Author Topic: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco  (Read 13928 times)

Offline Calimachon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
  • Gender: Female
  • http://www.amnesty.org.uk/
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #90 on: November 25, 2012, 11:31:14 AM »
Good research Jerry, so the obvious place for the police station,is obviously the Esplanade site which some say is an expensive unnecessary  build, given that the there will be another site kept for cells. So lets be clear the £21 million is to be spent to office half the men and girls in blue of Jerseys police force.

How strange is an island administration where a Government cannot pick the best most sensible option because a quango put in charge of public property says no.

Deputy Martin and the 39 politicians who saw this scam, and acted in the best interest of the island should be congratulated, not a money grabbing NOT NEEDED quango. If the council of ministers support the Jersey Development Ltd then they will be accused of "whats in it for me " corruption.

Boatyboy.

How very strange indeed!  Before long people will begin to suspect that our media is fixed - can you believe that ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Cali  :o

TOMORROW (Noun) = A mystical land where 99% of all human productivity, motivation an achievement is stored

Offline rico sorda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1450
  • locked & loaded lets rock rsx
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #91 on: November 25, 2012, 01:44:29 PM »
The States of Jersey with its ruling inner circle is simply not fit to govern. How many cock-ups and damn policies of lunacy do we have to put up with before we simply say close the front door and bloody lock it.  It is utterly shambolic. Deputy Martin, god lover her, ripped those idiots to pieces in the states. 

How many threads of lunacy do we need to start on here????? There are so many on PJ. This site is a brilliant chronicle of an Island gone stark raving bonkers. If there is an ancient law that can be found to disband the states then it should be found NOW before its to late.
one ban away from oblivion rsx

Offline danrok

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #92 on: November 26, 2012, 12:02:43 AM »
I just do not accept this supposed 'additional costs' argument of £8.5 million that the Committee of Ministers used in order to try to scare the house into accepting the original proposals. It should be pointed out that this is their most pessimistic assessment. The most optimistic one is considerably less at about £2.5 million because the latter assumes no need for underground parking or temporary staff relocation (see page 19 of the link below):

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2012/P.092-2012Com.pdf

Part of this additional cost includes £1 million to £1.5 million to undertake the build, which they claim would be incurred if there was an additional 18-month delay, due to 'inflation'. What they don't say in the same breath is that the search for a new police station site actually began way back in 1999, so using their own costs theory, the States as a whole must have already wasted many multiples of £1 million by delaying so long. If you use this flawed argument, you can't just use it as a device to stop further delays proposed by your political opponents without admitting that previous delays by the executive must have also incurred similar losses.

I simply don't believe that this is a valid argument, because big decisions like these inevitably take years and nobody can stop prices rising in the meantime. They are important matters that inevitably attract local opposition and therefore can't be rushed through just to make the books balance a little better.  If it was a valid argument, then let us presume that a major developer had to wait a year to be granted planning consent and consequently incurred additional costs of, say, £0.5 million during that year (due to inflation). Presuming a year's delay was what he should have ordinarily expected from the start, would he then have a legitimate case for reclaiming that £0.5 million from the States? I'm no expert in such matters, but I very much doubt it!

This time States Members didn't fall for it  :)  but nine times out of ten nobody bothers to challenge these things convincingly and it inevitably leads to all the sheep following the shepherd home when the votes are counted.

Their use of inflation as an argument just serves to show their inability to understand finance at the most basic level.

If you have £10m for a project, and the project is delayed, you could simply invest the cash so that it earns enough income to counter inflation.  Not exactly a difficult concept to grasp!

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #93 on: November 26, 2012, 03:22:23 PM »
Well the public could always rise up as one and demand that the states are thrown out and have new elections after all it is us that puts them in the states to look after us,so if they are not then as i say demand they go. ACOUP D'ETAT.
How could anybody resist it if the whole of the public wish it.
Room to think i believe.

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #94 on: January 31, 2013, 06:59:12 PM »
It is interesting to note that the Esplanade site was first identified as a possible location for a new police station as far back as 2001, when a review was conducted by Colin Smith & Partners. This extract from the C o M's recent comments on Deputy Martin's proposition (page 23):

This report concluded that the Island Site annexe was the most appropriate site. Subsequently, discussions with the Waterfront Enterprise Board led to a site being identified on the Esplanade Car Park (south-east corner).

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2012/P.092-2012Com.pdf

Another review was undertaken in 2003 to identify possible alternatives to the Esplanade Car Park due to "political concerns" (what were these political concerns and who was behind them?). Comically, one of the top 3 alternative venue choices was the Esplanade Car Park (north). However, this 2003 report eventually concluded that the Summerland Site was the most suitable and, as a result, the Policy and Resources Committee endorsed it.

Then in 2011, the Police Relocation Project Team reviewed the Esplanade Site once again and reported as follows (page 29):

This could meet the full requirements and would potentially be well located. However, this was part of a scheme for office accommodation for the finance sector. There was concern that the development of a Police Station on this site would impact negatively on the value of the rest of the site, and that the value of this land should not be compromised. Land is in the ownership of the States of Jersey Development Company.  ::)

Decision: Do not evaluate further.

