Blogging will be restricted for the next week or so.
Last Thursday morning my Mother died so I have a lot of stuff to do etc.
I’ll be bak as they say.
Thanks for reading my blog.
An Olympic legacy? (Part Two).
To their credit Edinburgh Council have started to webcast their Council Meetings. I just caught the tail-end of the segment which was about Waterworld.
All of the parties apart from the Conservatives voted to extend the decision date until the 31st of January. The cost will of course be £40,000 which is £2000 cost per week to maintain Waterworld as it stands presently. The time is being allowed so that Splashback can prove they have the funds which has to meet the mandated “value for money” requirement for the Council. Bear in mind this has to address the £1 Million pound price tag, the £155,000 startup cost and at least another £1 million over the next three years. Tall order?
The cost for the year of maintaining the site since it was closed, until the final, final decision, as it now stands will be £104.000. How can they justify this?
GVA stated in their report that a three month cooling off period would be required during which time alternative bidders would be identified and marketing of the site to carried out
The Councillors have voted for a four month period and either have not understood what the time should be used for or want the Splashback bid to succeed. Will this not open them up to claims of favouring a particular bidder? There is no likelihood that anyone else will pursue the site. Anyone else will know the history and will not waste time putting a proposal together until Splashback fails.
So the £40,000 cost is down to Splashback and no one else. I’m not suggesting that someone is just waiting for Splashback to fail and then they will leap in with a bid, but when the end of January 2013 deadline is reached and Splashback haven’t put together a real workable plan with the required financing a further three month period will have to be used for the marketing etc. again.
Are there any councillors in the Council Chambers who have run a business or even been involved as a senior manager in a business? It doesn’t sound like, certainly not from the coalition the Libdems and the Greens. Whilst there are other similar facilities in other areas of the country they are subsidised significantly and are still costing the local councils money.
Can you think of one swimming pool or leisure pool, which is run by a private business? No? Of course not. Hotels and gyms have them because they build the cost the water facilities represent into their overhead and charge accordingly. No one could possible make money in running just a private pool on it’s own.
Why should they have to make money you say? Because otherwise the taxpayer has to subsidise or cover the total costs incurred. The council provide swimming facilities 500 yards from Waterworld at either the local High School or another more traditional pool. Is that not enough for the community? What percentage of the community use it? not a high percentage that’s for sure but it’s fair for them to be provided.
I’ll post an update if anything happens of note between now and the 31st January.