Can someone please answer the question asked many times about what happens when the developer cannot pay back the loan? I say when and not if, because the costs and benefits do not add up. The only good thing about it is the Conservatives may now lose the next election!
Unbelievable! Nobody wants this and I guarantee that none of the councillors voting for this folly would gamble their own money on it. Can someone please answer the question asked many times about what happens when the developer cannot pay back the loan? I say when and not if, because the costs and benefits do not add up. The only good thing about it is the Conservatives may now lose the next election! thevoiceoftruth

1:36pm Wed 26 Feb 14

rayellerton says...

Eugenius wrote:
rayellerton wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?
I was dealing with the insinuation that this was a misuse of council tax - it's nothing to do with council tax or the budget which is being debated tomorrow.

It has been assessed as a low risk investment by both the council and the Local Economic Partnership who are the other contributor. The same scheme is being used to fund capital projects around the country, I'll see if I can get a list of these together for next week.
you speak with the assured knowledge of someone close to this project....do you have any financial interests? or are you just talking it up as a part of 'some' party policy? Perhaps you could not be so shy and supply your real name like Warren Morgan does..
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?[/p][/quote]I was dealing with the insinuation that this was a misuse of council tax - it's nothing to do with council tax or the budget which is being debated tomorrow. It has been assessed as a low risk investment by both the council and the Local Economic Partnership who are the other contributor. The same scheme is being used to fund capital projects around the country, I'll see if I can get a list of these together for next week.[/p][/quote]you speak with the assured knowledge of someone close to this project....do you have any financial interests? or are you just talking it up as a part of 'some' party policy? Perhaps you could not be so shy and supply your real name like Warren Morgan does.. rayellerton

1:43pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Richada says...

rayellerton wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?
.......I don't really need to answer that on his behalf do I?

OK I will, because he's excellent at spinning the question in hand until evaded completely, YES he does think we are stupid, as does his good friend Cllr Theobold it would seem.
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?[/p][/quote].......I don't really need to answer that on his behalf do I? OK I will, because he's excellent at spinning the question in hand until evaded completely, YES he does think we are stupid, as does his good friend Cllr Theobold it would seem. Richada

1:47pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Richada says...

rayellerton wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
rayellerton wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?
I was dealing with the insinuation that this was a misuse of council tax - it's nothing to do with council tax or the budget which is being debated tomorrow.

It has been assessed as a low risk investment by both the council and the Local Economic Partnership who are the other contributor. The same scheme is being used to fund capital projects around the country, I'll see if I can get a list of these together for next week.
you speak with the assured knowledge of someone close to this project....do you have any financial interests? or are you just talking it up as a part of 'some' party policy? Perhaps you could not be so shy and supply your real name like Warren Morgan does..
"Financial interest" - now that raises an interesting point, wonder if "Eugenius" and Cllr Theobold would be prepared to risk their own hard earned cash on this - and if so, how much?
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?[/p][/quote]I was dealing with the insinuation that this was a misuse of council tax - it's nothing to do with council tax or the budget which is being debated tomorrow. It has been assessed as a low risk investment by both the council and the Local Economic Partnership who are the other contributor. The same scheme is being used to fund capital projects around the country, I'll see if I can get a list of these together for next week.[/p][/quote]you speak with the assured knowledge of someone close to this project....do you have any financial interests? or are you just talking it up as a part of 'some' party policy? Perhaps you could not be so shy and supply your real name like Warren Morgan does..[/p][/quote]"Financial interest" - now that raises an interesting point, wonder if "Eugenius" and Cllr Theobold would be prepared to risk their own hard earned cash on this - and if so, how much? Richada

2:09pm Wed 26 Feb 14

brighton bluenose says...

The idea that this will pull in 2,000+ punters every day of the week, every week of the year and for enough years to pay this debt off is an absolute joke!!
The idea that this will pull in 2,000+ punters every day of the week, every week of the year and for enough years to pay this debt off is an absolute joke!! brighton bluenose

2:15pm Wed 26 Feb 14

stir up says...

In the end the council will be making money out of this loan that can be funnelled back to services it can only be good for the whole area.
This argument reminds me of the time when the Sydney Opera house in Australia was first started all the critics were against it and said it was a waste of money, now it is seen as a major asset to Sydney and an icon.
There are no critics of it now they have all hidden themselves away.
In the end the council will be making money out of this loan that can be funnelled back to services it can only be good for the whole area. This argument reminds me of the time when the Sydney Opera house in Australia was first started all the critics were against it and said it was a waste of money, now it is seen as a major asset to Sydney and an icon. There are no critics of it now they have all hidden themselves away. stir up

2:46pm Wed 26 Feb 14

RottingdeanRant says...

stir up wrote:
In the end the council will be making money out of this loan that can be funnelled back to services it can only be good for the whole area.
This argument reminds me of the time when the Sydney Opera house in Australia was first started all the critics were against it and said it was a waste of money, now it is seen as a major asset to Sydney and an icon.
There are no critics of it now they have all hidden themselves away.
If there was money to be made then private investors would have supported the scheme. Notwithstanding this, I don’t want the council ‘investing’ my money I want it spent on essential local services. If they have spare to invest then let me keep it and I will invest it myself!
[quote][p][bold]stir up[/bold] wrote: In the end the council will be making money out of this loan that can be funnelled back to services it can only be good for the whole area. This argument reminds me of the time when the Sydney Opera house in Australia was first started all the critics were against it and said it was a waste of money, now it is seen as a major asset to Sydney and an icon. There are no critics of it now they have all hidden themselves away.[/p][/quote]If there was money to be made then private investors would have supported the scheme. Notwithstanding this, I don’t want the council ‘investing’ my money I want it spent on essential local services. If they have spare to invest then let me keep it and I will invest it myself! RottingdeanRant

2:46pm Wed 26 Feb 14

rayellerton says...

stir up wrote:
In the end the council will be making money out of this loan that can be funnelled back to services it can only be good for the whole area.
This argument reminds me of the time when the Sydney Opera house in Australia was first started all the critics were against it and said it was a waste of money, now it is seen as a major asset to Sydney and an icon.
There are no critics of it now they have all hidden themselves away.
You are talking about a major architectural celebration in that country's biggest city... how can you compare that to an ugly observation tower with views over ermmm sea, and houses? The i360 is tacky, and does not fit within its environs... at least the Spinnaker Tower reflects Portsmouth's maritime heritage..
[quote][p][bold]stir up[/bold] wrote: In the end the council will be making money out of this loan that can be funnelled back to services it can only be good for the whole area. This argument reminds me of the time when the Sydney Opera house in Australia was first started all the critics were against it and said it was a waste of money, now it is seen as a major asset to Sydney and an icon. There are no critics of it now they have all hidden themselves away.[/p][/quote]You are talking about a major architectural celebration in that country's biggest city... how can you compare that to an ugly observation tower with views over ermmm sea, and houses? The i360 is tacky, and does not fit within its environs... at least the Spinnaker Tower reflects Portsmouth's maritime heritage.. rayellerton

2:50pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Kedge says...

It will be a wonderful vantage point for all the Peeping Toms with high-powered binoculars.
It will be a wonderful vantage point for all the Peeping Toms with high-powered binoculars. Kedge

2:57pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Kate234 says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
If the very optimistic visitor numbers don't materialise, and the attraction fails, the developer will go bust and the taxpayer will be left with the debt, along with an attraction which is anything but and which has no alternative uses.

The Greens and the Tories have failed to deliver any major projects - no new swimming pool, leisure centre, conference centre - and hardly any new housing. If this type of financing is such a safe and sensible idea, why haven't they used it to fund those?

I've just received the agenda for next Thursday's meeting, where the Greens and Tories will vote for the i360 loan. Where the detailed report setting out the financing, the risk and information on why the private sector won't risk any money on this project should be, it just says "to follow".
Well down Brighton council for at last doing something positive for business and prosperity in the city. It is great that the council is doing something positive for the city at last.

I am sure in 10 years time when this has become an iconic symbol of Brighton many people will be grateful this project went ahead.

I bet lots of people moaned about putting up the piers or the council taking over the pavilion many years ago. Now we all benefit from the legacy that the Victorians with vision left us in the city.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: If the very optimistic visitor numbers don't materialise, and the attraction fails, the developer will go bust and the taxpayer will be left with the debt, along with an attraction which is anything but and which has no alternative uses. The Greens and the Tories have failed to deliver any major projects - no new swimming pool, leisure centre, conference centre - and hardly any new housing. If this type of financing is such a safe and sensible idea, why haven't they used it to fund those? I've just received the agenda for next Thursday's meeting, where the Greens and Tories will vote for the i360 loan. Where the detailed report setting out the financing, the risk and information on why the private sector won't risk any money on this project should be, it just says "to follow".[/p][/quote]Well down Brighton council for at last doing something positive for business and prosperity in the city. It is great that the council is doing something positive for the city at last. I am sure in 10 years time when this has become an iconic symbol of Brighton many people will be grateful this project went ahead. I bet lots of people moaned about putting up the piers or the council taking over the pavilion many years ago. Now we all benefit from the legacy that the Victorians with vision left us in the city. Kate234

3:09pm Wed 26 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

RottingdeanRant wrote:
Say no and email simon.kirby.mp@parli

ament.co.uk and brighton@tory.org
Simon is a no hoper. He couldn't tie his shoelaces without Cameron telling him his fly is undone!
[quote][p][bold]RottingdeanRant[/bold] wrote: Say no and email simon.kirby.mp@parli ament.co.uk and brighton@tory.org[/p][/quote]Simon is a no hoper. He couldn't tie his shoelaces without Cameron telling him his fly is undone! mimseycal

3:12pm Wed 26 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius wrote:
DGee wrote:
Why oh why couldn't this money be used to restore our beloved West Pier. This tower is a complete waste of money. We also need more leisure facilities, an ice rink for example so that we can bring our Tigers back what a great legacy that would be. Bristol are going to build the biggest Snow Dome and snow board facility in the country soon, the youth of this city need these type of facilities. Its a backwood looking council, shame on them.
I would personally have preferred a restored West Pier but the West Pier Trust couldn't make the sums work, a pier has higher maintenance costs than an observation tower, would be less profitable and therefore a riskier venture.
The I360 couldn't make their sums work either ... That is why we have to underwrite this loan in the first place!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DGee[/bold] wrote: Why oh why couldn't this money be used to restore our beloved West Pier. This tower is a complete waste of money. We also need more leisure facilities, an ice rink for example so that we can bring our Tigers back what a great legacy that would be. Bristol are going to build the biggest Snow Dome and snow board facility in the country soon, the youth of this city need these type of facilities. Its a backwood looking council, shame on them.[/p][/quote]I would personally have preferred a restored West Pier but the West Pier Trust couldn't make the sums work, a pier has higher maintenance costs than an observation tower, would be less profitable and therefore a riskier venture.[/p][/quote]The I360 couldn't make their sums work either ... That is why we have to underwrite this loan in the first place! mimseycal

3:18pm Wed 26 Feb 14

s_james says...

Mark_Hove wrote:
Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it.
that's some feat.
Its interesting looking at the Argus archive to see the news stories when this was first proposed – they are all extremely positive, including about the design. There was a poll in September 2006: “What do you think of the plans to build the i360, also known as the Brighton Eye?

