New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 14:45

Stephen McIntyre wrote:I understand the mechanism but on what basis? Have the council been replacing schools that did have playing fields with schools that don't?

What was the deal and who owned the land at the Royal High Primary before it got chewed for the supermarket?

Were those playing fields before?

So - if they'll build on playing fields, and will build houses to fund schools, the inductive step towards building houses on playing fields to build schools is not unreasonable in my mind.

Once space is gone its gone - and if the council are going to take a step like this, it requires only a small shift in one's imagination to picture them starting to eat themselves once they have consumed their surroundings.

Yes - there is one basis - nature itself. Once you start consuming resources in an unsustainable manner then when they are all gone, there is nothing left to consume but ones self and ones neighbours - or die - even if only to delay the inevitable.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 03 May 2006, 15:58

Dadaist wrote:Once space is gone its gone - and if the council are going to take a step like this, it requires only a small shift in one's imagination to picture them starting to eat themselves once they have consumed their surroundings.

As I thought; one's imagination.

Royal High used to be playing fields but I'm not sure it was the council that owned them? I have an inkling or vague recall that the fields were owned by a Trust for the benefit of Royal High Rugby/Sports club. Royal High used to be a private school.

I think the Trust sold the grounds to Safeway and simultaneously did the deal for ground down at the new Royal High School. The theory being that once the RH secondary school was no longer local it would have a potentially fatal effect on the Rugby and Hockey clubs, so relocate.

As far as I'm aware the council did a good job of preserving at least a bit of the area as green space. They subsequently did some other deal that involved the library. Think it was selling access from Northfield Broadway.

I'm not claiming that the above is entirely factual but i do believe its a good approximation.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 May 2006, 16:55

From the EN, 3 May 2006:

Parents back new school on old golf course

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 May 2006, 17:09

Dadaist wrote:What was the deal and who owned the land at the Royal High Primary before it got chewed for the supermarket? Were those playing fields before?
So - if they'll build on playing fields, and will build houses to fund schools, the inductive step towards building houses on playing fields to build schools is not unreasonable in my mind.

Just to ratify my earlier post on the former RH playing fields. It was pretty much as I described, however, after a bit of research I can confirm that the council played no part in any land transaction either as owners or purchasers.

So, the they'll in your statement was not the council, which by default makes the inductive step, a step in the wrong direction.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 May 2006, 17:24

Dadaist wrote:...it's reasonable to expect the greedy eyes of the council to look enviously on the new playing fields next to the new school when the new building starts to get raggedy round the edges.

I don't understand where greed comes into it. Could you explain?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 17:59

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:What was the deal and who owned the land at the Royal High Primary before it got chewed for the supermarket? Were those playing fields before?
So - if they'll build on playing fields, and will build houses to fund schools, the inductive step towards building houses on playing fields to build schools is not unreasonable in my mind.
Just to ratify my earlier post on the former RH playing fields. It was pretty much as I described, however, after a bit of research I can confirm that the council played no part in any land transaction either as owners or purchasers.

So, the they'll in your statement was not the council, which by default makes the inductive step, a step in the wrong direction.

But playing fields did get built on didn't they?

That would be really gratifying were it not for the current plans to build on the golf course.

I certainly hope that they wouldn't build on their own playing fields, but they will now consider building on their own golf courses - even if they build you a new one elsewhere.

This leads me back to the question in the "wider issues" thread - if not on their playing fields then where?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 18:15

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:...it's reasonable to expect the greedy eyes of the council to look enviously on the new playing fields next to the new school when the new building starts to get raggedy round the edges.
I don't understand where greed comes into it. Could you explain?

Voracious, not avaricious. Hungry for land.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 03 May 2006, 19:11

Interesting enquiry

<a href="http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 06">Common Good Land Probe</a>

Well theres a thing

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 May 2006, 19:20

Dave, this would be of relevance if Portobello Park was held in the common good. Is there any evidence that this is the case?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 May 2006, 19:54

Dadaist wrote:Voracious, not avaricious. Hungry for land.

The realising of assets generally entails disposal not aquisition. I still fail to see how "greedy" is the appropriate adjective.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 22:11

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Voracious, not avaricious. Hungry for land.
The realising of assets generally entails disposal not aquisition. I still fail to see how "greedy" is the appropriate adjective.

