Jump to content

Queen's Pier - £1.8M Spend


Mutley
 Share

Do you agree with the £1.8m spend on Queen's Pier  

221 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

 

Good grief, what a fabulus post!

 

How about being or next Minister for Tourism?

 

If not, I do hope that someone in charge of tourism reads that.

---

 

Hmm Minister of Tourism .... does that mean I get a green card?

 

I sent a copy of the letter and a link to this thread to Manx National Heritage when I was talking to them about why their generator on the Calf was running so poorly and asked them to pass it on to whom ever may care.

 

 

excuse the formating - that quote thingy has the better of me.. :-)

gragor

Edited by gragor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a week on the Calf (what a undervalued place that is),

Hmm. Suddenly Ramsey doesn't sound so bad.

 

 

Ever been there? We had the place to ourselves for 5 days - well except for the 2 ornithologists who look after the place. It was a great place to lose the jet lag and slow down. And around May 5th the Calf was covered in blue bells & thrift w/ no bracken so we could go virtually anywhere. The stone walls and the lighthouses are like nothing I have ever seen before, as was your sheep and the Manx Shearwaters we got to band.

 

You know I live in a place where you can ski in the morning, play golf in the afternoon and go diving in the ocean in the evening. There are streams and rivers everywhere and the fishing is great. The trees in my yard are 24" in diameter and 180'+ tall. When people arrive they don't leave and those that are tired of being elsewhere come here to die and drive our taxes up. They love it, so do I. I go touristing in my own valley and it's a good thing because that's all I can afford to do. The one thing I don't do is take Vancouver Island for granted. I constantly fight developers who want to pave paradise. Some times we even win.

 

You're lucky, someone actually had the forethought to put the Calf and other places aside.

 

Now just between you and me it cost a ridiculous 10 pounds per person per night to stay there. It is the cheapest accommodations to be found on Man. Good thing they have a maximum numbers of days one can stay there as I would move in if I could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with the two stone piers?

 

Scrap the iron one. I used to have a walk out along it about once per year.

 

Spend the money on improving the town itself. There so many area the money would be better spent on.

 

The old mart is a disgrace. Clear that and put something g there to benefit the whole town from kids to pensioners and all those in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that pisses me off about piper and rights-of-way enthusiasts is that they are only willing for their piers to be rebuilt, or their rights-of-way battles fought, with public money.

 

If it means that much to the people of Ramsey to have a nice, working pier, then they can PAY FOR IT. The objections from others have never been based on an innate objection to piers. I have nothing against piers, in fact, I think they're great, but as a taxpayer I don't want to spend money on this one. Let those who want it, spend their money on it.

 

Similarly, the whingers who bitch and moan about Clarkson. If you are that bothered about defending your supposed legal rights, get a lawyer and PAY FOR IT. Why should I pay for this? I don't care about the diversion.

 

These leeches should either put up, or shut up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that pisses me off about piper and rights-of-way enthusiasts is that they are only willing for their piers to be rebuilt, or their rights-of-way battles fought, with public money.

 

If it means that much to the people of Ramsey to have a nice, working pier, then they can PAY FOR IT. The objections from others have never been based on an innate objection to piers. I have nothing against piers, in fact, I think they're great, but as a taxpayer I don't want to spend money on this one. Let those who want it, spend their money on it.

 

Similarly, the whingers who bitch and moan about Clarkson. If you are that bothered about defending your supposed legal rights, get a lawyer and PAY FOR IT. Why should I pay for this? I don't care about the diversion.

 

These leeches should either put up, or shut up

 

Yes, let's only spend our taxes on things we personally agree with. I've never needed an operation, so people who do should bloody well pay for it themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that pisses me off about piper and rights-of-way enthusiasts is that they are only willing for their piers to be rebuilt, or their rights-of-way battles fought, with public money.
Erm...is it not obvious to you that such matters as right-of-way are public matters?

What you are talking about is that you personally have no interest in rights of way across the Island. Not the same.

 

As for Queen's Pier, that again is a different issue and really should be subject to public will. If most don't want it, it should go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The enforcement of public rights of way is clearly a legal issue, not a political one.

 

Yes, let's only spend our taxes on things we personally agree with. I've never needed an operation, so people who do should bloody well pay for it themselves.

Whilst it would be no surprise if Tugger was in favour of a private insurance-based healthcare system, its hardly an apt comparison. A pier is an indulgence, particularly in an age where it would serve on practical purpose as it once did as a mooring point for steamers.

 

As the owner of a listed structure, IoMG should have been maintaining it on an ongoing basis. But it hasn't and we are where we are. The whole thing is an embarrasing and the pier should be put out of its misery. Its unaffordable going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A scandalous waste of money that could be better spent in thousands of different ways.

 

What is up with you people? Why do you keep voting for these idiots?

 

Problem is the "idiots" made the right decision and decided 9 to 4 not to waste the money on the pier. However the unelected MLC's voted 7 to 1 to spend the money so it was past 11 to 10.

 

In the past I have defended MLC's and their role. It is good to have a house that will scutinise and act independently if they feel that MHK's are pandering to their electorate and not reviewing objectivly. However this is not the case and I think it is fundamentally wrong that they can basically force a motion to be passed even if there is a majority of over 2 to 1 of the elected MHK's against the motion.

 

http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=51381

 

Maybe it is time that the power of MLC's was only such that they can block a motion rather than reverse the decision of a majority of MHK's. This would still enable them to fulfll their role as they could stop any legislation that they were extremely concerned about so it could be looked at again and be amended bu they could not ultimatly overturn the view of a majority of the MHKs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they spent the 1.8 million say on the first section of the pier so that it could be walked on and under and then 1million per yr for the next ten,and open that section each year, maybe people would feel there getting some value out of it.If the worst happened and the unrestored section didnt hang on, then atleast no money would of been spent on it.If after five years it was found no one actually used it,you could stop spending but stil retain a fully restored half pier!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is time that the power of MLC's was only such that they can block a motion rather than reverse the decision of a majority of MHK's. This would still enable them to fulfll their role as they could stop any legislation that they were extremely concerned about so it could be looked at again and be amended bu they could not ultimatly overturn the view of a majority of the MHKs.

 

That's already similar to what we have now isn't it? I thought that if the Keys and Council disagree, then the motion has to be proposed again and the whole of Tynwald court votes in its entirity. In this case, even if LegCo were united they'd need the support of 9 MHK's to win the day, which is a clear majority of backbenchers.

Edited by VinnieK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is that people are willing to spend millions, (1.8 to start with) on a rusting relic that to be fair, only anglers get any benifit out of, yet play merry hell when 3 million is spent making a road better that thousands of cars use every day.

To me Summerland was a place of entertaiment and fun that I'm so glad to of enjoyed with thousands of others in days gone by. Gone now though and nothing to replace it, no money you see. Yet some shitty lump of iron out in the sea in Ramsey gets millions spent on it, and still its of no use. We live a really, really fu*ked up island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...