The handful of usual suspects protesting about the bid for Capital of Culture in recent days would have readers believe it dominates Brighton and Hove City Council's work to the exclusion of everything else.

Their argument basically says the £150,000 the council is spending over two years on Capital of Culture could be better spent on other things - perhaps housing. That is fair enough - local politics is basically a discussion about how public money should best be spent.

But we need to be clear about what could alternatively be bought for that sum.

The Housing Corporation, which hands out government funds to housing associations, says £150,000 is regarded as a realistic cost for building one two-bedroom unit of social housing. So even if the council could somehow divert Capital of Culture funds, it would not get a lot of housing for it.

To put the £150,000 over two years in perspective, the council annually spends 870 times more on social care (about £65 million) and roughly 1,500 times more on education (about £120 million) - every year.

The council's spending reflects its priorities. So it is fair to say the council regards issues such as education and social care as about 1,000 times more important than Capital of Culture, important though that is.

Yes, £150,000 could build one, perhaps two, affordable homes. That compares to the 248 units of social housing built in 2001/2.

Or, spent on Capital of Culture, £150,000 could provide an injection of £130 million into the local economy and provide hundreds, possibly thousands, of jobs. These are the kinds of difficult choices councils have to make all the time.

The vast majority of the council's work and money is devoted to issues of social welfare. Capital of Culture is one very modest project.

It consumes a fraction of one per cent of the council's budget. But the council believes it could bring very large returns and prevent a number of people being jobless and homeless in the future.

-Coun Ken Bodfish, Leader, Brighton and Hove City Council