Rachel Clark claims that the i360 will be unique (Saturday Soapbox, April 12). It is not unique; The Argus recently published a photo of a similar tower in Tunisia (Letters, April 3).
Suitable self-supporting amenities and attractions, whether modern or traditional, should always be considered for inclusion on Brighton’s seafront so why would people object to the i360 being considered?
We now know the i360 is not a self-supporting, well-funded project. The £36 million loan carries tremendous risks with no guarantees.
The i360 could become an expensive, unnecessary liability for the people of the city.
Like Rachel Clark, Councillor Pete West (Letters, April 12) also ignores the £36 million loan and its implications.
His letter is amazing: “So the plan is to use £1 million a year plus earnings from the i360 to help pay for things such as seafront repairs,” and, “The i360 is not a toy.” He goes on: “Without its revenue it’s hard to see how we’ll ever pay to maintain the seafront.”
The council cannot save the seafront without help from many sources.
It’s an enormous task but a start could be made through a “seafront in need” fundraiser and an organized army of handy volunteers.
Brighton and Hove’s got talent – now it has the cause.
E Howard, Gladys Avenue, Peacehaven
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel