New Portobello High School- Where and how?

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 19 Apr 2006, 12:29

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Alison Connelly wrote: According to Ian Perry the golf course proposal will cost Â£43million, and there will be receipts from the existing site and houses on the golf course totalling Â£25million, so Â£18million "shortfall" still to be found. ?)
Alison, how are you accounting for the sales of houses at Brunstane?

Houses on Brunstane?! I thought that was 'green-belt'? (Well it was green-belt when Ian Perry said they couldn't build the schools there because it was green-belt but they could build a golf course.)
Have the goalposts moved again?
Anyway, Stephen, how are you accounting for the sales of housing at Brunstane? I thought you argued that we couldn't ask other parts of Edinburgh to help with 'our' funding crisis?
And... are we now agreed that the shortfall will be Â£18 million?

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 19 Apr 2006, 13:57

PortyMan wrote: And... are we now agreed that the shortfall will be Â£18 million?

The only person who has identified an Â£18m shortfall is Alison Connelly. Alison uses the following rationale:

Alison Connelly wrote:According to Ian Perry the golf course proposal will cost Â£43million, and there will be receipts from the existing site and houses on the golf course totalling Â£25million, so Â£18million "shortfall" still to be found.

As far as I am aware there is no difference between the information I have gathered from this thread and from the various meetings I have attended and the information Alison has. Alison is choosing to ignore the recepits from the housing at Brunstane, I don't know why? Perhaps its an oversight?

Portyman, you really ought to try reading the thread, it will save you a lot of angst.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 19 Apr 2006, 14:13

Stephen McIntyre wrote: ..... the recepits from the housing at Brunstane, I don't know why?.

Stephen, are you talking about the housing that's going on the periphery of the proposed new golf course?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 Apr 2006, 14:14

Some hilarity from both of the school campaigns' E-petitions :

1. People seem to be getting their entire families to sign. This looks great for the final numbers but silly when you figure out that around 10% of PFANS votes come from just Bob, Marya and Porty's houses! Don't worry though guys - it looks like the other lot are doing the same.

2. People voting from America. Er...ok then, whatever - seeing as you're both at it.

edit ->

3. I almost forgot - a signatory on the "anti" petition from ... the Mussleburgh racecourse / golf course campaign! So while we aren't allowed to watch them, it would seem they *are* watching us.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 Apr 2006, 14:16

I love following a debate and watching which questions get answered and which don't - and which points get challenged and which don't.

It's a bit like the restaurant service rule of thumb - when you make a good point it is seldom applauded or mentioned.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 19 Apr 2006, 14:41

Epykat wrote:Stephen, are you talking about the housing that's going on the periphery of the proposed new golf course?

I'm talking about the Housing that Ian Perry and Ewan Aitken have consistently talked about at various meetings. The most recent one I attended was at Towerbank. I met Alison Connelly there.As Ian explained the housing shall be sited on non-greenbelt land.

Periphery? I have no idea where the houses shall be located in relation to the proposed new golf course this detail was not available.

Alison has somehow obtained numbers relating to the contribution of that some constituent parts of the proposal will contribute:

Alison Connelly wrote:According to Ian Perry the golf course proposal will cost Â£43million, and there will be receipts from the existing site and houses on the golf course totalling Â£25million, so Â£18million "shortfall" still to be found.

I am trying to grasp how Alison has reached a conclusion that there is an Â£18m shortfall? Some people think she has gone on to make a valid point or argument based on this supposed shortfall.

I am interested to know why Alison attaches no value to the contribution from the houses at Brunstane? Does she know something we donâ€™t? Or is it a similar subtraction error to the one she made much earlier in the thread regarding the area of the park that would be built on?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 19 Apr 2006, 15:45

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 19 Apr 2006, 16:03

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 19 Apr 2006, 16:23

Alison Connelly wrote:The figures I used were given to me verbally immediately after PFANS meeting on Marh 22nd, by Ian Perry, standing in the gym hall at Towerbank. I didn't make them up. I am beginning to think however that he might have I have already explained where these figures came from. I haven't done anything with them other than report them.