From Thursday, September 7, to Monday, September 18 we asked you, the Argus website readers, the above question. After two weeks of voting, in which 888 votes were cast, the results were:

70.8% It's a great idea. What a fantastic attraction for Brighton and Hove! 629 votes,
26.6%The city doesn't need this silly building and the extra tourists it will attract. 236 votes,
2.6% Don't know. 23 votes”

So its clear design is not a major issue for the majority of people. I can understand concerns over any public funds but from the facts that I have seen the case for pressing ahead appears robust. If would be easy for either or both of the Tories and Greens to wash their hands of it for an apparent short term popularity boost, but the fact that two parties from opposite ends of the spectrum are in favour, having both examined the detailed figures, satisfies me of its merits.
[quote][p][bold]Mark_Hove[/bold] wrote: Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it. that's some feat.[/p][/quote]Its interesting looking at the Argus archive to see the news stories when this was first proposed – they are all extremely positive, including about the design. There was a poll in September 2006: “What do you think of the plans to build the i360, also known as the Brighton Eye? From Thursday, September 7, to Monday, September 18 we asked you, the Argus website readers, the above question. After two weeks of voting, in which 888 votes were cast, the results were: 70.8% It's a great idea. What a fantastic attraction for Brighton and Hove! 629 votes, 26.6%The city doesn't need this silly building and the extra tourists it will attract. 236 votes, 2.6% Don't know. 23 votes” So its clear design is not a major issue for the majority of people. I can understand concerns over any public funds but from the facts that I have seen the case for pressing ahead appears robust. If would be easy for either or both of the Tories and Greens to wash their hands of it for an apparent short term popularity boost, but the fact that two parties from opposite ends of the spectrum are in favour, having both examined the detailed figures, satisfies me of its merits. s_james

3:21pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”
From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.” Warren Morgan

3:31pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Hovite says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”
Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”[/p][/quote]Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be? Hovite

3:36pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Hovite says...

Hovite wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”
Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?
Sorry I see you included that there is interest on the loan. What will be the total repayment be?
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”[/p][/quote]Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?[/p][/quote]Sorry I see you included that there is interest on the loan. What will be the total repayment be? Hovite

3:36pm Wed 26 Feb 14

monkeymoo says...

£36m to build a stupid tower...
...at the same as saying 'not enough money to keep public sector running'!?

ie: Fire & Rescue service in East Sussex to lose fire engines and firefighters, South East Coast Ambulance service already struggling to meet attendance times through lack of staff, and far less police on the streets than is needed.

Im confused!
£36m to build a stupid tower... ...at the same as saying 'not enough money to keep public sector running'!? ie: Fire & Rescue service in East Sussex to lose fire engines and firefighters, South East Coast Ambulance service already struggling to meet attendance times through lack of staff, and far less police on the streets than is needed. Im confused! monkeymoo

3:36pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

Hovite wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”
Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?
No it isn't interest free. As the papers still haven't been published I don't have any estimate of what that will be.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”[/p][/quote]Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?[/p][/quote]No it isn't interest free. As the papers still haven't been published I don't have any estimate of what that will be. Warren Morgan

3:46pm Wed 26 Feb 14

s_james says...

Hovite wrote:
Hovite wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”
Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?
Sorry I see you included that there is interest on the loan. What will be the total repayment be?
I understand from Cllr Cox's blog that the Council is charged 4% interest and is lending the money onto the i360 company Marks Barfield at 7.8%, thus making a profit.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”[/p][/quote]Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?[/p][/quote]Sorry I see you included that there is interest on the loan. What will be the total repayment be?[/p][/quote]I understand from Cllr Cox's blog that the Council is charged 4% interest and is lending the money onto the i360 company Marks Barfield at 7.8%, thus making a profit. s_james

4:14pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Hovite says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
Hovite wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”
Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?
No it isn't interest free. As the papers still haven't been published I don't have any estimate of what that will be.
Thanks, and do you know if they have actually secured the £20m funding from the Equity providers? Also with the estimate of 800,000 people using it each year, would you know what the breakeven usage is?

One more question; When the papers are published will the finer financial details of the project and business plan be made in full or will it be selective, as it would be good to see the maximum, medium & minimum footfall projections and breakeven figures?
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”[/p][/quote]Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?[/p][/quote]No it isn't interest free. As the papers still haven't been published I don't have any estimate of what that will be.[/p][/quote]Thanks, and do you know if they have actually secured the £20m funding from the Equity providers? Also with the estimate of 800,000 people using it each year, would you know what the breakeven usage is? One more question; When the papers are published will the finer financial details of the project and business plan be made in full or will it be selective, as it would be good to see the maximum, medium & minimum footfall projections and breakeven figures? Hovite

4:16pm Wed 26 Feb 14

spa301 says...

s_james wrote:
Mark_Hove wrote: Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it. that's some feat.
Its interesting looking at the Argus archive to see the news stories when this was first proposed – they are all extremely positive, including about the design. There was a poll in September 2006: “What do you think of the plans to build the i360, also known as the Brighton Eye? From Thursday, September 7, to Monday, September 18 we asked you, the Argus website readers, the above question. After two weeks of voting, in which 888 votes were cast, the results were: 70.8% It's a great idea. What a fantastic attraction for Brighton and Hove! 629 votes, 26.6%The city doesn't need this silly building and the extra tourists it will attract. 236 votes, 2.6% Don't know. 23 votes” So its clear design is not a major issue for the majority of people. I can understand concerns over any public funds but from the facts that I have seen the case for pressing ahead appears robust. If would be easy for either or both of the Tories and Greens to wash their hands of it for an apparent short term popularity boost, but the fact that two parties from opposite ends of the spectrum are in favour, having both examined the detailed figures, satisfies me of its merits.
Surely 8 years ago the financial outlook in general was a lot rosier than it is now?
With all the cuts and general financial gloom the situation is now a lot less optimistic so I don't see why we should be persuaded by the views of 629 people 8 years ago.
I believe we as a city/country now have far more pressing financial needs than building a futuristic viewing tower with views of what exactly.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark_Hove[/bold] wrote: Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it. that's some feat.[/p][/quote]Its interesting looking at the Argus archive to see the news stories when this was first proposed – they are all extremely positive, including about the design. There was a poll in September 2006: “What do you think of the plans to build the i360, also known as the Brighton Eye? From Thursday, September 7, to Monday, September 18 we asked you, the Argus website readers, the above question. After two weeks of voting, in which 888 votes were cast, the results were: 70.8% It's a great idea. What a fantastic attraction for Brighton and Hove! 629 votes, 26.6%The city doesn't need this silly building and the extra tourists it will attract. 236 votes, 2.6% Don't know. 23 votes” So its clear design is not a major issue for the majority of people. I can understand concerns over any public funds but from the facts that I have seen the case for pressing ahead appears robust. If would be easy for either or both of the Tories and Greens to wash their hands of it for an apparent short term popularity boost, but the fact that two parties from opposite ends of the spectrum are in favour, having both examined the detailed figures, satisfies me of its merits.[/p][/quote]Surely 8 years ago the financial outlook in general was a lot rosier than it is now? With all the cuts and general financial gloom the situation is now a lot less optimistic so I don't see why we should be persuaded by the views of 629 people 8 years ago. I believe we as a city/country now have far more pressing financial needs than building a futuristic viewing tower with views of what exactly. spa301

4:17pm Wed 26 Feb 14

john newman says...

. If you do not improve the transport links how are these tourists going to reach Brighton?? Train service awful, especially at weekends and a bus station from circa 1965
. If you do not improve the transport links how are these tourists going to reach Brighton?? Train service awful, especially at weekends and a bus station from circa 1965 john newman

4:28pm Wed 26 Feb 14

rolivan says...

Hovite wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
Hovite wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”
Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?
No it isn't interest free. As the papers still haven't been published I don't have any estimate of what that will be.
Thanks, and do you know if they have actually secured the £20m funding from the Equity providers? Also with the estimate of 800,000 people using it each year, would you know what the breakeven usage is?

One more question; When the papers are published will the finer financial details of the project and business plan be made in full or will it be selective, as it would be good to see the maximum, medium & minimum footfall projections and breakeven figures?
If the papers haven't been published how is it that a figure of £1m a year will be earnt by the Council from the Funding.
[quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”[/p][/quote]Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?[/p][/quote]No it isn't interest free. As the papers still haven't been published I don't have any estimate of what that will be.[/p][/quote]Thanks, and do you know if they have actually secured the £20m funding from the Equity providers? Also with the estimate of 800,000 people using it each year, would you know what the breakeven usage is? One more question; When the papers are published will the finer financial details of the project and business plan be made in full or will it be selective, as it would be good to see the maximum, medium & minimum footfall projections and breakeven figures?[/p][/quote]If the papers haven't been published how is it that a figure of £1m a year will be earnt by the Council from the Funding. rolivan

4:32pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Hovite says...

s_james wrote:
Hovite wrote:
Hovite wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”
Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?
Sorry I see you included that there is interest on the loan. What will be the total repayment be?
I understand from Cllr Cox's blog that the Council is charged 4% interest and is lending the money onto the i360 company Marks Barfield at 7.8%, thus making a profit.
Thanks, so the council will initially earn about £600k per annum from it, plus business rates for the site.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hovite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: From the 2012 report approving the previous £17.8 million loan: “The Council loan will now be capped at £17.8m and the LEP contribution will remain at £3m. The remainder of the funding will, as previously agreed, be contributed by the Equity providers, who will fund £20m of the total project cost and (as previously) carry the greater risk burden....The council will be committed to repaying the loan, together with all interest accruing thereon.”[/p][/quote]Is it an interest free loan and if not, what will the total repayment be?[/p][/quote]Sorry I see you included that there is interest on the loan. What will be the total repayment be?[/p][/quote]I understand from Cllr Cox's blog that the Council is charged 4% interest and is lending the money onto the i360 company Marks Barfield at 7.8%, thus making a profit.[/p][/quote]Thanks, so the council will initially earn about £600k per annum from it, plus business rates for the site. Hovite

4:47pm Wed 26 Feb 14

PorkyChopper says...

Eugenius wrote:
rayellerton wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer.

Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.
Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?
I was dealing with the insinuation that this was a misuse of council tax - it's nothing to do with council tax or the budget which is being debated tomorrow.

It has been assessed as a low risk investment by both the council and the Local Economic Partnership who are the other contributor. The same scheme is being used to fund capital projects around the country, I'll see if I can get a list of these together for next week.
If it's such a low risk investment, then why aren't private companies queuing up to put their money into it? I'll tell you why. Because it ISN'T A LOW RISK INVESTMENT. The income projections were pulled out of thin air. This is a blatant fraud, and should be investigated thoroughly. I've asked the council several times how they arrived at the figures, but have yet to receive an answer. The only people who will make any money on this are the corrupt councillors who will be getting a nice little backhander from the developers. Trebles all round!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: i360 will not be funded from council tax revenue, the council would be acting as agent for a loan from Central government to the developer. Public works loan cannot be used to pay for day to day services so there is no opportunity cost, this is not money which could be spent elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Wherever the source it all comes back to being taxpayers money....do you think we are stupid?[/p][/quote]I was dealing with the insinuation that this was a misuse of council tax - it's nothing to do with council tax or the budget which is being debated tomorrow. It has been assessed as a low risk investment by both the council and the Local Economic Partnership who are the other contributor. The same scheme is being used to fund capital projects around the country, I'll see if I can get a list of these together for next week.[/p][/quote]If it's such a low risk investment, then why aren't private companies queuing up to put their money into it? I'll tell you why. Because it ISN'T A LOW RISK INVESTMENT. The income projections were pulled out of thin air. This is a blatant fraud, and should be investigated thoroughly. I've asked the council several times how they arrived at the figures, but have yet to receive an answer. The only people who will make any money on this are the corrupt councillors who will be getting a nice little backhander from the developers. Trebles all round! PorkyChopper

4:49pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Richada says...

s_james wrote:
Mark_Hove wrote:
Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it.
that's some feat.
Its interesting looking at the Argus archive to see the news stories when this was first proposed – they are all extremely positive, including about the design. There was a poll in September 2006: “What do you think of the plans to build the i360, also known as the Brighton Eye?

From Thursday, September 7, to Monday, September 18 we asked you, the Argus website readers, the above question. After two weeks of voting, in which 888 votes were cast, the results were:

70.8% It's a great idea. What a fantastic attraction for Brighton and Hove! 629 votes,
26.6%The city doesn't need this silly building and the extra tourists it will attract. 236 votes,
2.6% Don't know. 23 votes”

So its clear design is not a major issue for the majority of people. I can understand concerns over any public funds but from the facts that I have seen the case for pressing ahead appears robust. If would be easy for either or both of the Tories and Greens to wash their hands of it for an apparent short term popularity boost, but the fact that two parties from opposite ends of the spectrum are in favour, having both examined the detailed figures, satisfies me of its merits.
It is indeed a matter of public funds.