So was it covert political pressure last year from the Jersey Development Company (formerly WEB) that scuppered the opportunity to build a new police station on the Esplanade Site? How hypocritical that they thought a police station should not be located next to finance sector office blocks in case it had a negative impact on the value of the land, yet they had no such reservations about choosing to site it at Green Street Car Park, directly overlooking the balconies of residents of a private apartment block!  >:(

Yet more confirmation that the Jersey Development Company's existing plans for offices on the Esplanade site, inspired by the potential high market value of that land, are scuppering any attempt to relocate the new police station to the Esplanade. I found the following comments about the Esplanade site given by Barry Taylor, Deputy Police Chief, in a submission to Scrutiny dated 10th January 2013 (see page 8 of the link below):

Quote
The Esplanade site has often been mooted as a suitable location for a PHQ.

This is simply not available to the SoJP. The land is in the ownership of the Jersey Development Corporation and plans are advanced for the construction of offices for the Jersey finance industry.

The land value attracts premium prices and is not within the scope of the public sector.

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/ScrutinyReviewSubmissions/Submission%20-%20Proposed%20Relocation%20of%20Police%20HQ%20-%20%20Deputy%20Chief%20of%20Police%20-%2010%20January%202013.pdf

Two questions-

1) How advanced are these plans for offices now?

2) How can the land not be "within the scope of the public sector"? This seems to imply that not even the elected government of the island could interfere with the Jersey Development Company's existing plans for the Esplanade. I don't agree. Quite simply the political will to do so is currently not there, which would seem to make the relocation to the Green Street car park almost inevitable at this stage.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2013, 07:05:30 PM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #95 on: March 06, 2013, 05:56:04 PM »
The proposal requesting the Planning and Environment Minister not to approve any development of a new police headquarters in Green Street car park was defeated in the House this morning by 29 votes to 19, with the P & E Minister abstaining. For St Helier No. 1 electors, it will be worth noting that  one of their representatives, Deputy James Baker (Establishment),  voted against this proposition, in other words, in favour of a police station in Green Street car park.

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2012/P.092-2012.pdf

It will be interesting to see how he defends that decision when he stands for re-election next year, possibly with construction of the station under way by that time, causing inconvenience to many nearby residents.

http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=504166
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 05:59:08 PM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3493
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #96 on: November 23, 2013, 01:07:44 AM »
The Economic madness of the Treasury Minister.

If you had £7,000 in the bank earning some interest, why would you want to go to a bank and borrow £2,500 and pay higher loan interest.?

This is exactly what Senator Ozouf is doing by not touching the £700 million approx.  strategic ( rainy day ) fund, for housing. A reason for this could be a) to protect the pensions and pay of the public sector. b) By getting islanders children in to a situation whereby they will have to pay back loans over decades for the mishandling of the economy by this Government and subservient generation who allowed them to. As banking income for Jersey slowly slides down hill, the treasury minister increases spending by over 12% in three years of recession to almost two billion pounds. Let us hope the Chinese and Asian countries start opening their banks here soon, nothing yet after millions invested in Jersey Finance.
 

JEP.

JERSEY’S economy has been given a seal of approval as the Island prepares to borrow unprecedented amounts to pay for new homes.
Credit ratings agency Standard and Poor’s has given Jersey a ‘long-term issuer default rating of AA+’, meaning that the Island has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments, ahead of moves to take out a £250 million loan to fund the Island’s ten-year house-building programme.

The company also awarded Jersey a short-term rating of A-1+, the highest level for the category.

Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf said it was a positive recognition of the Island’s strong economic position that allowed access to financing for future housing needs.

He insisted that such large-scale borrowing was not an indication of economic weakness, saying that the £250 million was an investment and not a measure to tackle deficits.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/11/22/356027/

« Last Edit: November 23, 2013, 02:52:47 PM by boatyboy »

Offline Fritz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
  • Gender: Male
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #97 on: November 23, 2013, 01:18:49 AM »
If we,ve got the dosh. Why should we be borrowing?
If we are earning more on our savings than we,ll pay out on interest, fair enough. But I haven,t seen this explained anywhere.
How much does our ,"Rainy Day Fund", cost to manage, and who benefits? (Its been pissing down for years).

Offline shortport

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #98 on: November 23, 2013, 02:25:59 AM »
Jersey has avoided being credit rated for years,this is a worrying development taking out loans and issueing bonds.I also like to read between the lines in the JEP and this story has been hidden on page 2 with the frontpage story being about a fagbutt at the airport.
The implications of Jersey taking on debt is significant.One of ozoufs strongest selling points has always been we have no debts.Well we have now,but at what price.

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #99 on: November 23, 2013, 02:49:58 AM »
Surely this will have to go through the states chamber.
He just cannot do the deal can he?
If so I have to ask "What is in it for him"?
How about our civil servant who is in charge of finance telling us if this is a good thing or not. Let him/her earn their very good salary for once and stick their head above the parapet and tell us!
I will not believe it is good if a non states member employed by the states does not speak out for fear of ozouf!
Come on JEP, BBC & ITV go and ask the civil servant if this is good.

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3493
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #100 on: December 03, 2013, 05:50:11 PM »

Sorry wrong thread
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 05:51:42 PM by boatyboy »

Offline Dundee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
Re: Taxpayer could lose £8m over Lime Grove fiasco
« Reply #101 on: December 03, 2013, 07:02:07 PM »
Sorry wrong thread

Never bothered you before!