Did Ian Perry tell you there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 19 Apr 2006, 16:40

Alison Connelly wrote: Another thing to consider which I didnâ€™t try to estimate when I arrived at the figure of Â£18 million is the purchase cost of the 70 acre (has this figure been quoted somewhere, or have I just dreamt it?) site from Lord Palmer. I daresay it ought to be added to the cost side of the equation. Perhaps it will be balanced by the receipts from housing on that land?.

The key word is; profits. I'm sure your accounting prowess will enable you to answer your own question.

Profits retention is key to the funding of the proposal. I wonder if the council will deduct the price they paid for Portobello Park from the housing profits, prior to applying the balance to school funding?

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 19 Apr 2006, 17:07

[quote]â€œI voted Republican this year; the Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth.â€

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 Apr 2006, 17:36

Dadaist wrote:Some hilarity from both of the school campaigns' E-petitions :

1. People seem to be getting their entire families to sign. This looks great for the final numbers but silly when you figure out that around 10% of PFANS votes come from just Bob, Marya and Porty's houses! Don't worry though guys - it looks like the other lot are doing the same.

2. People voting from America. Er...ok then, whatever - seeing as you're both at it.

edit ->

3. I almost forgot - a signatory on the "anti" petition from ... the Mussleburgh racecourse / golf course campaign! So while we aren't allowed to watch them, it would seem they *are* watching us.

The figure of 10% of the total is an exaggeration Dada, but even if it wasn't, don't we all have an individual right to express our views? Why would you assume that because one member of a household signed a petition that all other family members shared the same view therefore shouldn't bother signing?
I allowed my son to sign because he understands the arguments; he is on the St John's Pupil Council, reported on the proposal for the Holy Rood Cluster Group Meeting of Pupil Councils and even attended the last Community Council Meeting.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 Apr 2006, 17:49

That's why I said "around 10%" Marya.

So -

Your house - 3 votes
Bobs house - 3 votes
Portys house - 3 votes afaik

Total votes for PFANS so far == 104 votes (at time of writing)

which makes your 3 households 8.6 % of the entire online PFANS vote at time of writing.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 19 Apr 2006, 18:41

Dadaist wrote:That's why I said "around 10%" Marya.

So -

Your house - 3 votes
Bobs house - 3 votes
Portys house - 3 votes afaik

Total votes for PFANS so far == 104 votes (at time of writing)

which makes your 3 households 8.6 % of the entire online PFANS vote at time of writing.

Saying around 8% doesn't have the quite the same ring to it though does it Dadaist?

You're doing a McIntyre on me now. Why haven't you answered my questions as to why you think my husband shouldn't sign the petition as well as myself?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 19 Apr 2006, 19:52

Dadaist wrote:That's why I said "around 10%" Marya.

So -

Your house - 3 votes
Bobs house - 3 votes
Portys house - 3 votes afaik

Total votes for PFANS so far == 104 votes (at time of writing)

which makes your 3 households 8.6 % of the entire online PFANS vote at time of writing.

My house only has 2 votes.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 Apr 2006, 22:50

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:That's why I said "around 10%" Marya.

So -

Your house - 3 votes
Bobs house - 3 votes
Portys house - 3 votes afaik

Total votes for PFANS so far == 104 votes (at time of writing)

which makes your 3 households 8.6 % of the entire online PFANS vote at time of writing.
My house only has 2 votes.

Ah ok - my apologies to Flearoy if she is reading this for getting her location wrong!

I just saw 3 of the Mcintyre clan in the list which is where I got my numbers from.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 Apr 2006, 23:00

Marya wrote:
Dadaist wrote:That's why I said "around 10%" Marya.

So -

Your house - 3 votes
Bobs house - 3 votes
Portys house - 3 votes afaik

Total votes for PFANS so far == 104 votes (at time of writing)

which makes your 3 households 8.6 % of the entire online PFANS vote at time of writing.
Saying around 8% doesn't have the quite the same ring to it though does it Dadaist?

No - but then I was treating the percentage you refer to in the same manner as the ( 30, 33, 33.3, one third, whatever) housing on the park is treated, and exaggerating much less than some people have been about the state of the school!!

