The matters raised by Valerie Paynter about the King Alfred redevelopment (Letters, July 3) are particularly concerning because they show just how irresponsible councillors have been with Brighton and Hove taxpayers' money.

Our elected representatives cannot possibly have acted with due diligence when agreeing to pay for Affordable Housing Block 3 if, following construction tendering and another financial viability test, a need was demonstrated.

Earlier this year (Letters, February 20) I wrote questioning the financial viability of the King Alfred project on the grounds that the developer had not done enough investigation work even to start doing realistic sums. The point is that, without sufficient background information, a defensible financial viability test cannot be undertaken, leading to three possible outcomes.

If the developer overestimates the costs, it will be laughing all the way to the bank because Brighton and Hove City Council will already have been asked to pay for the affordable housing block. If it underestimates the costs, it will not make enough money on the project, or suffer losses - cue request to the council to bail it out. The third option, of course, is that it gets it about right, although this would be more by luck than judgment.

If the financial viability test has suggested that the project is not viable, then the council may already have been asked to pay for the social housing block.

So, whatever the outcome of Karis and ING's latest review, the chances are that taxpayers will be putting their hands in their pockets yet again.

  • John Davys, Connaught Terrace, Hove

The council has already agreed to pay the construction costs of Affordable Block 3 at the King Alfred. Now it seems that, thanks to the change in the economic climate since planning permission was obtained more than a year ago, taxpayers may be asked to pay even more toward subsidising this private development.

Many people in Brighton and Hove are really struggling to pay rising mortgage payments, rents, food bills and fuel costs in an increasingly difficult and often scary economy.

It's beyond obscene if the taxpayer is forced to pay one more penny toward funding this, or any, private development. It's outrageous that a private developer has been given public land, plus a council subsidy to build a block for its profit.

The King Alfred project has been contentious from the start, hence all the opposition and umpteen redesigns. As world-renowned architect Richard Rogers once said about it: "You can't build that there." Apparently Frank Gehry must have agreed. He never wanted to build a high-rise there in the first place.

  • William Tessier, Holland Road, Hove

I was curious to note Josh Arghiros's comments (The Argus, July 2) that he believes: "There is no reason why the sports centre cannot remain as part of the King Alfred scheme - it is integral to it." So why even hint it might not remain? The only point of the whole scheme was to build a new sports and leisure centre on Hove seafront to replace the existing one.

The 751 homes, 11 buildings and two towers are "merely" to enable the development of the sports centre. Any revised scheme removing the sports centre would surely make the whole application invalid.

  • Julie Cully, New Church Road, Hove

Hooray! At last some good news. I refer, of course, to the silver lining to the cloud of the credit crunch - the possible abandonment of the barmy scheme at the King Alfred.

As Margaret Thatcher said at the news of the first chink of light in the Falklands war - rejoice!

  • John O'Riley, Kings Drive Hassocks