At the time - i.e. six years ago, I may well have been voting in favour, the scheme was fresh then and I do not remember (I may be wrong my memory is awful!) it being linked with the council and government in this way financially. Had I been aware then that we would all be financing this (as taxpayers) I would not have voted for it.

Indeed, if private enterprise were to fund this, I probably would be in favour now - I put far more store in professional business decision makers than I do hack politicians who have done nothing but let this city down.

The main problem here is that the "facts" that you have seen presented are based, largely, upon visitor estimates, which are at best optimistic, at worst totally misleading.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark_Hove[/bold] wrote: Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it. that's some feat.[/p][/quote]Its interesting looking at the Argus archive to see the news stories when this was first proposed – they are all extremely positive, including about the design. There was a poll in September 2006: “What do you think of the plans to build the i360, also known as the Brighton Eye? From Thursday, September 7, to Monday, September 18 we asked you, the Argus website readers, the above question. After two weeks of voting, in which 888 votes were cast, the results were: 70.8% It's a great idea. What a fantastic attraction for Brighton and Hove! 629 votes, 26.6%The city doesn't need this silly building and the extra tourists it will attract. 236 votes, 2.6% Don't know. 23 votes” So its clear design is not a major issue for the majority of people. I can understand concerns over any public funds but from the facts that I have seen the case for pressing ahead appears robust. If would be easy for either or both of the Tories and Greens to wash their hands of it for an apparent short term popularity boost, but the fact that two parties from opposite ends of the spectrum are in favour, having both examined the detailed figures, satisfies me of its merits.[/p][/quote]It is indeed a matter of public funds. At the time - i.e. six years ago, I may well have been voting in favour, the scheme was fresh then and I do not remember (I may be wrong my memory is awful!) it being linked with the council and government in this way financially. Had I been aware then that we would all be financing this (as taxpayers) I would not have voted for it. Indeed, if private enterprise were to fund this, I probably would be in favour now - I put far more store in professional business decision makers than I do hack politicians who have done nothing but let this city down. The main problem here is that the "facts" that you have seen presented are based, largely, upon visitor estimates, which are at best optimistic, at worst totally misleading. Richada

4:49pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Strange Town says...

This is madness if they are to borrow £36m a more worth while project would be a new conference centre to replace the aging and decaying current 70's monolith. Conference business generates over £50million into the local economy every year and would pay for itself a lot quicker than the i360. Another option would be for an arena at the Black Rock site again the payback would be a lot quicker and of more benefit to the local community, the i360 is aimed at the tourist market which seems to be holding up quite nicely looking at the traffic problems at weekends.
Come on power mongers re think this one.
This is madness if they are to borrow £36m a more worth while project would be a new conference centre to replace the aging and decaying current 70's monolith. Conference business generates over £50million into the local economy every year and would pay for itself a lot quicker than the i360. Another option would be for an arena at the Black Rock site again the payback would be a lot quicker and of more benefit to the local community, the i360 is aimed at the tourist market which seems to be holding up quite nicely looking at the traffic problems at weekends. Come on power mongers re think this one. Strange Town

4:53pm Wed 26 Feb 14

PorkyChopper says...

s_james wrote:
Mark_Hove wrote:
Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it.
that's some feat.
Its interesting looking at the Argus archive to see the news stories when this was first proposed – they are all extremely positive, including about the design. There was a poll in September 2006: “What do you think of the plans to build the i360, also known as the Brighton Eye?

From Thursday, September 7, to Monday, September 18 we asked you, the Argus website readers, the above question. After two weeks of voting, in which 888 votes were cast, the results were:

70.8% It's a great idea. What a fantastic attraction for Brighton and Hove! 629 votes,
26.6%The city doesn't need this silly building and the extra tourists it will attract. 236 votes,
2.6% Don't know. 23 votes”

So its clear design is not a major issue for the majority of people. I can understand concerns over any public funds but from the facts that I have seen the case for pressing ahead appears robust. If would be easy for either or both of the Tories and Greens to wash their hands of it for an apparent short term popularity boost, but the fact that two parties from opposite ends of the spectrum are in favour, having both examined the detailed figures, satisfies me of its merits.
Thing is, the "figures" are complete horse ****.
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark_Hove[/bold] wrote: Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it. that's some feat.[/p][/quote]Its interesting looking at the Argus archive to see the news stories when this was first proposed – they are all extremely positive, including about the design. There was a poll in September 2006: “What do you think of the plans to build the i360, also known as the Brighton Eye? From Thursday, September 7, to Monday, September 18 we asked you, the Argus website readers, the above question. After two weeks of voting, in which 888 votes were cast, the results were: 70.8% It's a great idea. What a fantastic attraction for Brighton and Hove! 629 votes, 26.6%The city doesn't need this silly building and the extra tourists it will attract. 236 votes, 2.6% Don't know. 23 votes” So its clear design is not a major issue for the majority of people. I can understand concerns over any public funds but from the facts that I have seen the case for pressing ahead appears robust. If would be easy for either or both of the Tories and Greens to wash their hands of it for an apparent short term popularity boost, but the fact that two parties from opposite ends of the spectrum are in favour, having both examined the detailed figures, satisfies me of its merits.[/p][/quote]Thing is, the "figures" are complete horse ****. PorkyChopper

4:55pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Hovite says...

I guess the risk is that if Marks Barfield have got the figures wrong, and cannot pay the loan, they will be committed to paying the full £600k interest each year plus business rates forever.

At worst they could go bankrupt, lose all their own money and not pay a penny, leaving the council and our community to pay back the loan.

Ultimately the council are responsible for paying back the loan, which means the council payers may have to if they get this wrong.
I guess the risk is that if Marks Barfield have got the figures wrong, and cannot pay the loan, they will be committed to paying the full £600k interest each year plus business rates forever. At worst they could go bankrupt, lose all their own money and not pay a penny, leaving the council and our community to pay back the loan. Ultimately the council are responsible for paying back the loan, which means the council payers may have to if they get this wrong. Hovite

4:58pm Wed 26 Feb 14

PorkyChopper says...

Richada wrote:
s_james wrote:
Mark_Hove wrote:
Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it.
that's some feat.
Its interesting looking at the Argus archive to see the news stories when this was first proposed – they are all extremely positive, including about the design. There was a poll in September 2006: “What do you think of the plans to build the i360, also known as the Brighton Eye?

From Thursday, September 7, to Monday, September 18 we asked you, the Argus website readers, the above question. After two weeks of voting, in which 888 votes were cast, the results were:

70.8% It's a great idea. What a fantastic attraction for Brighton and Hove! 629 votes,
26.6%The city doesn't need this silly building and the extra tourists it will attract. 236 votes,
2.6% Don't know. 23 votes”

So its clear design is not a major issue for the majority of people. I can understand concerns over any public funds but from the facts that I have seen the case for pressing ahead appears robust. If would be easy for either or both of the Tories and Greens to wash their hands of it for an apparent short term popularity boost, but the fact that two parties from opposite ends of the spectrum are in favour, having both examined the detailed figures, satisfies me of its merits.
It is indeed a matter of public funds.

At the time - i.e. six years ago, I may well have been voting in favour, the scheme was fresh then and I do not remember (I may be wrong my memory is awful!) it being linked with the council and government in this way financially. Had I been aware then that we would all be financing this (as taxpayers) I would not have voted for it.

Indeed, if private enterprise were to fund this, I probably would be in favour now - I put far more store in professional business decision makers than I do hack politicians who have done nothing but let this city down.

The main problem here is that the "facts" that you have seen presented are based, largely, upon visitor estimates, which are at best optimistic, at worst totally misleading.
Richada wrote:
The main problem here is that the "facts" that you have seen presented are based, largely, upon visitor estimates, which are at best optimistic, at worst totally misleading.

Misleading? They are nothing but a pack of lies.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark_Hove[/bold] wrote: Blooming hell. From the artists impression above, it actually manages to be a bigger eyesore than the 1960s tower block behind it. that's some feat.[/p][/quote]Its interesting looking at the Argus archive to see the news stories when this was first proposed – they are all extremely positive, including about the design. There was a poll in September 2006: “What do you think of the plans to build the i360, also known as the Brighton Eye? From Thursday, September 7, to Monday, September 18 we asked you, the Argus website readers, the above question. After two weeks of voting, in which 888 votes were cast, the results were: 70.8% It's a great idea. What a fantastic attraction for Brighton and Hove! 629 votes, 26.6%The city doesn't need this silly building and the extra tourists it will attract. 236 votes, 2.6% Don't know. 23 votes” So its clear design is not a major issue for the majority of people. I can understand concerns over any public funds but from the facts that I have seen the case for pressing ahead appears robust. If would be easy for either or both of the Tories and Greens to wash their hands of it for an apparent short term popularity boost, but the fact that two parties from opposite ends of the spectrum are in favour, having both examined the detailed figures, satisfies me of its merits.[/p][/quote]It is indeed a matter of public funds. At the time - i.e. six years ago, I may well have been voting in favour, the scheme was fresh then and I do not remember (I may be wrong my memory is awful!) it being linked with the council and government in this way financially. Had I been aware then that we would all be financing this (as taxpayers) I would not have voted for it. Indeed, if private enterprise were to fund this, I probably would be in favour now - I put far more store in professional business decision makers than I do hack politicians who have done nothing but let this city down. The main problem here is that the "facts" that you have seen presented are based, largely, upon visitor estimates, which are at best optimistic, at worst totally misleading.[/p][/quote]Richada wrote: The main problem here is that the "facts" that you have seen presented are based, largely, upon visitor estimates, which are at best optimistic, at worst totally misleading. Misleading? They are nothing but a pack of lies. PorkyChopper

5:01pm Wed 26 Feb 14

ronrostog says...

White Elephant in the making. What the hell is there to look at? You get better views from the top of Elm Grove. Madness, utter madness.
White Elephant in the making. What the hell is there to look at? You get better views from the top of Elm Grove. Madness, utter madness. ronrostog

5:05pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Fyrebird says...

Looks like I might be in the minority of people commenting but I really want this to happen. The seafront is in bad decline because people fight against any development that has been proposed. Some people are never happy and trot out "spend the money on schools etc" as a reason to not move Brighton forward. The West Piet trust failed badly and the old dear is about about to fall into the sea, as it's the 21st century the i360 is a modern version of the pier which is very different to the nearby Brighton pier. The area is being renovated and many a local business will benefit from encouraging people to keep coming to Brighton. The seafront needs help and support from us and not the constant moaning and lack of vision for this cities future.
Looks like I might be in the minority of people commenting but I really want this to happen. The seafront is in bad decline because people fight against any development that has been proposed. Some people are never happy and trot out "spend the money on schools etc" as a reason to not move Brighton forward. The West Piet trust failed badly and the old dear is about about to fall into the sea, as it's the 21st century the i360 is a modern version of the pier which is very different to the nearby Brighton pier. The area is being renovated and many a local business will benefit from encouraging people to keep coming to Brighton. The seafront needs help and support from us and not the constant moaning and lack of vision for this cities future. Fyrebird

5:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

I can do it for only a £15 million loan and probably pay it all back sooner with more interest.
Tory and Green Party loons just need to meet me at Heathrow Airport with the cash. I'll email a receipt as soon as I've caught my flight.

It's important you don't water the magic beans I give you until I call you from my mountain cave. Reception is intermittent -so don't worry if you don't hear from me.
Yes, yes whatever you want - what's that? 200 people, every 20 minutes, three times an hour 8 hours a day - rain or shine...consider it done...lovely jubbly.
I can do it for only a £15 million loan and probably pay it all back sooner with more interest. Tory and Green Party loons just need to meet me at Heathrow Airport with the cash. I'll email a receipt as soon as I've caught my flight. It's important you don't water the magic beans I give you until I call you from my mountain cave. Reception is intermittent -so don't worry if you don't hear from me. Yes, yes whatever you want - what's that? 200 people, every 20 minutes, three times an hour 8 hours a day - rain or shine...consider it done...lovely jubbly. From beer to uncertainty

5:22pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Old Ale Man says...

Why dont you email your own conservative ward councillors and ask him or her if they supported the i360 or not???
Why dont you email your own conservative ward councillors and ask him or her if they supported the i360 or not??? Old Ale Man

5:40pm Wed 26 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Fyrebird wrote:
Looks like I might be in the minority of people commenting but I really want this to happen. The seafront is in bad decline because people fight against any development that has been proposed. Some people are never happy and trot out "spend the money on schools etc" as a reason to not move Brighton forward. The West Piet trust failed badly and the old dear is about about to fall into the sea, as it's the 21st century the i360 is a modern version of the pier which is very different to the nearby Brighton pier. The area is being renovated and many a local business will benefit from encouraging people to keep coming to Brighton. The seafront needs help and support from us and not the constant moaning and lack of vision for this cities future.
One donut on a stick is not going to redevelop the seafront ... no matter how many millions you throw at it.
[quote][p][bold]Fyrebird[/bold] wrote: Looks like I might be in the minority of people commenting but I really want this to happen. The seafront is in bad decline because people fight against any development that has been proposed. Some people are never happy and trot out "spend the money on schools etc" as a reason to not move Brighton forward. The West Piet trust failed badly and the old dear is about about to fall into the sea, as it's the 21st century the i360 is a modern version of the pier which is very different to the nearby Brighton pier. The area is being renovated and many a local business will benefit from encouraging people to keep coming to Brighton. The seafront needs help and support from us and not the constant moaning and lack of vision for this cities future.[/p][/quote]One donut on a stick is not going to redevelop the seafront ... no matter how many millions you throw at it. mimseycal

5:54pm Wed 26 Feb 14

jimpy762 says...

That wretched tower is a folly.
That wretched tower is a folly. jimpy762

6:03pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Spx says...

Viewing platform, £40million to get it going at least another £40 to finish. Delays due to finances = a building site for 5 years. 25 if the West Pier Trust are involved!
Viewing platform, £40million to get it going at least another £40 to finish. Delays due to finances = a building site for 5 years. 25 if the West Pier Trust are involved! Spx

6:26pm Wed 26 Feb 14

tez1959 says...

hope you all realise that the greens have arranged a car park free to cyclist because they love em to bits and cant do enough for them bless em all
hope you all realise that the greens have arranged a car park free to cyclist because they love em to bits and cant do enough for them bless em all tez1959

6:47pm Wed 26 Feb 14

albion64 says...

Tailgaters Anonymous wrote:
Only saving grace will be that 180 degrees of the view from it will be away from Brighton over the sea!!
You live in Hove then?
[quote][p][bold]Tailgaters Anonymous[/bold] wrote: Only saving grace will be that 180 degrees of the view from it will be away from Brighton over the sea!![/p][/quote]You live in Hove then? albion64

6:54pm Wed 26 Feb 14

albion64 says...

ronrostog wrote:
White Elephant in the making. What the hell is there to look at? You get better views from the top of Elm Grove. Madness, utter madness.
I agree. There isn't anything of note to see. Plus the design is limited/restricted in that only a certain number of people can use the tower at any one time.

The Spinnaker tower in Southsea has no such restriction and has a steady flow of visitors. The i360 is total rubbish IMHO. I will be one of the first on it when it is built of course : )
[quote][p][bold]ronrostog[/bold] wrote: White Elephant in the making. What the hell is there to look at? You get better views from the top of Elm Grove. Madness, utter madness.[/p][/quote]I agree. There isn't anything of note to see. Plus the design is limited/restricted in that only a certain number of people can use the tower at any one time. The Spinnaker tower in Southsea has no such restriction and has a steady flow of visitors. The i360 is total rubbish IMHO. I will be one of the first on it when it is built of course : ) albion64

7:14pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Alison Smith says...

I wonder if Mr Nash & the Prince Regent faced this amount of backlash when they built the Pavilion!
I wonder if Mr Nash & the Prince Regent faced this amount of backlash when they built the Pavilion! Alison Smith

7:38pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Unlike other attractions the elevator lift cage just offers a ride up, a look around and a ride down. 10 mins to load/unload and 20 mins going up and down again. Two trips an hour. Nothing else.

Great place for the police to monitor a demo or for it to double as an onshore lighthouse I guess.....

The cost of building and maintaining this lift service will mean expensive tickets too.
Unlike other attractions the elevator lift cage just offers a ride up, a look around and a ride down. 10 mins to load/unload and 20 mins going up and down again. Two trips an hour. Nothing else. Great place for the police to monitor a demo or for it to double as an onshore lighthouse I guess..... The cost of building and maintaining this lift service will mean expensive tickets too. Valerie Paynter

7:41pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Challenger88 says...

What a ridiculous decision. £36 million that the city doesn't have on a project which was misguided from the start. It will struggle to get the visitors it needs and to be a success it needs lots of them them all year round, what about the winter, what about every cloudy, fog ridden day when people have the sense not to venture up? What about the total lack of parking in the vicinity? Why, if it's such a good idea, couldn't they find another private backer? So many questions without answer!

The London eye has done very well because it's London, a world famous and to be honest far more interesting view than here where you have the sea on one side and a fairly unremarkable looking city stretching towards the Downs on the other.

If it's a failure the city will then have a useless pile of steel of on it's hands which will cost money to either maintain or pull down. Brighton & Hove needs to look to the future and invest money to keep visitors interested, but their are much better ways to do it. A new ice rink, a lido in Hove (or back at Black Rock), a separate art gallery with the museum being expanded and revamped at the same time, a new music venue in the old Hippodrome and pedestrianising the North Laine area are just a few ideas that spring to mind.

Above all the city needs a cosmetic clean-up and more affordable housing for the residents. Tories/Greens get your priorities in order!
What a ridiculous decision. £36 million that the city doesn't have on a project which was misguided from the start. It will struggle to get the visitors it needs and to be a success it needs lots of them them all year round, what about the winter, what about every cloudy, fog ridden day when people have the sense not to venture up? What about the total lack of parking in the vicinity? Why, if it's such a good idea, couldn't they find another private backer? So many questions without answer! The London eye has done very well because it's London, a world famous and to be honest far more interesting view than here where you have the sea on one side and a fairly unremarkable looking city stretching towards the Downs on the other. If it's a failure the city will then have a useless pile of steel of on it's hands which will cost money to either maintain or pull down. Brighton & Hove needs to look to the future and invest money to keep visitors interested, but their are much better ways to do it. A new ice rink, a lido in Hove (or back at Black Rock), a separate art gallery with the museum being expanded and revamped at the same time, a new music venue in the old Hippodrome and pedestrianising the North Laine area are just a few ideas that spring to mind. Above all the city needs a cosmetic clean-up and more affordable housing for the residents. Tories/Greens get your priorities in order! Challenger88

8:04pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Richada says...

Alison Smith wrote:
I wonder if Mr Nash & the Prince Regent faced this amount of backlash when they built the Pavilion!
Don't think Prince Charles has any intention of taking up residence in the i360 somehow.
[quote][p][bold]Alison Smith[/bold] wrote: I wonder if Mr Nash & the Prince Regent faced this amount of backlash when they built the Pavilion![/p][/quote]Don't think Prince Charles has any intention of taking up residence in the i360 somehow. Richada

8:10pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Richada says...

Fyrebird wrote:
Looks like I might be in the minority of people commenting but I really want this to happen. The seafront is in bad decline because people fight against any development that has been proposed. Some people are never happy and trot out "spend the money on schools etc" as a reason to not move Brighton forward. The West Piet trust failed badly and the old dear is about about to fall into the sea, as it's the 21st century the i360 is a modern version of the pier which is very different to the nearby Brighton pier. The area is being renovated and many a local business will benefit from encouraging people to keep coming to Brighton. The seafront needs help and support from us and not the constant moaning and lack of vision for this cities future.
Have a look at the West Pier "Trust" website and I think you'll find that they have very little to do with the Pier and an awful lot to do with the i360 - they themselves are another very good reason why this project, even if built, is almost sure to be a financial disaster.
[quote][p][bold]Fyrebird[/bold] wrote: Looks like I might be in the minority of people commenting but I really want this to happen. The seafront is in bad decline because people fight against any development that has been proposed. Some people are never happy and trot out "spend the money on schools etc" as a reason to not move Brighton forward. The West Piet trust failed badly and the old dear is about about to fall into the sea, as it's the 21st century the i360 is a modern version of the pier which is very different to the nearby Brighton pier. The area is being renovated and many a local business will benefit from encouraging people to keep coming to Brighton. The seafront needs help and support from us and not the constant moaning and lack of vision for this cities future.[/p][/quote]Have a look at the West Pier "Trust" website and I think you'll find that they have very little to do with the Pier and an awful lot to do with the i360 - they themselves are another very good reason why this project, even if built, is almost sure to be a financial disaster. Richada

9:04pm Wed 26 Feb 14

All 9 of me says...

Fyrebird wrote:
Looks like I might be in the minority of people commenting but I really want this to happen. The seafront is in bad decline because people fight against any development that has been proposed. Some people are never happy and trot out "spend the money on schools etc" as a reason to not move Brighton forward. The West Piet trust failed badly and the old dear is about about to fall into the sea, as it's the 21st century the i360 is a modern version of the pier which is very different to the nearby Brighton pier. The area is being renovated and many a local business will benefit from encouraging people to keep coming to Brighton. The seafront needs help and support from us and not the constant moaning and lack of vision for this cities future.
It's the Palace pier.
[quote][p][bold]Fyrebird[/bold] wrote: Looks like I might be in the minority of people commenting but I really want this to happen. The seafront is in bad decline because people fight against any development that has been proposed. Some people are never happy and trot out "spend the money on schools etc" as a reason to not move Brighton forward. The West Piet trust failed badly and the old dear is about about to fall into the sea, as it's the 21st century the i360 is a modern version of the pier which is very different to the nearby Brighton pier. The area is being renovated and many a local business will benefit from encouraging people to keep coming to Brighton. The seafront needs help and support from us and not the constant moaning and lack of vision for this cities future.[/p][/quote]It's the Palace pier. All 9 of me

9:17pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

It was said in a previous council meeting, I think it was, that one reason for private backers pulling out is the fact that BHCC was priority creditor over private investors when the loan was 'only' £17m with £3m Coast to Capital grant and the remaining £16m coming from private finance.

They did not like their ranking which put a failed i360 into local authority hands and seized ownership with their investment simply forfeit. So now BHCC gives all the backing and takes all the risk and looks forward to inheriting the high maintenance relic in due course
It was said in a previous council meeting, I think it was, that one reason for private backers pulling out is the fact that BHCC was priority creditor over private investors when the loan was 'only' £17m with £3m Coast to Capital grant and the remaining £16m coming from private finance. They did not like their ranking which put a failed i360 into local authority hands and seized ownership with their investment simply forfeit. So now BHCC gives all the backing and takes all the risk and looks forward to inheriting the high maintenance relic in due course Valerie Paynter

9:29pm Wed 26 Feb 14

TMichael Evans says...

Hooray - a vote of confidence in the future of Brighton and Hove!
Hooray - a vote of confidence in the future of Brighton and Hove! TMichael Evans

9:54pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Challenger88 wrote:
What a ridiculous decision. £36 million that the city doesn't have on a project which was misguided from the start. It will struggle to get the visitors it needs and to be a success it needs lots of them them all year round, what about the winter, what about every cloudy, fog ridden day when people have the sense not to venture up? What about the total lack of parking in the vicinity? Why, if it's such a good idea, couldn't they find another private backer? So many questions without answer!

The London eye has done very well because it's London, a world famous and to be honest far more interesting view than here where you have the sea on one side and a fairly unremarkable looking city stretching towards the Downs on the other.

If it's a failure the city will then have a useless pile of steel of on it's hands which will cost money to either maintain or pull down. Brighton & Hove needs to look to the future and invest money to keep visitors interested, but their are much better ways to do it. A new ice rink, a lido in Hove (or back at Black Rock), a separate art gallery with the museum being expanded and revamped at the same time, a new music venue in the old Hippodrome and pedestrianising the North Laine area are just a few ideas that spring to mind.

Above all the city needs a cosmetic clean-up and more affordable housing for the residents. Tories/Greens get your priorities in order!
The London Eye has visitors all year round, in all weather, by virtue of the advance ticketing system which the i360 would copy.