I guess it depends on the mental image one is trying to create. My image of the council would be an eerie combination of aspects of Augustus Gloop, Pac-Man and the kind of colonial settler whose righteous lust for land enabled him to trample over the indigenous.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 May 2006, 22:25

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 03 May 2006, 22:51

I think pacman and Master Gloop are about right dadaist

If the elected members knew for sure that they were being voted out or emptied at or prior to the next election, do you think they would vote on this issue with their heads, their hearts or their wallets?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 03 May 2006, 22:52

Bob Jefferson wrote:Dave, this would be of relevance if Portobello Park was held in the common good. Is there any evidence that this is the case?

Ill look into it and get back to you soon on that one Bob

Post by **wangi** » 03 May 2006, 22:56

Dave Connelly wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:Dave, this would be of relevance if Portobello Park was held in the common good. Is there any evidence that this is the case?
Ill look into it and get back to you soon on that one Bob

The whole "gifted to the community" thing is a myth. Check the land registrary.

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 03 May 2006, 22:56

Bob Jefferson wrote:Dave, this would be of relevance if Portobello Park was held in the common good. Is there any evidence that this is the case?

This report allegedly shows a list of the funds and assets held by the City of Edinburgh Council in "common good" as of 1st April 2002. It may be incomplete and is certainly of poor quality but the properties shown are alphabetical and no sign of PP

common good

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 03 May 2006, 22:59

Dave Connelly wrote:I think pacman and Master Gloop are about right dadaist

If the elected members knew for sure that they were being voted out or emptied at or prior to the next election, do you think they would vote on this issue with their heads, their hearts or their wallets?

Certainly not with their heads or hearts

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 23:32

seanie wrote:Why?

To me, the council are defined by their actions. Those were the images which appeared to me when I held those actions up in front of the mirror of my own cultural references. I held up Rev Aitken and his ilk and saw Augustus (Gloop), Pac (Man) and Hernando (Cortez).

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 04 May 2006, 00:23

Dave, thanks for your link as I found the article to be of current and urgent relevance.

I was especially informed by the information that

assets have been systematically raided to shore up budget deficits elsewhere in the council

Now, were I to find out that my national government had, say, sold off stuff that was sort of mine in order to pay its bills, whether the government of that day were Whig or Tory, I would be concerned.

Were I to employ a plumber and find out that in order to fix a leak he had hacked off bits of pipes I was using elsewhere in the house, I would be concerned.

Somewhere inbetween national government and my imaginary plumber lies EDC. If I knew that their work elsewhere had been proven shoddy, I would want to be informed and I thank you for highlighting this article as part of this debate, whether or not PP is part of this or that fund, list or other construct.

Libby · Post by **Libby** » 04 May 2006, 00:55

Has any one seen the latest edition of the Craigmillar Chronicle(community newspaper for Craigmillar) well apparently there is another story about PARC'S that is the company that is developing the area up Craigmillar.

Seemingly they are now saying that they have not got the money to develop the new 21st Century School ,according to what i have been told it says something to the effect about Amalgamating Castlebrae High School with Portobello High School, and selling of the Land that Castlebrae sits on at the moment for more money.

It all seems a bit vague to me and i will not know the story till i get the paper

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 May 2006, 08:38

I think we need a new thread - 'New Schools - the wilder issues'.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 04 May 2006, 09:46

Bob Jefferson wrote:I think we need a new thread - 'New Schools - the wilder issues'.

Absolutely. Let's get involved and get it solved.

We could have one just for Rex Mundi called "The Wilde Issues".

Congratulations to all posters on a staggering 100 pages of discussion - a triumph for POL and complete vindication for Bob's idea to have "Matters" as its own forum.

The pinned archive of documents is great too.

Here's to the next 100 pages of revelations, myth busting, informed debate, hilarity, inanity and whatever else emerges from the ether.

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 04 May 2006, 13:27

We could have one just for Rex Mundi called "The Wilde Issues".

Should I take issue with that?

Pip Pip
RM

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 May 2006, 13:39

foxy wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:Dave, this would be of relevance if Portobello Park was held in the common good. Is there any evidence that this is the case?
This report allegedly shows a list of the funds and assets held by the City of Edinburgh Council in "common good" as of 1st April 2002. It may be incomplete and is certainly of poor quality but the properties shown are alphabetical and no sign of PP

common good

Yep and according to the The Scotsman:

THE FACTS

Common good assets were donated to the people of Edinburgh by philanthropists or were formerly assets of the royal burgh. The assets, which range from park land to the city's archives, are owned by all Capital residents but city officials are the trustees of the fund.

The last thorough survey of the assets was carried out in 1905 and this showed common good land in all of the Old Town, the majority of the New Town, Leith Links, The Meadows, Bruntsfield Links and The Shore as well as large areas of the Grange and the Southside.

