What could the Council do with £730,000?
Keep Little Teddies open for seven years?
Fill some potholes on the roads?
Provide hot meals for pensioners?
Buy the premises currently occupied by WeeW from MacKays?
Fill some potholes on the roads?
Provide hot meals for pensioners?
Buy the premises currently occupied by WeeW from MacKays?
35 comments:
Capital v. revenue I suspect ?
Unbelievable.
Unfortunately true.
Can anyone tell me why we should subsidise Little Teddies ? Are the rural croileagan/nurseries/etc subsidised by WIHB and CNES. And is Little Teddies open to anyone or just the council and WIHB mammies
The figures for Little Teddies are eye-watering. It costs less to put your kid in Eton than to put them in there.
My business isn't doing so well...can I ask the Council to buy the building and then lease it back from them too?
I hear Wee W leased it back at a reduced rate. Any truth in it anyone? Shame on them if true, as other shops are closing if the council are giving a peferencial rent to someone.
The Teddies issue should have been resolved 4 years ago, instead the Comhairle took on the staff, threw more money at a white elephant and are now left holding the baby, quite literally.
When you are friends with Angus Campbell & get your staff to buy their rolls & papers from him its amazing what you can get done for you at the white house. A shop bought for you and leased back at a reduced rate. You couldnt ask for better. Why should WeeW get that kind of help when other shops are struggling. So much for being the richest man on the island that he cant even buy they shop he occupies.
he never became the richest man in the island by chance. Money goes to Money. This is an outrage. Macleod only wanted out of the lease so he can sell items that were pteviously prohibited under his terms with Mackays
Soon WeeW will be full of cheap shite clothes to fob off on the poor unsuspecting souls of the Island. I say the people should boycott the place.
Who the hell in the council approved this. It stinks of back handers. A Bloody disgrace.
Innes Macleod should hang his head in shame, prick with his limited edition cars and limited scruples.
Boycott WeeW and Campbells
I've heard that WeeW are behind with their business rate payments as well. So how hard will the Comhairle chase them for the money or is that all part of the deal that has been done.
I've got a car I would like to flog, do you think the Comhairle will oblige?
This all seems very unfair on all the other business's in the town and on the island as a whole. Why should the council give preferential treatment to WeeW over anybody else. All the other shop owners should stand up together and try and do something about this.
Its not as if WeeW is what every1 expected, and is nowhere near as busy as some of the other places in town.
What is going to happen when every1 realises whats been going on and stops shopping there and the place has to close down?
Is the council then going to say it was money well spent!!!
Would very much like to know if this is a true story as it's a stinker. I expect there will be some very long winded explanation as to why this cash has been handed over. But I may be stating the obvious here but isn't WeeWee part of Point1 and didn't Point 1 take on Ian Crichton's business/staff/Ian Crichton. Does the Comhairle still owe Mr Crichton some cash? I don't know? Perhaps it has nothing to do with that at all, m'Lud.
Dr E
What bit do you think might not be true. If you look at ourproperty.co.uk then you will see the selling price.
And yes, WeeW is owned by the same person who owns Point 1 (building up for let for £25k per annum) bought Ian Crichton (deceased) whom the council owed over £100k to and also ND Macleod (deceased) Phil the printer, D Macrury Electrical (although he saw the light and left), Dougie Wolf aerials and and and..... lock, stock and smoking barrel. But he obviously didn't have the £730k that Mackays wanted for the building. Rumours are that he has been spending a lot of time in the council chambers....
I'm sure we would get the same audience with the Comhairle were we to need a few hundred K wouldn't we??!!
...and why is the council on a property purchase spree? They have also bought buildings in Seaforth Road, Sardar's old shop in Cromwell Street and its rumoured they will be creating more retail or office units. Can someone explain the rationale for all this expenditure? Has anybody seen a proper business plan or business case for any of them? When most businesses are struggling to survive, it seems completely irrational to commit public funds when everyone else knows there's no need for these units. Most local businesses know their own survival is on the line in the current economic crisis. Yet, it seems as if the council is now diversifying out of the public sector and making their entry into the private sector, where they will probably contract out current council services to arms length organisations they will set up to protect council jobs. Has anyone seen a business case for any of the recent purchases? This is your money at risk here!
Let me surmise.
This amount of money was part of the capital grant for the 'refurbishment' of the Town Centre. Given that it was a 'use it or lose it' issue by 31 March - and as the council was stopped in 'developing' the harbour - some bright spark in the council (with the knowledge of Edinburgh) decided to use the capital and thereafter reap revenue benefits.
Now this is pure surmising of course. The issue of 'who benefits' is something else entirely.
No wonder people are getting concerned about such last minute political deals at end of year budgets and just before an election. There's a big question to be asked here about whether there's been any consideration of a fair and equitable distribution of this pot of gold. Also, whether it was spent the way it seems to be because the harbour infill plan was stalled. I guess plenty small businesses would have been delighted to get access to capital funding assistance if that was at all possible under the funding deal. If it had been available, then it might have been just as beneficial to the local economy. Will we ever know the answer?