In the current climate, private investors get a quicker return on housing development and they can't take advantage of the low interest rates offered by the Public Works Loan Board, at least not directly. There is added incentive for the council because of the expected increase in the business rates base, both directly in the local area and indirectly from higher tourist numbers.

I like your suggestions for other improvements but sadly the council does not have the money to carry out these works - the point which everyone struggles to grasp is that there is a private investor paying for the i360 development at the end of the day, and they will be paying the council interest and a share of ticket sales.
[quote][p][bold]Challenger88[/bold] wrote: What a ridiculous decision. £36 million that the city doesn't have on a project which was misguided from the start. It will struggle to get the visitors it needs and to be a success it needs lots of them them all year round, what about the winter, what about every cloudy, fog ridden day when people have the sense not to venture up? What about the total lack of parking in the vicinity? Why, if it's such a good idea, couldn't they find another private backer? So many questions without answer! The London eye has done very well because it's London, a world famous and to be honest far more interesting view than here where you have the sea on one side and a fairly unremarkable looking city stretching towards the Downs on the other. If it's a failure the city will then have a useless pile of steel of on it's hands which will cost money to either maintain or pull down. Brighton & Hove needs to look to the future and invest money to keep visitors interested, but their are much better ways to do it. A new ice rink, a lido in Hove (or back at Black Rock), a separate art gallery with the museum being expanded and revamped at the same time, a new music venue in the old Hippodrome and pedestrianising the North Laine area are just a few ideas that spring to mind. Above all the city needs a cosmetic clean-up and more affordable housing for the residents. Tories/Greens get your priorities in order![/p][/quote]The London Eye has visitors all year round, in all weather, by virtue of the advance ticketing system which the i360 would copy. In the current climate, private investors get a quicker return on housing development and they can't take advantage of the low interest rates offered by the Public Works Loan Board, at least not directly. There is added incentive for the council because of the expected increase in the business rates base, both directly in the local area and indirectly from higher tourist numbers. I like your suggestions for other improvements but sadly the council does not have the money to carry out these works - the point which everyone struggles to grasp is that there is a private investor paying for the i360 development at the end of the day, and they will be paying the council interest and a share of ticket sales. Eugenius

10:01pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Unlike other attractions the elevator lift cage just offers a ride up, a look around and a ride down. 10 mins to load/unload and 20 mins going up and down again. Two trips an hour. Nothing else.

Great place for the police to monitor a demo or for it to double as an onshore lighthouse I guess.....

The cost of building and maintaining this lift service will mean expensive tickets too.
I have a feeling the ticket pricing information in the briefing I attended was commercially confident so I'm not sure I can share that just yet but it wasn't expensive - only slightly more than the Brighton Wheel and a lot less than the London Eye.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Unlike other attractions the elevator lift cage just offers a ride up, a look around and a ride down. 10 mins to load/unload and 20 mins going up and down again. Two trips an hour. Nothing else. Great place for the police to monitor a demo or for it to double as an onshore lighthouse I guess..... The cost of building and maintaining this lift service will mean expensive tickets too.[/p][/quote]I have a feeling the ticket pricing information in the briefing I attended was commercially confident so I'm not sure I can share that just yet but it wasn't expensive - only slightly more than the Brighton Wheel and a lot less than the London Eye. Eugenius

10:48pm Wed 26 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius it isn't often that I pull commenters up but really dearling ... I'll disregard your attempt at making yourself appear as a confident of the wheeler dealer high rollers as it is rather patheticly too obvious that you are anything but. Someone who was really privy to that sort of behind closed doors discussion would certainly not feel the need to announce it on a local paper comments thread ...

As for the rest ... Firstly, the Brighton Wheel sees very little action precisely because it is so expensive for what is effectively not a very unique experience. Secondly, Brighton is not London. It doesn't have the architectural wonders of London nor have Brighton rooftops been romanticised in a movie ... Poppins and Mary are two words that jump to mind here.
Eugenius it isn't often that I pull commenters up but really dearling ... I'll disregard your attempt at making yourself appear as a confident of the wheeler dealer high rollers as it is rather patheticly too obvious that you are anything but. Someone who was really privy to that sort of behind closed doors discussion would certainly not feel the need to announce it on a local paper comments thread ... As for the rest ... Firstly, the Brighton Wheel sees very little action precisely because it is so expensive for what is effectively not a very unique experience. Secondly, Brighton is not London. It doesn't have the architectural wonders of London nor have Brighton rooftops been romanticised in a movie ... Poppins and Mary are two words that jump to mind here. mimseycal

11:10pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

mimseycal wrote:
Eugenius it isn't often that I pull commenters up but really dearling ... I'll disregard your attempt at making yourself appear as a confident of the wheeler dealer high rollers as it is rather patheticly too obvious that you are anything but. Someone who was really privy to that sort of behind closed doors discussion would certainly not feel the need to announce it on a local paper comments thread ...

As for the rest ... Firstly, the Brighton Wheel sees very little action precisely because it is so expensive for what is effectively not a very unique experience. Secondly, Brighton is not London. It doesn't have the architectural wonders of London nor have Brighton rooftops been romanticised in a movie ... Poppins and Mary are two words that jump to mind here.
I wasn't trying impress - the fact is that while Warren was setting out an edict to ban his Labour councillor colleagues from attending the briefings (and only showed up for half of the briefing himself, hence his scant understanding of the business case), Jason negotiated to allow regular Green Party members to attend and observe.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Eugenius it isn't often that I pull commenters up but really dearling ... I'll disregard your attempt at making yourself appear as a confident of the wheeler dealer high rollers as it is rather patheticly too obvious that you are anything but. Someone who was really privy to that sort of behind closed doors discussion would certainly not feel the need to announce it on a local paper comments thread ... As for the rest ... Firstly, the Brighton Wheel sees very little action precisely because it is so expensive for what is effectively not a very unique experience. Secondly, Brighton is not London. It doesn't have the architectural wonders of London nor have Brighton rooftops been romanticised in a movie ... Poppins and Mary are two words that jump to mind here.[/p][/quote]I wasn't trying impress - the fact is that while Warren was setting out an edict to ban his Labour councillor colleagues from attending the briefings (and only showed up for half of the briefing himself, hence his scant understanding of the business case), Jason negotiated to allow regular Green Party members to attend and observe. Eugenius

11:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

whatevernext2013 says...

if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time
if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time whatevernext2013

11:26pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Eugenius says...

whatevernext2013 wrote:
if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time
I know what you mean but Brighton wheel must still be making a profit or it would have closed by now?

i360 is a different beast, it would be 4 times the height of the wheel and be the most hi-tech attraction in the country.
[quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time[/p][/quote]I know what you mean but Brighton wheel must still be making a profit or it would have closed by now? i360 is a different beast, it would be 4 times the height of the wheel and be the most hi-tech attraction in the country. Eugenius

11:42pm Wed 26 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Eugenius it isn't often that I pull commenters up but really dearling ... I'll disregard your attempt at making yourself appear as a confident of the wheeler dealer high rollers as it is rather patheticly too obvious that you are anything but. Someone who was really privy to that sort of behind closed doors discussion would certainly not feel the need to announce it on a local paper comments thread ...

As for the rest ... Firstly, the Brighton Wheel sees very little action precisely because it is so expensive for what is effectively not a very unique experience. Secondly, Brighton is not London. It doesn't have the architectural wonders of London nor have Brighton rooftops been romanticised in a movie ... Poppins and Mary are two words that jump to mind here.
I wasn't trying impress - the fact is that while Warren was setting out an edict to ban his Labour councillor colleagues from attending the briefings (and only showed up for half of the briefing himself, hence his scant understanding of the business case), Jason negotiated to allow regular Green Party members to attend and observe.
I believe you Eugenius ... when I am in my 'White Queen' mode I am always willing to believe as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast. I also grow preannuals next year ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Eugenius it isn't often that I pull commenters up but really dearling ... I'll disregard your attempt at making yourself appear as a confident of the wheeler dealer high rollers as it is rather patheticly too obvious that you are anything but. Someone who was really privy to that sort of behind closed doors discussion would certainly not feel the need to announce it on a local paper comments thread ... As for the rest ... Firstly, the Brighton Wheel sees very little action precisely because it is so expensive for what is effectively not a very unique experience. Secondly, Brighton is not London. It doesn't have the architectural wonders of London nor have Brighton rooftops been romanticised in a movie ... Poppins and Mary are two words that jump to mind here.[/p][/quote]I wasn't trying impress - the fact is that while Warren was setting out an edict to ban his Labour councillor colleagues from attending the briefings (and only showed up for half of the briefing himself, hence his scant understanding of the business case), Jason negotiated to allow regular Green Party members to attend and observe.[/p][/quote]I believe you Eugenius ... when I am in my 'White Queen' mode I am always willing to believe as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast. I also grow preannuals next year ;-) mimseycal

11:50pm Wed 26 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Eugenius wrote:
whatevernext2013 wrote:
if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time
I know what you mean but Brighton wheel must still be making a profit or it would have closed by now?

i360 is a different beast, it would be 4 times the height of the wheel and be the most hi-tech attraction in the country.
You mean you don't know? No one has told you whether or not the Wheel is making a profit?

Well, it has planning permission to stay till 2016. We'll see then whether it packs up its pods ... it is transportable after all.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time[/p][/quote]I know what you mean but Brighton wheel must still be making a profit or it would have closed by now? i360 is a different beast, it would be 4 times the height of the wheel and be the most hi-tech attraction in the country.[/p][/quote]You mean you don't know? No one has told you whether or not the Wheel is making a profit? Well, it has planning permission to stay till 2016. We'll see then whether it packs up its pods ... it is transportable after all. mimseycal

12:08am Thu 27 Feb 14

whatevernext2013 says...

mimseycal wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
whatevernext2013 wrote:
if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time
I know what you mean but Brighton wheel must still be making a profit or it would have closed by now?

i360 is a different beast, it would be 4 times the height of the wheel and be the most hi-tech attraction in the country.
You mean you don't know? No one has told you whether or not the Wheel is making a profit?

Well, it has planning permission to stay till 2016. We'll see then whether it packs up its pods ... it is transportable after all.
i still wondering were will all the visitors come from ,as you cant drive to the city any more the price of a train ticket is the same price as food for the week so unless we are going to get mr harris to do an offer on tickets on the bus ,i think its a non starter
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time[/p][/quote]I know what you mean but Brighton wheel must still be making a profit or it would have closed by now? i360 is a different beast, it would be 4 times the height of the wheel and be the most hi-tech attraction in the country.[/p][/quote]You mean you don't know? No one has told you whether or not the Wheel is making a profit? Well, it has planning permission to stay till 2016. We'll see then whether it packs up its pods ... it is transportable after all.[/p][/quote]i still wondering were will all the visitors come from ,as you cant drive to the city any more the price of a train ticket is the same price as food for the week so unless we are going to get mr harris to do an offer on tickets on the bus ,i think its a non starter whatevernext2013

12:40am Thu 27 Feb 14

Nitrous_McBread says...

Does anyone here actually fancy paying to go up on this glorified **** ring?
Does anyone here actually fancy paying to go up on this glorified **** ring? Nitrous_McBread

8:04am Thu 27 Feb 14

hoveguyactually says...

An appalling waste of money. It is an ugly and unnecessary structure, totally out of scale with its surroundings, and one that belongs in a fairground, not in that location. Its dominant height is in direct proportion to the vanity, arrogance and crass stupidity of our council and politicians, whose obsession with tourism, at the expense of other local requirements, is of no benefit to the majority of ratepayers.
Meanwhile social services and road conditions are in a dire condition. Crime is on the increase (just read the Argus every day), with hardly ever any sign of the police on the street. Shops are closing at a rapid rate (take a look at North Street now). A better way of attracting visitors to the city would be a more sensible attitude to parking charges, traffic flow, better pedestrian spaces, and a concentration on making it a place where people will enjoy shopping and leisure. Building this hideous and expensive atrocity, that will be a burden on future ratepayers, is not the right approach.
An appalling waste of money. It is an ugly and unnecessary structure, totally out of scale with its surroundings, and one that belongs in a fairground, not in that location. Its dominant height is in direct proportion to the vanity, arrogance and crass stupidity of our council and politicians, whose obsession with tourism, at the expense of other local requirements, is of no benefit to the majority of ratepayers. Meanwhile social services and road conditions are in a dire condition. Crime is on the increase (just read the Argus every day), with hardly ever any sign of the police on the street. Shops are closing at a rapid rate (take a look at North Street now). A better way of attracting visitors to the city would be a more sensible attitude to parking charges, traffic flow, better pedestrian spaces, and a concentration on making it a place where people will enjoy shopping and leisure. Building this hideous and expensive atrocity, that will be a burden on future ratepayers, is not the right approach. hoveguyactually

8:09am Thu 27 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Unlike other attractions the elevator lift cage just offers a ride up, a look around and a ride down. 10 mins to load/unload and 20 mins going up and down again. Two trips an hour. Nothing else.

