Jump to content

I Spy With My Little Eye


Recommended Posts

 

They think nothing of spending £400,000 on a fence. Off their noggins, totes final.

 

Or the legendary fuck up of the football pitch at Spring valley

 

Several hundred thousand pounds of hard-earned ratepayer's money on that one

Was that the one where the head of parks mysteriously disappeared soon afterwards in a cloud of confusion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They think nothing of spending £400,000 on a fence. Off their noggins, totes final.

 

Or the legendary fuck up of the football pitch at Spring valley

 

Several hundred thousand pounds of hard-earned ratepayer's money on that one

Was that the one where the head of parks mysteriously disappeared soon afterwards in a cloud of confusion?

Yes that is the one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well they think nothing of paying £120,000 for a chewing gum cleaning machine.

 

Think about that. What sort of car, say just a quarter of that at £30,000 could but you and what it does. This is a glorified - ok specialised - carpet cleaner. Even so...£120,000. When it is other people's money then spending it is dead easy:

 

IoM Today news story

 

attachicon.gifDavid David and a happy salesman.jpg

 

Is that hose supposed to go up your ar*e??

 

What the fuck? You mean some don't go up your ar*e?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Douglas Corporation to ask the DOI for £125,000.00 for the purpose of Professional Fees for Design Work zorro.gif in relation to the Lighting and CCTV element of Douglas Town Centre Regeneration Scheme - source IOM Courier.

 

Please can someone else as well as me write in this time with an objection. Single-handedly, I think, I have kept this ratepayer expenditure from happening to date. See my letter below of 4th May 2012!

 

"

Ratepayer submission re borrowing for fees for lighting/CCTV design for Douglas Regeneration

 

Although I became a St George’s Ward Councillor on 1st May 2012 I submit this view in a personal capacity as a ratepayer having seen the 13th April 2012 notice in newspapers.

 

Learning recently that fees for design work for lighting/CCTV part of Town Centre Regeneration are to be financed by borrowing by Douglas Council, and the overall project will be ratepayer debt-financed as well with over £0.5 million borrowed in each of the coming three years, I became sceptical about the affordability of this part of the regeneration scheme as the expenditure will further leverage ratepayers.

 

For the same reason, and as an aside, I will be seeking reassurance about whether the Council can really afford the £12.7 million-budget Cambrian Place car-park. The Council already has £7 million plus of entirely rate-borne debt inside the £61 million of loans Douglas ratepayers have already taken out.

 

I stress that being sceptical does not mean being against, and regeneration is important; rather I seek satisfactory financial analysis and justification and I believe the new Council should revisit previous decisions and plans to fund and borrow. I hope I will be convinced that:

  1. Lights should be loan-financed loan rather than an alternative from the rate-payer point of view?
  2. 15 years is the right duration of loan?

Furthermore if borrowing is appropriate, the Council needs to borrow efficiently."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Douglas ratepayer I have to say how shocked and appalled I am to learn of the level of debt this council has taken on-board and to learn that they are contemplating going deeper into the mire for some grandiose scheme borders on the reckless, fully understanding that regeneration works need to take place at a level of affordability, I suppose I should be comforted in the knowledge that the people taking these decisions are fellow ratepayers? I can also confirm as prospective voter in the for coming election I will be voting for C.T, sadly he will no longer be in the town hall to safeguard the Douglas ratepayers, God help us

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They think nothing of spending £400,000 on a fence. Off their noggins, totes final.

 

Or the legendary fuck up of the football pitch at Spring valley

 

Several hundred thousand pounds of hard-earned ratepayer's money on that one

 

Dood, that is nothing, they estimated it would cost £30,000 to paint a chapel and are thrilled the estimate was less....are these things ever checked by people in the real world? There seems to be 3 companies applying for council tenders, not really much to choose from, I think it's time they changed the way that was put out, maybe ask people for a price rather than waiting for their mates to get in touch.....who reads the local notices? Oh yes, and another thing, while I'm at it...they want to change the kitchen in the town hall so it can provide catering facilities for outside catering firms, it will need an extra sink, an oven, extraction, the removal of a work station, a hostess trolley and a person to manage it.....for what? Haven't they got these facilities at other council buildings? Like the place up Nobles park? I know they have because I had my sons b'day party there a couple of years ago, so.....no need really, is there? The Strathallan suite has catering facilities...what ever!

 

I keep meaning to find out about the Spring Valley pitch, someone mentioned it the other day. That's another company who seem to get loads of expensive work from the corpy, IIRC I had a bit of an "oh yes?" moment when I saw the path costings at Willaston, same old, same old, innit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 years later...

Thread bump. iomtoday announces that IoMG has lost its appeal over legal action to be taken by its "initially preferred" developer, Sondica Ltd for the Bus Station site after Govt dumped on them in favour of Kane Ltd.

Stand by to dig deep again taxpayers.

ETA. Oops, might have posted in wrong thread?

Edited by Non-Believer
Typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Thread bump. iomtoday announces that IoMG has lost its appeal over legal action to be taken by its "initially preferred" developer, Sondica Ltd for the Bus Station site after Govt dumped on them in favour of Kane Ltd.

Stand by to dig deep again taxpayers.

ETA. Oops, might have posted in wrong thread?

It’s only an appeal against an order allowing the case to proceed after IoMG had asked the court to strike the claim out as showing no cause of action.

Long way to go before Sondica wins, and it may not do so, and even if it does the value may be low.

At least they haven’t sought to overturn the award of the contract to the second bidder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=49770&headline=DoI loses appeal over quayside bid legal claim&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2019

In all fairness there’s more of a chance of the DOI doing a ‘fcuk up’ free Prom Refurb’ that actually comes in under budget, and its highly likely the Duke Street new Building will commence before any sign of activity on the Old Bus Station Site. There will be only one winner - Athol Streets Finest! The taxpayer and the general population will be promised the earth but little will be delivered. Welcome to DreamWorld!.

Link to post
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...