Ignoring the spurious capital/revenue debate, the money only became available because the Port Authority refused to allow the infill in Bayhead to go ahead.
Innes MacLeod is a Trustee of the Port, so was he at the meeting where the refusal decision was made?
It all may very well be above board and nothing more than coincidence, but it is all just a bit close to home and incestuous to mean that we deserve complete clarity over how our money is being spent.
11.26 He left the board a couple of months back
Given that the SPA have consistently raised objections to the Bayhead infill lunacy every time it is mooted it came as a surprise to nobody but the council when they said no to it yet once more.
Thus I think that any sort of baseless whittering about conspiracies speaks more of sour grapes from sad individuals who won't put their names to their smears than anything else.
Perhaps we should be wondering more about the identity of those who seem to like naming people in rumour and gossip yet try and hide behind anonymity themselves? That to me is the real hypocrisy and malfeasance.
Eddie makes a very good and valid point, and we may have to move away from allowing anonymous comments in every case.
It seems that success in business on the islands is a lightning rod that attracts nothing but negative criticism.
Being active in different spheres in a small community means that your fingers are in many pies, which some people seem to take as assuming you always on the fiddle.
I opened this thread to raise the issue of the Council having capital funding but not revenue funding, and the use of that funding to take control of a major town centre building, seemingly without significant discussion, planning or strategy.
That a businessman has been smart enough to take advantage of the Council is a credit to him.
Just how far can the public sector expand on the islands? And just how far should they extend?
This is nearly as murky as the article that appeared in Saturdays Daily Mail doing an expose of Storais Uibhist.
Can anyone track it down and post it somewhere (or to Angus!) so we can all read the gore of the double page spread.
John MacLeod - are you out there? Can you get the Mail to stick it on their website?
12:50pm
Yes, just in time for the Comhairle decision. Great timing, eh?
If you stop allowing anon comments you will loose about 95% of your contributors and that would be a real shame.
ANON
When those commenters are quite happily naming people and smearing people whilst hiding behind anonymity themselves I don't think their loss would be a great burden.
I hear what eddie and angus say - and I agree with much of it. I would welcome Angus's views, however, on his apparent acceptance of anonymously sourced information in the past. (The 'postmen'.)
Surely, also, the blog moderators are in a position to simply refuse to accept posts which appear to accuse without foundation. Moderators are not pressed men - and with their acceptance of the role comes certain responsibilities.
I think the major issue here is how did the Comhairle decide on which building they were going to buy?
Is it because those with an interest have an ear within the Comhairle or did they just randomly put every property they thought might be for sale in town and pull the first three out.
The most democratic way of doing this would have been to publicise that they had this money, the type of building they were wanting to buy and ask people to bid. Just because a property isn't for sale on the open market doesn't mean that an individual isn't keen to sell it particularly as cash flow is so difficult at the moment.
Ah, but I forgot, the Comhairle don't do democracy do they?
All the sad smearing etc aside.
Isn't the council buying property at this point in time actually quite a good capital investment?
and the main point, 12.14 PM, is that as far as I am aware Mackay's did not even have the Wee W. building on the open market. Just how and why was it targeted by the council??? Now that would be interesting.
"The various bloggers who now contribute to this blog have taken over all responsibilities for allowing posting, for vetting comments and for all opinions expressed. Angus no longer has any responsibility for approving any comments made on any postings."
if you are planning to ban anonymous posting or edit posts, are you now taking responsibility for all the comments in the blog.
Its agree its sad when peoples names get dragged into it but otherwise this IS a good forum for discussion.
Ah well MadEddie, it would pretty much be just you, Dr Evadne and John Macleod - you must like the sight of your own comments?
I'm guessing anything libellous would be removed so it's fair game.
A good forum for discussion?
I think not - it is a poisoned challice whereby anonymous and often libelous comments are made with no opportunity for those smeared to respond. It is like a lynch mob.
Anonymous Coward @ 8.24pm
I just feel that if you are unable to stand publicly behind your comments then, to be frank, you should just shut up.
eddie
I suspect that there are times when, with the best will in the world, putting your name to a comment, even though true and provable, might be enough to lose you your livelihood and peace of mind. (The current top of the blog story about Uist is a case in point.)
What would be useful, however, (please note angus and moderators) are some rules about what can be posted and when. Forgive me if I have not seen them due to lack of coffee but I have never spotted any guidelines about what may or may not be posted.
I don't, of course, know what moderation is currently going on and what attempted posts have never seen the light of day - but like all good forums, you should really agree (and publish) some general rules for contributors to agree to.
Just a thought.
10.27 No-one is forcing you to log on.
10:27pm
Libel is only such if you are posting something that is malicious and untrue. Please direct me to something on this blog that is absolutely untrue.
From what I have seen on this blog anyone gets to have their say so if a person feels aggrieved then I am sure the blog administrators will give you an audience.
If it is just a case of the truth hurting then you are talking rubbish.
Post a Comment