Great place for the police to monitor a demo or for it to double as an onshore lighthouse I guess.....

The cost of building and maintaining this lift service will mean expensive tickets too.
I have a feeling the ticket pricing information in the briefing I attended was commercially confident so I'm not sure I can share that just yet but it wasn't expensive - only slightly more than the Brighton Wheel and a lot less than the London Eye.
The Brighton Wheel prices are very dear - as evidenced by the lack of customers ever riding it.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Unlike other attractions the elevator lift cage just offers a ride up, a look around and a ride down. 10 mins to load/unload and 20 mins going up and down again. Two trips an hour. Nothing else. Great place for the police to monitor a demo or for it to double as an onshore lighthouse I guess..... The cost of building and maintaining this lift service will mean expensive tickets too.[/p][/quote]I have a feeling the ticket pricing information in the briefing I attended was commercially confident so I'm not sure I can share that just yet but it wasn't expensive - only slightly more than the Brighton Wheel and a lot less than the London Eye.[/p][/quote]The Brighton Wheel prices are very dear - as evidenced by the lack of customers ever riding it. Fight_Back

8:19am Thu 27 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
whatevernext2013 wrote:
if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time
I know what you mean but Brighton wheel must still be making a profit or it would have closed by now?

i360 is a different beast, it would be 4 times the height of the wheel and be the most hi-tech attraction in the country.
In 3 years the owners of the Brighton Wheel have made around £130k - it's going to take an AWFUL long time to pay back £36m + interest if the i360 generates a similar income.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time[/p][/quote]I know what you mean but Brighton wheel must still be making a profit or it would have closed by now? i360 is a different beast, it would be 4 times the height of the wheel and be the most hi-tech attraction in the country.[/p][/quote]In 3 years the owners of the Brighton Wheel have made around £130k - it's going to take an AWFUL long time to pay back £36m + interest if the i360 generates a similar income. Fight_Back

8:55am Thu 27 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

As a life long Tory I am massively disappointed by the decision of the Conservative party to support any loan for the i360 where there is no commercial interest in financing the tower. I would feel happier if councillors voting for the scheme took personal responsibility for the loan, i.e. losing everything if it fails just like running a real business. Instead, councillors can take a punt using public money with absolutely no fear of any personal consequences. In the event that the visitor numbers fail to materialise in sufficient numbers, there is no chance of Marks Barfield paying back the loan. This means it will fall to the good old B&H taxpayer to cover the debt.

This scheme may prove popular at the start. Once it gets onto Trip Advisor and other websites that there's very little to see, watch out.....
As a life long Tory I am massively disappointed by the decision of the Conservative party to support any loan for the i360 where there is no commercial interest in financing the tower. I would feel happier if councillors voting for the scheme took personal responsibility for the loan, i.e. losing everything if it fails just like running a real business. Instead, councillors can take a punt using public money with absolutely no fear of any personal consequences. In the event that the visitor numbers fail to materialise in sufficient numbers, there is no chance of Marks Barfield paying back the loan. This means it will fall to the good old B&H taxpayer to cover the debt. This scheme may prove popular at the start. Once it gets onto Trip Advisor and other websites that there's very little to see, watch out..... Plantpot

9:11am Thu 27 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

The council cannot deliver its core services to target so how on earth it's incompetent staff think they have the skills to get involved with private industry is astonishing.
The town is filthy, utterly filthy, the housing stock run down, graffiti everywhere, dog ****, drunks, beggars and dumped hippy vans littering the streets,...all unmanaged by this council and now it wants to meddle in things it's not supposed to be involved with.
Give it a rest useless councillors from all parties. It's time Mr Theobald retired.
The council cannot deliver its core services to target so how on earth it's incompetent staff think they have the skills to get involved with private industry is astonishing. The town is filthy, utterly filthy, the housing stock run down, graffiti everywhere, dog ****, drunks, beggars and dumped hippy vans littering the streets,...all unmanaged by this council and now it wants to meddle in things it's not supposed to be involved with. Give it a rest useless councillors from all parties. It's time Mr Theobald retired. Maxwell's Ghost

9:41am Thu 27 Feb 14

scoobysnax says...

Brighton is built on Bribes, Kickbacks and Backhanders.

The dodgy councillors have made millions on this, do you honestly think they give a stuff if this money is well spent on you?

Bring on the forensic accountants. Marks and Barfield are actually bankrupt, their accounts show £1.8 million in the red, why don't you ask them where the money goes? Paying off their lawyers and lining their pockets.

When the green party gets support from the conservatives, you really have to wonder how crap and low our politicians have become. A bit like the iSore really, lets see if it gets blown down by climate change.
Brighton is built on Bribes, Kickbacks and Backhanders. The dodgy councillors have made millions on this, do you honestly think they give a stuff if this money is well spent on you? Bring on the forensic accountants. Marks and Barfield are actually bankrupt, their accounts show £1.8 million in the red, why don't you ask them where the money goes? Paying off their lawyers and lining their pockets. When the green party gets support from the conservatives, you really have to wonder how crap and low our politicians have become. A bit like the iSore really, lets see if it gets blown down by climate change. scoobysnax

9:42am Thu 27 Feb 14

spa301 says...

Who is this Eugenius that spouts off like a perpetual party political broadcast for the Greens? You can quote your figures and propaganda to your hearts content but what you and your ilk lack is a modicum of common sense. It is tragic that the Green experiment was tested on our great city. You had your chance and you've failed miserably. It will be up to us, the ignored citizens, to slowly drag ourselves out of the mire you've stuck us in.
Shame on you all.
Who is this Eugenius that spouts off like a perpetual party political broadcast for the Greens? You can quote your figures and propaganda to your hearts content but what you and your ilk lack is a modicum of common sense. It is tragic that the Green experiment was tested on our great city. You had your chance and you've failed miserably. It will be up to us, the ignored citizens, to slowly drag ourselves out of the mire you've stuck us in. Shame on you all. spa301

10:44am Thu 27 Feb 14

Richada says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The council cannot deliver its core services to target so how on earth it's incompetent staff think they have the skills to get involved with private industry is astonishing.
The town is filthy, utterly filthy, the housing stock run down, graffiti everywhere, dog ****, drunks, beggars and dumped hippy vans littering the streets,...all unmanaged by this council and now it wants to meddle in things it's not supposed to be involved with.
Give it a rest useless councillors from all parties. It's time Mr Theobald retired.
Totally agree!

The i360 is no more than a huge strip of wallpaper, a desperate PR attempt in order to paper over the colossal cracks in this council's provision of services for ALL residents of Brighton & Hove.

In colluding with the Greens, the Conservatives will also find themselves held to account by the voters at the next election and have set their own cause back just as far as the Greens
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The council cannot deliver its core services to target so how on earth it's incompetent staff think they have the skills to get involved with private industry is astonishing. The town is filthy, utterly filthy, the housing stock run down, graffiti everywhere, dog ****, drunks, beggars and dumped hippy vans littering the streets,...all unmanaged by this council and now it wants to meddle in things it's not supposed to be involved with. Give it a rest useless councillors from all parties. It's time Mr Theobald retired.[/p][/quote]Totally agree! The i360 is no more than a huge strip of wallpaper, a desperate PR attempt in order to paper over the colossal cracks in this council's provision of services for ALL residents of Brighton & Hove. In colluding with the Greens, the Conservatives will also find themselves held to account by the voters at the next election and have set their own cause back just as far as the Greens Richada

10:52am Thu 27 Feb 14

Richada says...

Nitrous_McBread wrote:
Does anyone here actually fancy paying to go up on this glorified **** ring?
That is partly going to depend on how much they charge for it - but then, those of us who know the city can stand at the top of Race Hill and enjoy a better view and not pay for the experience. With a race course, garden centre and wide open spaces to walk up there, there is far more to do anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Nitrous_McBread[/bold] wrote: Does anyone here actually fancy paying to go up on this glorified **** ring?[/p][/quote]That is partly going to depend on how much they charge for it - but then, those of us who know the city can stand at the top of Race Hill and enjoy a better view and not pay for the experience. With a race course, garden centre and wide open spaces to walk up there, there is far more to do anyway. Richada

10:54am Thu 27 Feb 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
If the very optimistic visitor numbers don't materialise, and the attraction fails, the developer will go bust and the taxpayer will be left with the debt, along with an attraction which is anything but and which has no alternative uses.

The Greens and the Tories have failed to deliver any major projects - no new swimming pool, leisure centre, conference centre - and hardly any new housing. If this type of financing is such a safe and sensible idea, why haven't they used it to fund those?

I've just received the agenda for next Thursday's meeting, where the Greens and Tories will vote for the i360 loan. Where the detailed report setting out the financing, the risk and information on why the private sector won't risk any money on this project should be, it just says "to follow".
Surely, if it is not there, then the discussion should be deferred, and if this omission is the fault of council officers, they should be held to account. Are you going to find out why this information is not available, Warren?
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: If the very optimistic visitor numbers don't materialise, and the attraction fails, the developer will go bust and the taxpayer will be left with the debt, along with an attraction which is anything but and which has no alternative uses. The Greens and the Tories have failed to deliver any major projects - no new swimming pool, leisure centre, conference centre - and hardly any new housing. If this type of financing is such a safe and sensible idea, why haven't they used it to fund those? I've just received the agenda for next Thursday's meeting, where the Greens and Tories will vote for the i360 loan. Where the detailed report setting out the financing, the risk and information on why the private sector won't risk any money on this project should be, it just says "to follow".[/p][/quote]Surely, if it is not there, then the discussion should be deferred, and if this omission is the fault of council officers, they should be held to account. Are you going to find out why this information is not available, Warren? fredflintstone1

11:02am Thu 27 Feb 14

Richada says...

Eugenius wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Unlike other attractions the elevator lift cage just offers a ride up, a look around and a ride down. 10 mins to load/unload and 20 mins going up and down again. Two trips an hour. Nothing else.

Great place for the police to monitor a demo or for it to double as an onshore lighthouse I guess.....

The cost of building and maintaining this lift service will mean expensive tickets too.
I have a feeling the ticket pricing information in the briefing I attended was commercially confident so I'm not sure I can share that just yet but it wasn't expensive - only slightly more than the Brighton Wheel and a lot less than the London Eye.
And this is the Green administrations "transparent government" is it?

As we, the council tax payers of Brighton & Hove, are taking an open ended financial risk on this, we should be entitled to some actual FACTS.

The admission charge can be fixed and stated, as it is we are only presented with partial propaganda - sorry, guestimated statistics on visitor numbers and costs - how do you expect us to support your party or this project under such circumstances.

Good job that you are NOT attempting to impress us Eugenius, because clearly, you don't!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Unlike other attractions the elevator lift cage just offers a ride up, a look around and a ride down. 10 mins to load/unload and 20 mins going up and down again. Two trips an hour. Nothing else. Great place for the police to monitor a demo or for it to double as an onshore lighthouse I guess..... The cost of building and maintaining this lift service will mean expensive tickets too.[/p][/quote]I have a feeling the ticket pricing information in the briefing I attended was commercially confident so I'm not sure I can share that just yet but it wasn't expensive - only slightly more than the Brighton Wheel and a lot less than the London Eye.[/p][/quote]And this is the Green administrations "transparent government" is it? As we, the council tax payers of Brighton & Hove, are taking an open ended financial risk on this, we should be entitled to some actual FACTS. The admission charge can be fixed and stated, as it is we are only presented with partial propaganda - sorry, guestimated statistics on visitor numbers and costs - how do you expect us to support your party or this project under such circumstances. Good job that you are NOT attempting to impress us Eugenius, because clearly, you don't! Richada

11:14am Thu 27 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
If the very optimistic visitor numbers don't materialise, and the attraction fails, the developer will go bust and the taxpayer will be left with the debt, along with an attraction which is anything but and which has no alternative uses.

