New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Apr 2006, 12:07

So building on green space is OK as long as it's not on our green space? That seems to be the message I'm getting from many of those who oppose the Council's proposal. Don't build on our park but by all means build on the Jewel/any green space within a 5 mile radius and displace the football teams, the dog walkers and the 'ramblers' there.

If that's your position, fine. If some people now accept a school on Portobello Park and housing elsewhere in the catchment area as an acceptable compromise then, who knows, perhaps that is possible. But if that is the case then you can't really continue to play your 'greener than thou' card.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Apr 2006, 12:22

Dave Connelly wrote:Do you agree that saving the park and having improved facilities for our children/residents and others who are attracted to the area, is a good thing?

Not at the expense of providing desperately-needed new schools for our children. Portobello Park is the perfect, centre of catchment area location for the new schools and the Council's proposal offers a unique opportunity to provide a (mostly) self-financed solution and new schools before the end of the decade. The park in its present form is, by any reckoning, of very limited community value and, has often been pointed out, it's the quality rather than the quantity of green space that should concern us. I am quite sure that the new public park that the community will help to design on this site, though smaller, will be a much more valuable asset to residents and visitors than the largely featureless 'green' space you seek to protect.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 17 Apr 2006, 12:55

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 17 Apr 2006, 13:00

kittywink · Post by **kittywink** » 17 Apr 2006, 13:34

Alison, your last post is the most reasonable I have read on this forum. Not only reasonable but realistic. That, for me, is the better alternative to building on Portobello Park.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 17 Apr 2006, 13:41

The option to re-build on the existing site should be considered fully along with all the other options.

If there is a possiblity that there might be no housing in the proposal for Portobello park then surely it puts that option on an equal footing with other options, i.e. no self-financing. So, it would be back to square one with the financing of the project.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Apr 2006, 15:38

Alison Connelly wrote:
So if they can find the Â£18million shortfall for the new proposal, why can't they find the money to carry out the work proposed in the feasibility study for the PPP2 submission? It wasn't the plan itself that failed - it was the prioritisation of PHS for the money available through the PPP2

Alison, where are they going to ge the Â£18m shortfall from?

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 17 Apr 2006, 15:47

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Alison Connelly wrote:
So if they can find the Â£18million shortfall for the new proposal, why can't they find the money to carry out the work proposed in the feasibility study for the PPP2 submission? It wasn't the plan itself that failed - it was the prioritisation of PHS for the money available through the PPP2
Alison, where are they going to ge the Â£18m shortfall from?

That's a good question Stephen. So, does that mean that the development on the park is a dead (chinese?) duck? After all, no money, no school?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Apr 2006, 15:54

PortyMan wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Alison Connelly wrote:
Alison, where are they going to ge the Â£18m shortfall from?
That's a good question Stephen. So, does that mean that the development on the park is a dead (chinese?) duck? After all, no money, no school?

Its obviously too good a question for you to answer.

Any idea?

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 17 Apr 2006, 15:55

From today's (17th) EN:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... =581172006

Maybe this explains the council's enthusiasm for developing Portobello Park?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Apr 2006, 17:20

Just got sent a link to this site :

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

Looks like one wing of the antis/golfers have finally got a website!

I wonder if the different Golf Course Saving campaigns will send delegations to the others' meetings - like Musselburgh, Portobello etc the same as they do for village festivals and ridings.

Maybe we will see the rise of a national federation of Space Saving campaigns like with the Poll Tax?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 17 Apr 2006, 17:32

Psst! Dada, Kittywink posted that link yesterday!!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Apr 2006, 17:33

Dada, this was announced way back on page 71, though I'm sure they will appreciate the mention.

So, that's two websites now. There's http://www.pfans.org.uk and there's the other one.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 17 Apr 2006, 17:41

Yip there is

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

and the other 1, who are they again - Oh yeah

www.pfans.org.uk

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 17 Apr 2006, 17:41

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
PortyMan wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote: That's a good question Stephen. So, does that mean that the development on the park is a dead (chinese?) duck? After all, no money, no school?
Its obviously too good a question for you to answer. Any idea?

Not 'too good' for me to answer. Just too difficult for you, apparently?

Remember, I'm not looking to build anything on the park.

Alison's point is very valid and worthy of more consideration than you seemed prepared to stomach. If the funding gap can be bridged by the council (by whatever means) then that money could be used to fund the PPP proposals (or something close-to) without the need to develop anything on the park. If it can't... then there's no point progressing with 'the proposal', is there?

You have been vociferous in promoting this salvation suggestion to replace Portobello Park with a housing scheme to fund your re-building of the schools. Now, it seems, you have no real idea where the remaining finance for this proposal is coming from? That's a rather fundamental flaw, don't you think?

And, one that you have thrown in the face of every other suggestion raised during this purported 'debate'.

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 17 Apr 2006, 17:44

Dadaist wrote:Just got sent a link to this site :

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

Looks like one wing of the antis/golfers have finally got a website!

I wonder if the different Golf Course Saving campaigns will send delegations to the others' meetings - like Musselburgh, Portobello etc the same as they do for village festivals and ridings.

Maybe we will see the rise of a national federation of Space Saving campaigns like with the Poll Tax?

Duplication seems to be the order of the day? (Expect some 'unbiased' moderator intervention... now.)

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 17 Apr 2006, 17:45

Dave Connelly wrote: Heres a question for you even if it is idealistic.

Do you agree that saving the park and having improved facilities for our children/residents and others who are attracted to the area, is a good thing

This was a YES/NO question.

Bob Jefferson wrote:Dada, this was announced way back on page 71, though I'm sure they will appreciate the mention.

So, that's two websites now. There's http://www.pfans.org.uk and there's the other one.

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

How big is your link

I still dont think that there are really two sides here as far as education goes.

Its the space that counts.

Thats enough of the links already

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 17 Apr 2006, 17:52

Dadaist wrote:
Looks like one wing of the antis/golfers have finally got a website!

Not anti anything except building on the park, definately not anti ejukaeshun

Web Site

Ask and ye shall have.......dude

Think you've got one already though

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 17 Apr 2006, 18:25

Gemini wrote:Yip there is

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

and the other 1, who are they again - Oh yeah

www.pfans.org.uk

I have to say that the wildlife pictures are much better on pfans

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Apr 2006, 18:27

Dadaist wrote:Just got sent a link to this site :

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

Looks like one wing of the antis/golfers have finally got a website!

I wonder if the different Golf Course Saving campaigns will send delegations to the others' meetings - like Musselburgh, Portobello etc the same as they do for village festivals and ridings.

Maybe we will see the rise of a national federation of Space Saving campaigns like with the Poll Tax?

There was me thinking I had a scoop as well.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Apr 2006, 18:31

Dave Connelly wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Looks like one wing of the antis/golfers have finally got a website!
Not anti anything except building on the park, definately not anti ejukaeshun

Web Site

Ask and ye shall have.......dude

Think you've got one already though

There's nothing wrong with being an anti. Just imagine the condemned souls who were pro-war, pro-poll tax or pro-superstore.

You're anti-plan, as opposed to being pro-plan.

I never said you were anti-education.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Apr 2006, 18:51

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Apr 2006, 19:03

PortyMan wrote: Alison's point is very valid and worthy of more consideration than you seemed prepared to stomach. If the funding gap can be bridged by the council (by whatever means) then that money could be used to fund the PPP proposals (or something close-to) without the need to develop anything on the park. If it can't... then there's no point progressing with 'the proposal', is there?

You are wrong and incidentally the gap is noweher near Â£18m

PortyMan wrote:You have been vociferous in promoting this salvation suggestion to replace Portobello Park with a housing scheme to fund your re-building of the schools. Now, it seems, you have no real idea where the remaining finance for this proposal is coming from? That's a rather fundamental flaw, don't you think?

What leads you to conclude I have no idea of how the gap will be funded? I am asking Alison.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 17 Apr 2006, 19:06

Bob Jefferson wrote:<a href="http://www.pfans.org.uk"><img src="http://www.porty.org.uk/forum_links/pfans.gif" ></a>

Bob,

That was so green, I wouldn't be surprised if the council had plans to build on it

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Apr 2006, 19:06

dccairns wrote:
If there is a possiblity that there might be no housing in the proposal for Portobello park then surely it puts that option on an equal footing with other options, i.e. no self-financing. So, it would be back to square one with the financing of the project.

Can you explain what you mean, please?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Apr 2006, 19:16

dccairns wrote:Well, maybe the council should look a bit wider around the catchment area then for a new site and not jsut focaus on Portobello.
.

The council's proposal places PHS in Portobello Park which is not in Portobello.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 17 Apr 2006, 19:30

kittywink wrote:Portobello Park Action Group have a new website which, although still under construction, offers contact details and information.

http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk/

kittywink - sorry I didn't notice that you had posted this. I did a search for the string "portygreenkeepers" but nothing came up, so I thought I had a scoop - turns out it was yesterday's news - putting me in Herald & Post territory I guess.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Apr 2006, 19:42

Dave Connelly wrote:I understand the need for moderation, I was just a bit worried in case posts were being removed that generally disagreed with the views held by the moderators, thereby making the forum biased. I haven't had the chance to read all of the postings over the last few days.

I am sure that this wasn't the case, however, if for instance all of the moderators held the same view regarding a particular subject, then it could be construed that the whole forum revolved around the beliefs of a few people thereby discriminating against other people who did not hold the same view.

