Alison Connelly wrote:It is twisting reality because views of a large cross section of the community were heard at what was a well advertised PUBLIC meeting.
Yes, it was a public meeting, but one which had a clear agenda. It was a rallying call to all PPAG's supporters; the leaflet giving details of the meeting was headed 'Save Portobello Park' and the panel of speakers sat in front of a banner proclaiming the same. This was not a public meeting aimed at attracting a wide range of views and let's face it would have been a failure for PPAG if it had!
There were speakers .......with specialsed knowledge.
Yes, I was bemused to hear that Stephen Hawkins had thought that in Scottish Secondary schools teachers came to classes and not vice versa.
I don't suppose there is a demographic breakdown of the audience available
Seems highly unlikely, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on the make up of the audience.
the Portobello Park Action Group are supporting the need for new schools....
I'm genuinely relieved by that. After all, there are some residents (members of the Community Council for example) who don't think that this is necessary at all.
but urging the Council to consider alternatives which will allow the community to have improved school facilities, but ALSO keep the park and golf course........ whereas PFANS are determined that the golf course remains the only viable option for schools, and are ignoring the need of the wider community.
The PFANS
petition states clearly that we do not want the local community to lose out on green space
PFANS website wrote:We call on the Council to bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of Portobello High and St John’s schools.
These new schools should:
- meet the highest design and environmental standards for the 1800 children who attend them
- be in a parkland setting with community access to improved recreational facilities
- involve no overall reduction in the parkland available to the community
I fail to see how these aims are selfish and exclude 'the wider community'.
Even the children will lose out if the Park disappears- ........I think we ought to leave them some to enjoy.
Yes, so do I, which is why I'm glad that the Park won't disappear.
Also it is ridiculous to say that moving the golf course is in some way alturistic. The golfers don't want a new golf course. They like the one they have.
I'm not a golfer so can't comment personally on the attractions of the present course, but I believe from what I've heard most users like it because it is flat and lacks challenging features. Sounds to me that this would be pretty easy to replicate on a new site. However, perhaps they might have more users and members if it wasn't so much of a 'pitch and putt' course ( a description I've heard applied to it by a golfer when asked why he doesn't use the course) ?
Those who have no interest in the current park seem to think that it doesn't matter to anyone else either (hence the tag "selfish"). Perhaps PFANS need to LISTEN a bit to some of the views being widely expressed by a range of people saying what they feel the park offers, and what they feel the community will lose if it is developed.
I freely admit that I've never used Portobello Park, but I like open space as much as the next resident. However, I'll sacrifice some of it if it means that thousands of local children get the benefit of two new schools.
I've heard people suggest alternatives, but until I hear of a credible alternative which can secure funding, I'll continue backing the one proposal which can deliver two new schools for Portobello.