The Greens and the Tories have failed to deliver any major projects - no new swimming pool, leisure centre, conference centre - and hardly any new housing. If this type of financing is such a safe and sensible idea, why haven't they used it to fund those?

I've just received the agenda for next Thursday's meeting, where the Greens and Tories will vote for the i360 loan. Where the detailed report setting out the financing, the risk and information on why the private sector won't risk any money on this project should be, it just says "to follow".
Surely, if it is not there, then the discussion should be deferred, and if this omission is the fault of council officers, they should be held to account. Are you going to find out why this information is not available, Warren?
I have, I'm expecting to be given it at 5pm tomorrow - so effectively first thing Monday. I was given sight of a draft yesterday in a 15 minute briefing, but not allowed to keep it. It will not make any difference to our opposition to this loan going ahead.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: If the very optimistic visitor numbers don't materialise, and the attraction fails, the developer will go bust and the taxpayer will be left with the debt, along with an attraction which is anything but and which has no alternative uses. The Greens and the Tories have failed to deliver any major projects - no new swimming pool, leisure centre, conference centre - and hardly any new housing. If this type of financing is such a safe and sensible idea, why haven't they used it to fund those? I've just received the agenda for next Thursday's meeting, where the Greens and Tories will vote for the i360 loan. Where the detailed report setting out the financing, the risk and information on why the private sector won't risk any money on this project should be, it just says "to follow".[/p][/quote]Surely, if it is not there, then the discussion should be deferred, and if this omission is the fault of council officers, they should be held to account. Are you going to find out why this information is not available, Warren?[/p][/quote]I have, I'm expecting to be given it at 5pm tomorrow - so effectively first thing Monday. I was given sight of a draft yesterday in a 15 minute briefing, but not allowed to keep it. It will not make any difference to our opposition to this loan going ahead. Warren Morgan

11:19am Thu 27 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

Plantpot wrote:
As a life long Tory I am massively disappointed by the decision of the Conservative party to support any loan for the i360 where there is no commercial interest in financing the tower. I would feel happier if councillors voting for the scheme took personal responsibility for the loan, i.e. losing everything if it fails just like running a real business. Instead, councillors can take a punt using public money with absolutely no fear of any personal consequences. In the event that the visitor numbers fail to materialise in sufficient numbers, there is no chance of Marks Barfield paying back the loan. This means it will fall to the good old B&H taxpayer to cover the debt.

This scheme may prove popular at the start. Once it gets onto Trip Advisor and other websites that there's very little to see, watch out.....
"no fear of any personal consequences" - it's exactly because of the consequences that I will vote against next week - I'm a local taxpayer too and to commit taxpayers to underwriting this huge loan over 27 years is not something I'm prepared to do on your behalf.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: As a life long Tory I am massively disappointed by the decision of the Conservative party to support any loan for the i360 where there is no commercial interest in financing the tower. I would feel happier if councillors voting for the scheme took personal responsibility for the loan, i.e. losing everything if it fails just like running a real business. Instead, councillors can take a punt using public money with absolutely no fear of any personal consequences. In the event that the visitor numbers fail to materialise in sufficient numbers, there is no chance of Marks Barfield paying back the loan. This means it will fall to the good old B&H taxpayer to cover the debt. This scheme may prove popular at the start. Once it gets onto Trip Advisor and other websites that there's very little to see, watch out.....[/p][/quote]"no fear of any personal consequences" - it's exactly because of the consequences that I will vote against next week - I'm a local taxpayer too and to commit taxpayers to underwriting this huge loan over 27 years is not something I'm prepared to do on your behalf. Warren Morgan

11:22am Thu 27 Feb 14

Richada says...

Eugenius wrote:
whatevernext2013 wrote:
if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time
I know what you mean but Brighton wheel must still be making a profit or it would have closed by now?

i360 is a different beast, it would be 4 times the height of the wheel and be the most hi-tech attraction in the country.
Todays hi-tech is tomorrow's very expensive to maintain, obsolete, junk, which as a "Green" I'm surprised that you are not more concerned about.

The Brighton Wheel in a sense avoids this pitfall by being transportable, for safety reasons alone, the i360 will require constant and costly maintenance. At the end of its life, however long or short that may prove to be, it will also require dismantling, unlike the West Pier which the "Trust" have had the luxury of watching fall into the sea - the i360 will prove far more of a hazard to the population if it fails through lack of maintenance.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: if this is such a great money making and self supporting venture ,why is there a need to borrow money from the council ,and has anyone ever seen the brighton eye full ,near full or even 1/4 full ,i pass it most days and have yet to see more than a handful in it at anyone time[/p][/quote]I know what you mean but Brighton wheel must still be making a profit or it would have closed by now? i360 is a different beast, it would be 4 times the height of the wheel and be the most hi-tech attraction in the country.[/p][/quote]Todays hi-tech is tomorrow's very expensive to maintain, obsolete, junk, which as a "Green" I'm surprised that you are not more concerned about. The Brighton Wheel in a sense avoids this pitfall by being transportable, for safety reasons alone, the i360 will require constant and costly maintenance. At the end of its life, however long or short that may prove to be, it will also require dismantling, unlike the West Pier which the "Trust" have had the luxury of watching fall into the sea - the i360 will prove far more of a hazard to the population if it fails through lack of maintenance. Richada

12:05pm Thu 27 Feb 14

brightonian57 says...

Alison Smith wrote:
I wonder if Mr Nash & the Prince Regent faced this amount of backlash when they built the Pavilion!
They didn't want the citizens of Brighton and Hove to pay for it
[quote][p][bold]Alison Smith[/bold] wrote: I wonder if Mr Nash & the Prince Regent faced this amount of backlash when they built the Pavilion![/p][/quote]They didn't want the citizens of Brighton and Hove to pay for it brightonian57

12:05pm Thu 27 Feb 14

brightonian57 says...

Alison Smith wrote:
I wonder if Mr Nash & the Prince Regent faced this amount of backlash when they built the Pavilion!
They didn't want the citizens of Brighton and Hove to pay for it
[quote][p][bold]Alison Smith[/bold] wrote: I wonder if Mr Nash & the Prince Regent faced this amount of backlash when they built the Pavilion![/p][/quote]They didn't want the citizens of Brighton and Hove to pay for it brightonian57

12:11pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Worthingwithoutbuses! says...

mimseycal wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
DGee wrote:
Why oh why couldn't this money be used to restore our beloved West Pier. This tower is a complete waste of money. We also need more leisure facilities, an ice rink for example so that we can bring our Tigers back what a great legacy that would be. Bristol are going to build the biggest Snow Dome and snow board facility in the country soon, the youth of this city need these type of facilities. Its a backwood looking council, shame on them.
I would personally have preferred a restored West Pier but the West Pier Trust couldn't make the sums work, a pier has higher maintenance costs than an observation tower, would be less profitable and therefore a riskier venture.
The I360 couldn't make their sums work either ... That is why we have to underwrite this loan in the first place!
"Beloved West Pier"... it is a mangled pile of rusting dangerous metal that is a total eye sore for everyone who passes it. It should be ripped down and make the area safe for water users (and no... I am not a Water Sports nutter!)

This Pier has had its day. You cannot "save" rusting chunks of mangled metal and "restore" it! If anything was to be done, it would be a TOTAL NEW rebuild, and why does Brighton need another Pier?? This is not the Victorian age when people promenaded up and down "to be seen" taking the sea air. Worthing Pier is ok, but I never go on it... The other "Theme Park on Stilts" you still call a Pier is tacky, noisy and from someone I knew who worked on it, it is held together by the paint! Its a wonder it didn't collapse in the latest storms! Why don't they spend the money on dealing with the pot holes in the roads or building a Park & Ride at the Old Cement Works near Shoreham?? That hole in the ground is so vast you could easily build enough car parking space for literally thousands of cars and then cover it over with soil and grassland. Try looking at what the have done in Switzerland for the town of Zermatt. NO CARS allowed into the town, so they park them all underground and use the train to get people up there in 15 minutes or so. With that sort of cash, they could reinstate the old Shoreham-Steyning Branch line to the Cement works (the track bed is still there), linking it straight to Brighton, non stop. But no... lets spend 40 million pounds on sodding donut on a post! Typical Brighton!
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DGee[/bold] wrote: Why oh why couldn't this money be used to restore our beloved West Pier. This tower is a complete waste of money. We also need more leisure facilities, an ice rink for example so that we can bring our Tigers back what a great legacy that would be. Bristol are going to build the biggest Snow Dome and snow board facility in the country soon, the youth of this city need these type of facilities. Its a backwood looking council, shame on them.[/p][/quote]I would personally have preferred a restored West Pier but the West Pier Trust couldn't make the sums work, a pier has higher maintenance costs than an observation tower, would be less profitable and therefore a riskier venture.[/p][/quote]The I360 couldn't make their sums work either ... That is why we have to underwrite this loan in the first place![/p][/quote]"Beloved West Pier"... it is a mangled pile of rusting dangerous metal that is a total eye sore for everyone who passes it. It should be ripped down and make the area safe for water users (and no... I am not a Water Sports nutter!) This Pier has had its day. You cannot "save" rusting chunks of mangled metal and "restore" it! If anything was to be done, it would be a TOTAL NEW rebuild, and why does Brighton need another Pier?? This is not the Victorian age when people promenaded up and down "to be seen" taking the sea air. Worthing Pier is ok, but I never go on it... The other "Theme Park on Stilts" you still call a Pier is tacky, noisy and from someone I knew who worked on it, it is held together by the paint! Its a wonder it didn't collapse in the latest storms! Why don't they spend the money on dealing with the pot holes in the roads or building a Park & Ride at the Old Cement Works near Shoreham?? That hole in the ground is so vast you could easily build enough car parking space for literally thousands of cars and then cover it over with soil and grassland. Try looking at what the have done in Switzerland for the town of Zermatt. NO CARS allowed into the town, so they park them all underground and use the train to get people up there in 15 minutes or so. With that sort of cash, they could reinstate the old Shoreham-Steyning Branch line to the Cement works (the track bed is still there), linking it straight to Brighton, non stop. But no... lets spend 40 million pounds on sodding donut on a post! Typical Brighton! Worthingwithoutbuses!

12:13pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Warren Morgan says...

Eugenius wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Eugenius it isn't often that I pull commenters up but really dearling ... I'll disregard your attempt at making yourself appear as a confident of the wheeler dealer high rollers as it is rather patheticly too obvious that you are anything but. Someone who was really privy to that sort of behind closed doors discussion would certainly not feel the need to announce it on a local paper comments thread ...

As for the rest ... Firstly, the Brighton Wheel sees very little action precisely because it is so expensive for what is effectively not a very unique experience. Secondly, Brighton is not London. It doesn't have the architectural wonders of London nor have Brighton rooftops been romanticised in a movie ... Poppins and Mary are two words that jump to mind here.
I wasn't trying impress - the fact is that while Warren was setting out an edict to ban his Labour councillor colleagues from attending the briefings (and only showed up for half of the briefing himself, hence his scant understanding of the business case), Jason negotiated to allow regular Green Party members to attend and observe.
Utterly false. I've been fully briefed on this since it came to planning eight years ago. I attended the first two hours of a (needlessly long) three hour presentation and the same day relayed the information to my Group and asked them if they wanted another briefing - in 2012 we as a Group said we would approve the partial loan to bring in private finance but no more than the £14.8m proposed at that time. Labour councillors were therefore unanimous in rejecting the briefing and opposing any further loan based on eight years of dealing with this project, not a couple of briefings.