I didn't address this point at the time but I think it's an important one. The moderators have been accused by some of being biased against those who oppose the Council's proposal. Clearly, we have to put our personal views behind us when we take decisions as moderators and I'm not pretending for a moment that this is an easy thing to do. However, I believe that, on the whole, we do a pretty good job and we certainly try to be as even-handed as we possibly can. I don't think that I could have chosen two better fellow mods than Bellybabe and Marya and I respect and value their judgement, even though I may not always necessarily agree with their decisions at the time.

The debate has been robust at times but generally good-natured. A few posts have been removed, but that's a tiny percentage of the 1443 posts to date and those who have been moderated have accepted our decision with good grace.

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 17 Apr 2006, 21:20

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
PortyMan wrote: Alison's point is very valid and worthy of more consideration than you seemed prepared to stomach. If the funding gap can be bridged by the council (by whatever means) then that money could be used to fund the PPP proposals (or something close-to) without the need to develop anything on the park. If it can't... then there's no point progressing with 'the proposal', is there?
You are wrong and incidentally the gap is noweher near Â£18m

PortyMan wrote:You have been vociferous in promoting this salvation suggestion to replace Portobello Park with a housing scheme to fund your re-building of the schools. Now, it seems, you have no real idea where the remaining finance for this proposal is coming from? That's a rather fundamental flaw, don't you think?

What leads you to conclude I have no idea of how the gap will be funded? I am asking Alison.

So. Are you just being childish?

If you know the answer, then post it. Otherwise, I have to assume you don't know. You also claim the shortfall is 'noweher near' Â£18 million? (Despite asking Alison 'where the Â£18 million shortfall was coming from'?)How do you know that? What source are you basing that statement on?

Are there any other pertinent facts that you are keeping to yourself? (In which case why start a forum to 'discuss' the issue then withhold pertinent information?)

And why am I wrong? Is it because I have a view that differs from yours? I think Alison has raised a very valid point. You do too, or you wouldn't be trying to rubbish it!!

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 17 Apr 2006, 21:23

Bob Jefferson wrote: The moderators have been accused by some of being biased against those who oppose the Council's proposal.

Is that Bob '96 point' Jefferson? (A font size not available to mere punters!)

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 18 Apr 2006, 09:19

PortyMan wrote:
So. Are you just being childish?

No, I am following the thread.

PortyMan wrote:
If you know the answer, then post it. Otherwise, I have to assume you don't know. You also claim the shortfall is 'noweher near' Â£18 million?

The answer has already been posted, I was attempting to ascertain if Alison was aware of the answer?

Alison has personally reviewed the COEC accounts and declared that they do have room for borrowing. She hasn't said how much but maybe its Â£30 or Â£40m?

PortyMan wrote: Despite asking Alison 'where the Â£18 million shortfall was coming from'?)How do you know that? What source are you basing that statement on?

The workshops at the PHS meeting. You should also be able to have the shortfall confirmed at Thursday nightâ€™s meeting. If either Ian Perry or Ewan Aitken are invited.

PortyMan wrote: And why am I wrong? Is it because I have a view that differs from yours?

No.

PortyMan wrote: I think Alison has raised a very valid point. You do too, or you wouldn't be trying to rubbish it!!

In what way is the question â€œAlison, where are they going to get the Â£18m shortfall from?â€

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 18 Apr 2006, 10:49

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 18 Apr 2006, 11:28

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?

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 19 Apr 2006, 12:04

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
PortyMan wrote:
So. Are you just being childish?

No, I am following the thread.

Thanks for your informative response... You must be a great help with the kids homework!!...

It may come as a surprise to you (I know, it must). But... some of us have lives outside of Porty.org and don't have the time or energy to plough through every posting on this topic (and all the others). So it's helpful to provide answers (or a direct reference) when someone asks a question to which you know the answer.

I take part in a number of specialist technical forums and I've never before come across a situation where someone withholds information in this manner.

It's the nature of such forums that the same questions get asked repeatedly (though not usually by people who already know the answer!).

Perhaps you could start a FAQ for this topic? With your comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the law, property, finance and council procedures it could be a valuable contribution to the discussion. Maybe Seanie and yourselves could get together over a cup of tea and set something up?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 Apr 2006, 12:19

PortyMan wrote: Perhaps you could start a FAQ for this topic? With your comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the law, property, finance and council procedures it could be a valuable contribution to the discussion. Maybe Seanie and yourselves could get together over a cup of tea and set something up?

A FAQ is only the start of what is needed here. Someone needs to host all the various files and reports too.

We also need a list of all of the websites which are starting to spring up either by the yays or the nays - an important resource and historical document for sure, but also to be held at arms length with the facility for bad data to be exposed.

I think it needs its own standalone "wiki" or some sort of community-editable web resource which is permanent and independent.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

How big can we link?