Marya wrote:You're doing a McIntyre on me now. Why haven't you answered my questions as to why you think my husband shouldn't sign the petition as well as myself?

So are you - this is the first time you've mentioned your husband.

Thanks for coining the phrase "doing a McIntyre" - it's always good in this debate to get the seal of approval from a mod or from someone in the pro-plan posse!!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 20 Apr 2006, 00:15

Dadaist wrote:- this is the first time you've mentioned your husband.

Thought you might have figured that he was included in the phrase "other family members" but in future I'll always give him his rightful place

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Apr 2006, 08:43

Marya wrote:
Dadaist wrote:- this is the first time you've mentioned your husband.

Thought you might have figured that he was included in the phrase "other family members" but in future I'll always give him his rightful place

Any time you want to ask a question which doesn't put words in my mouth, doesn't make a false accusation, isn't rhetorical, can't be answered yourself, isn't vague or hasn't already been answered in your mind making any reply pointless, I'm all ears.

This means that your current list of questions - including the question about the initial question - has been rejected.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Apr 2006, 13:57

From today's EN:

Drive to save Portobello golf course dealt blow by school plan

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 20 Apr 2006, 14:21

Bob Jefferson wrote:From today's EN:

Drive to save Portobello golf course dealt blow by school plan

Erm...I thought that was yesterday or the day before's? I read it yesterday online!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Apr 2006, 14:56

Must confess I didn't check the date. As you know, I usually link relevant EN stories on a daily basis but their search facility seemed to be playing up for a few days. I don't read the whole thing, just search on the term 'Portobello' (and 'Joppa' when I remember).

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Apr 2006, 22:51

As revealed at tonight's public meeting, and alluded to earlier in this thread:

MYTH - Portobello Park was 'gifted' to the people of Portobello.

FACT - the Corporation (Council) paid Â£25,000 for it.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 20 Apr 2006, 22:56

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 20 Apr 2006, 23:04

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Apr 2006, 23:09

I'm happy to leave the matter of 'the common good' to the lawyers to sort out, though personally I would see the building of new schools as being in the common good.

How much is Â£25 k worth nowadays? The answer is that there are different ways of calculating it. Rather than be accused of bias, here is the current value using 5 recognised measures:

In 2004, Â£25000 0s 0d from 1898 is worth:

Â£1,804,292.19 using the retail price index
Â£2,281,304.35 using the GDP deflator
Â£9,808,252.43 using average earnings
Â£11,631,852.22 using per capita GDP
Â£17,235,627.59 using the GDP

So it certainly wasn't a gift.

source - http://eh.net/hmit/ukcompare/

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 20 Apr 2006, 23:32

Bob Jefferson wrote:I'm happy to leave the matter of 'the common good' to the lawyers to sort out, though personally I would see the building of new schools as being in the common good.

How much is Â£25 k worth nowadays?

In 2004, Â£25000 0s 0d from 1898 is worth: etc...

That is correct, but the we know that the land is worth much, much more.

I beleive that the council would have to pay the present cost of the land value into the common good fund.

I agree that it should be people with a bit of legal acumen who sort it out, however, the council have been asked about this already and have failed to reply.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Apr 2006, 23:53

Dave, I'm not comparing land values, just pointing out that the Council paid a considerable amount of money to secure the land for a golf course. The picture that was being painted right up to the point of Ian Perry's revelation was that the land had been gifted to the people of Portobello by a wonderful philanthropist, whose wish was that it should be enjoyed as a public park in all perpetuity.

Remember all the emotive stuff about 'walking on a dead man's grave' and 'trampling over the wishes of the benefactors'?

It's all starting to sound a bit hollow now.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 20 Apr 2006, 23:55

There is much to sort out and I find it interesting to note that the conversation has now moved from 'gifted' to 'common good'.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Apr 2006, 06:25

Pal of Porty wrote:There is much to sort out and I find it interesting to note that the conversation has now moved from 'gifted' to 'common good'.

No shift in any conversation, I believe that the land was gifted, then when the council wanted to build the freightliner depot on the original golf course, (no surprise there), they had to then buy other nearby land (present site) for Â£25000 to compensate.