This Green spin that somehow Labour councillors would support this huge loan if only I would let them see the facts is arrogant, misleading and untrue.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Eugenius it isn't often that I pull commenters up but really dearling ... I'll disregard your attempt at making yourself appear as a confident of the wheeler dealer high rollers as it is rather patheticly too obvious that you are anything but. Someone who was really privy to that sort of behind closed doors discussion would certainly not feel the need to announce it on a local paper comments thread ... As for the rest ... Firstly, the Brighton Wheel sees very little action precisely because it is so expensive for what is effectively not a very unique experience. Secondly, Brighton is not London. It doesn't have the architectural wonders of London nor have Brighton rooftops been romanticised in a movie ... Poppins and Mary are two words that jump to mind here.[/p][/quote]I wasn't trying impress - the fact is that while Warren was setting out an edict to ban his Labour councillor colleagues from attending the briefings (and only showed up for half of the briefing himself, hence his scant understanding of the business case), Jason negotiated to allow regular Green Party members to attend and observe.[/p][/quote]Utterly false. I've been fully briefed on this since it came to planning eight years ago. I attended the first two hours of a (needlessly long) three hour presentation and the same day relayed the information to my Group and asked them if they wanted another briefing - in 2012 we as a Group said we would approve the partial loan to bring in private finance but no more than the £14.8m proposed at that time. Labour councillors were therefore unanimous in rejecting the briefing and opposing any further loan based on eight years of dealing with this project, not a couple of briefings. This Green spin that somehow Labour councillors would support this huge loan if only I would let them see the facts is arrogant, misleading and untrue. Warren Morgan

12:26pm Thu 27 Feb 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Warren Morgan wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Warren Morgan wrote:
If the very optimistic visitor numbers don't materialise, and the attraction fails, the developer will go bust and the taxpayer will be left with the debt, along with an attraction which is anything but and which has no alternative uses.

The Greens and the Tories have failed to deliver any major projects - no new swimming pool, leisure centre, conference centre - and hardly any new housing. If this type of financing is such a safe and sensible idea, why haven't they used it to fund those?

I've just received the agenda for next Thursday's meeting, where the Greens and Tories will vote for the i360 loan. Where the detailed report setting out the financing, the risk and information on why the private sector won't risk any money on this project should be, it just says "to follow".
Surely, if it is not there, then the discussion should be deferred, and if this omission is the fault of council officers, they should be held to account. Are you going to find out why this information is not available, Warren?
I have, I'm expecting to be given it at 5pm tomorrow - so effectively first thing Monday. I was given sight of a draft yesterday in a 15 minute briefing, but not allowed to keep it. It will not make any difference to our opposition to this loan going ahead.
Good - on both counts. Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Warren Morgan[/bold] wrote: If the very optimistic visitor numbers don't materialise, and the attraction fails, the developer will go bust and the taxpayer will be left with the debt, along with an attraction which is anything but and which has no alternative uses. The Greens and the Tories have failed to deliver any major projects - no new swimming pool, leisure centre, conference centre - and hardly any new housing. If this type of financing is such a safe and sensible idea, why haven't they used it to fund those? I've just received the agenda for next Thursday's meeting, where the Greens and Tories will vote for the i360 loan. Where the detailed report setting out the financing, the risk and information on why the private sector won't risk any money on this project should be, it just says "to follow".[/p][/quote]Surely, if it is not there, then the discussion should be deferred, and if this omission is the fault of council officers, they should be held to account. Are you going to find out why this information is not available, Warren?[/p][/quote]I have, I'm expecting to be given it at 5pm tomorrow - so effectively first thing Monday. I was given sight of a draft yesterday in a 15 minute briefing, but not allowed to keep it. It will not make any difference to our opposition to this loan going ahead.[/p][/quote]Good - on both counts. Thanks. fredflintstone1

2:11pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Fairfax Aches says...

I reckon they need to get Jordan to do the opening ceremony. She well fit.
I reckon they need to get Jordan to do the opening ceremony. She well fit. Fairfax Aches

4:06pm Thu 27 Feb 14

PenPushingPauper says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Its the design of it that gets me, we have stunning regency buildings and then a giant silver and glass doughnut on a stick. It just doesn't go, much like the glass pyramid outside the Louvre in Paris, it doesn't make sense and doesn't fit in
Totally agree with this. Even forgiving the tower... The gaudy metal glass block they've chosen as the base is hideous. Renovate those beautiful arches as much as you like... Plonk that in front of it and it really won't matter much.

Maybe all this frantic seeking of funding left them with no time to do any actual design work.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: Its the design of it that gets me, we have stunning regency buildings and then a giant silver and glass doughnut on a stick. It just doesn't go, much like the glass pyramid outside the Louvre in Paris, it doesn't make sense and doesn't fit in[/p][/quote]Totally agree with this. Even forgiving the tower... The gaudy metal glass block they've chosen as the base is hideous. Renovate those beautiful arches as much as you like... Plonk that in front of it and it really won't matter much. Maybe all this frantic seeking of funding left them with no time to do any actual design work. PenPushingPauper

6:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

gfreemantle says...

Great! Just what we need, a giant phallic shaped monument. £36m? What about tidying up some of the existing crumbling eyesores such as replacing the Odeon building, at present a total disgrace, with something meaningful. Erecting something destined to fall into disrepair after it's initial fad curiosity is an irresponsible use of funds.
Great! Just what we need, a giant phallic shaped monument. £36m? What about tidying up some of the existing crumbling eyesores such as replacing the Odeon building, at present a total disgrace, with something meaningful. Erecting something destined to fall into disrepair after it's initial fad curiosity is an irresponsible use of funds. gfreemantle

11:12am Fri 28 Feb 14

listerjones says...

Well my own opinion is that the money could have been spent on better areas. The whole seafront needs a good coat of paint, the roads and infrastructure need sorting. I always thought having a beautiful restored west pier and holding plays etc there would have been a great attraction in a Victorian atmosphere, unique and very Brighton. So we have a wheel on the front, now we need a tower and half of the view is sea! We really need a change to the way things are run!. Ukip might get slated for things I really don't think they are, but at least public spending would be put to vote from the people themselves.
The greens have been terrible for Brighton and very dangerous, god only knows what financial damage they have done for the next party to clean up.
Well my own opinion is that the money could have been spent on better areas. The whole seafront needs a good coat of paint, the roads and infrastructure need sorting. I always thought having a beautiful restored west pier and holding plays etc there would have been a great attraction in a Victorian atmosphere, unique and very Brighton. So we have a wheel on the front, now we need a tower and half of the view is sea! We really need a change to the way things are run!. Ukip might get slated for things I really don't think they are, but at least public spending would be put to vote from the people themselves. The greens have been terrible for Brighton and very dangerous, god only knows what financial damage they have done for the next party to clean up. listerjones

1:31pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Weploughandmow says...

"But the roads are all still cracked and broken/ Too late now - the fools have spoken . . ."
"But the roads are all still cracked and broken/ Too late now - the fools have spoken . . ." Weploughandmow

3:16pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Richada says...

Fairfax Aches wrote:
I reckon they need to get Jordan to do the opening ceremony. She well fit.
Caroline Lucas may not agree with you on that!
[quote][p][bold]Fairfax Aches[/bold] wrote: I reckon they need to get Jordan to do the opening ceremony. She well fit.[/p][/quote]Caroline Lucas may not agree with you on that! Richada

8:37pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Pebbles907 says...

WE DON'T WANT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE DON'T WANT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pebbles907

8:41pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

rayellerton wrote:
The Conservatives have in one stroke lost any chance of becoming the next Brighton Council...as someone who would have leaned towards voting for them, i will now not. I hope there are lots of Independent candidates who have the interests of us residents to heart, and not tourists, students, travellers, demonstrators and corporates. Brighton has become a political plaything for all the wannabe MP's and MEP's who are only interested in their own personal agendas...
Couldn't agree more, well said.
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: The Conservatives have in one stroke lost any chance of becoming the next Brighton Council...as someone who would have leaned towards voting for them, i will now not. I hope there are lots of Independent candidates who have the interests of us residents to heart, and not tourists, students, travellers, demonstrators and corporates. Brighton has become a political plaything for all the wannabe MP's and MEP's who are only interested in their own personal agendas...[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said. Idontbelieveit1948

8:49pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
The idea that this will pull in 2,000+ punters every day of the week, every week of the year and for enough years to pay this debt off is an absolute joke!!
Might do if they offer free parking to visitors in Norton Road !

It's a joke by the way.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: The idea that this will pull in 2,000+ punters every day of the week, every week of the year and for enough years to pay this debt off is an absolute joke!![/p][/quote]Might do if they offer free parking to visitors in Norton Road ! It's a joke by the way. Idontbelieveit1948

10:30pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Mancgulled says...

“If we don’t grasp the nettle now, the seafront which is our shop window, will suffer a slow and inevitable decline for decades to come" -- how TF do you make that out? Typical politicians - bent as F --- something in it for all of you -- nothing for us the residents - so much for votes of no confidence -- then you wonder why nobody likes politicians - full of S*** the lot of you ...
“If we don’t grasp the nettle now, the seafront which is our shop window, will suffer a slow and inevitable decline for decades to come" -- how TF do you make that out? Typical politicians - bent as F --- something in it for all of you -- nothing for us the residents - so much for votes of no confidence -- then you wonder why nobody likes politicians - full of S*** the lot of you ... Mancgulled

4:46am Mon 3 Mar 14

Brighton voice says...

I360 or I folly? The Brighton wheel has hardly been a major commercial success and all commercial lenders have decided the risk is too high to fund the Brighton I360 tower. So why do a bunch of egoistical no hoper’s think they know better? Is it because the present administration knows it will never be trusted in Brighton again and in some demented way they want something they can point to and say we did that!
All the talk of extra visitors is pie in the sky given the Green traffic mismanagement how are these thousands supposed to arrive only by bike or train? Because the majority of visitors arrive by car so once here they face the Green’s rip off parking charges that is if they can find a place to park at all. Are they really going to come for a poor imitation to the Blackpool Tower I doubt it. Looking at the much proclaimed enabling construction will this generate extra business or visitors to our city at best doubtful. Indeed it is likely to suck the life blood out of Preston Street and the restaurants on Kings Road leaving a decaying eyesore in a major tourist area.
Will it show our city is open for investment apart from being a laughing stock and a soft touch for any idiot to rip off doubtful? So the question needs posing what or who will actually gain from this tower certainly not the local taxpayers.
The question that must be answered and the public have a right to know without further sly underhanded avoidance to the question is this. Should the company default on the loan repayment for any reason including insolvency does the council incur any liability for the debt? The risk being a multi million pound debt in this case presumably if payment is defaulted on to be picked up by the local taxpayer.
If the taxpayer is liable for the debt when it is proven to be a commercial failure funding should be declined.
I360 or I folly? The Brighton wheel has hardly been a major commercial success and all commercial lenders have decided the risk is too high to fund the Brighton I360 tower. So why do a bunch of egoistical no hoper’s think they know better? Is it because the present administration knows it will never be trusted in Brighton again and in some demented way they want something they can point to and say we did that! All the talk of extra visitors is pie in the sky given the Green traffic mismanagement how are these thousands supposed to arrive only by bike or train? Because the majority of visitors arrive by car so once here they face the Green’s rip off parking charges that is if they can find a place to park at all. Are they really going to come for a poor imitation to the Blackpool Tower I doubt it. Looking at the much proclaimed enabling construction will this generate extra business or visitors to our city at best doubtful. Indeed it is likely to suck the life blood out of Preston Street and the restaurants on Kings Road leaving a decaying eyesore in a major tourist area. Will it show our city is open for investment apart from being a laughing stock and a soft touch for any idiot to rip off doubtful? So the question needs posing what or who will actually gain from this tower certainly not the local taxpayers. The question that must be answered and the public have a right to know without further sly underhanded avoidance to the question is this. Should the company default on the loan repayment for any reason including insolvency does the council incur any liability for the debt? The risk being a multi million pound debt in this case presumably if payment is defaulted on to be picked up by the local taxpayer. If the taxpayer is liable for the debt when it is proven to be a commercial failure funding should be declined. Brighton voice

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