In other words, even then the council tried to build on land which was gifted, but were forced to compensate by paying for other land nearby, to fulfill their legal obligation.

The same would appear to apply today.

If the council build on the present site, they will be forced to effectively buy the land at present market value, (Multi Millions), from the people of Edinburgh, paying those millions into the common good fund.

Their arguement that they own the land therefor it is the cheaper option is null and void.

They are definately backtracking in a major style, starting the "consultation process".

We must remember that the council bought the new land prior to telling anyone about it.

It would appear that ss far as the council were concerned it was a "done deal" until someone leaked the news.

One point that was made during the meeting last night was that

When the shopping centre was built at Peirshill the company who owned it, gave us a new library.

That would appear to be true.

What you must ask yourself is this.

What bone will the council or new housing developers throw us to make us feel better about taking away what is rightfully ours

(I have spaced out the paragraphs to make it easier to cut and paste)

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 21 Apr 2006, 09:25

Alison Connelly wrote:Interesting follow up point to this is that the land is considered "common good" land. This means that if the council chose to remove this land fr

Alison, its nice to see you back. Portyman offered us all a bit of helpful advice:

PortyMan wrote: it's helpful to provide answers (or a direct reference) when someone asks a question to which you know the answer.

I have a yes or no question, to which you know the answer, would you care to divulge?

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Alison Connelly wrote:The figures I used were given to me verbally immediately after PFANS meeting on Marh 22nd, by Ian Perry, standing in the gym hall at Towerbank. I didn't make them up. I am beginning to think however that he might have I have already explained where these figures came from. I haven't done anything with them other than report them.
Did Ian Perry tell you there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

Did Ian Perry tell you there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 21 Apr 2006, 09:50

Alison Connelly wrote: Interesting follow up point to this is that the land is considered "common good" land. :

Dave Connelly wrote: I believe that the land was gifted, then when the council wanted to build the freightliner depot on the original golf course, (no surprise there), they had to then buy other nearby land (present site) for Â£25000 to compensate.

In other words, even then the council tried to build on land which was gifted, but were forced to compensate by paying for other land nearby, to fulfill their legal obligation.

Save Portobello Park Leaflet wrote: Portobello Park was gifted to the people of Portobello in 1890.

There is not a shred of evidence or research to back up any of the above statements. The statement lifted from the "Save Portobello Park" leaflet is a downright lie and I am fully aware of the implications of using such a strong word.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Apr 2006, 10:43

Dave Connelly wrote:I believe that the land was gifted, then when the council wanted to build the freightliner depot on the original golf course, (no surprise there), they had to then buy other nearby land (present site) for Â£25000 to compensate.

In other words, even then the council tried to build on land which was gifted, but were forced to compensate by paying for other land nearby, to fulfill their legal obligation.

No sooner is one myth destroyed but another rises to take its place. This is complete fantasy. I can see that such a story would suit your purpose but I suspect that, as with the orginal myth, it is simply wishful thinking.

For anyone interested in the facts, our resident historians are on the case and we will publish our findings, with source references, in due course.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 21 Apr 2006, 12:12

Bob Jefferson wrote:For anyone interested in the facts, our resident historians are on the case and we will publish our findings, with source references, in due course.

Save Portobello Park Leaflet wrote: Portobello Park was gifted to the people of Portobello in 1890.

That is good Bob and I look forward to the info but in a way it is too late. You donâ€™t have to be a historian to find out the truth about what happened in 1890, you can visit Registers of Scotland pay Â£10 and get a copy of the agreement. It is public information and not a matter of opinion or open to interpretation.

It annoys me that people are prepared to go into print and distribute totally false information without doing basic checks on its validity or accuracy. It is the education of the children of our community that is at stake here.

When people distribute false information it casts aspersion and doubt on every statement they make. On the evidence of the most recent leaflet we can conclude that if a statement fits the purpose then the truth doesnâ€™t really matter.

The â€œSave Portobello Parkâ€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 12:22

Whose public meeting was the fact that the land wasn't gifted announced at, and who by?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

School campaigns' E-petitions

Re: School campaigns' E-petitions