Whilst it not clear whether the above list of locations is comprehensive, again there is no mention of PP and the audit took place only 7 years after the purchase of Portobello Park. So what do we know so far?

PP was not donated by a philanthropist or anyone else.
PP was not formerly assets of the royal burgh
The PP that proceeded the existing PP was not owned by the council.
PP is not in the COEC common good account.

It reminds we of the dead parrot sketch from Monty Python.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 04 May 2006, 13:53

I'm just back from the full council meeting to discuss the proposals and options for PHS and St Johns.

If my understanding is correct prior to the commencement of the meeting there was cross-party agreement to produce a more detailed report with closer examination of all options and costs. This report is due in August and if all parties are in agreement that is comprehensive enough then a vote will be taken to decided whether to proceed to full consultation in September. If there is no no such agreement then more time will be given to prepare another report.

There were 5 deputations in all and the performance of the 4 PHS students was excellent. They spoke knowledgeably, reasonably, intelligently and dealt with questions in a manner that belied their young age. A testament to what PHS can and do produce.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 May 2006, 14:01

From the EN Letters Page, 4 May 2006:

Give Portobello land to those who need it most

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 04 May 2006, 14:20

Bob Jefferson wrote:From the EN Letters Page, 4 May 2006:

Give Portobello land to those who need it most

Well the EN were quick of the mark, its only 14.15hrs Now!
I was also on Portobello Park at the same time
as W Wilson - there were lots of people on PP, he obviously has selected vision too?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 04 May 2006, 14:31

Gemini wrote:Well the EN were quick of the mark, its only 14.15hrs Now!
I was also on Portobello Park at the same time
as W Wilson - there were lots of people on PP, he obviously has selected vision too?

The above leads me to believe you were on PP at 1pm today, correct?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 04 May 2006, 17:00

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Gemini wrote:Well the EN were quick of the mark, its only 14.15hrs Now!
I was also on Portobello Park at the same time
as W Wilson - there were lots of people on PP, he obviously has selected vision too?
The above leads me to believe you were on PP at 1pm today, correct?

No I was on Portobello Park!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 May 2006, 17:09

Can I possibly assist in bringing this line of enquiry to a swift conclusion? Gemini, were you in Portobello Park on Tuesday at 1 pm, the time when Mr Wilson made his observation?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 04 May 2006, 17:23

Gemini wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:From the EN Letters Page, 4 May 2006:

Give Portobello land to those who need it most
Well the EN were quick of the mark, its only 14.15hrs Now!
I was also on Portobello Park at the same time
as W Wilson - there were lots of people on PP, he obviously has selected vision too?

Bob Jefferson wrote:Can I possibly assist in bringing this line of enquiry to a swift conclusion? Gemini, were you in Portobello Park on Tuesday at 1 pm, the time when Mr Wilson made his observation?

Want to know what I think? Gemini using her fabled powers of deduction, got the wrong tuesday and Gemini thinks the EN publised W. Wilson's letter 1 hour and 15 minutes after he wrote it.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 04 May 2006, 17:27

Gemini wrote: I was also on Portobello Park at the same time
as W Wilson - there were lots of people on PP, he obviously has selected vision too?

How do you know that you are talking about the same Tuesdays?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 04 May 2006, 17:43

Bob Jefferson wrote:Can I possibly assist in bringing this line of enquiry to a swift conclusion? Gemini, were you in Portobello Park on Tuesday at 1 pm, the time when Mr Wilson made his observation?[/quote

]

I am in the park every day, normally around 1 o'clock, there are always
plenty of folk, golfing,walking - whatever!
Perhaps Mr. P should teeter up there sometime, and see for himself, instead of believing what he read's in the Paper as gospel.

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 04 May 2006, 17:46

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Gemini wrote:
Well the EN were quick of the mark, its only 14.15hrs Now!
I was also on Portobello Park at the same time
as W Wilson - there were lots of people on PP, he obviously has selected vision too?
Bob Jefferson wrote:Can I possibly assist in bringing this line of enquiry to a swift conclusion? Gemini, were you in Portobello Park on Tuesday at 1 pm, the time when Mr Wilson made his observation?
Want to know what I think? Gemini using her fabled powers of deduction, got the wrong tuesday and Gemini thinks the EN publised W. Wilson's letter 1 hour and 15 minutes after he wrote it.

Anyway the letter was published today which is Thursday not Tuesday

And who is Mr P?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 04 May 2006, 17:49

foxy wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Gemini wrote: Well the EN were quick of the mark, its only 14.15hrs Now!
I was also on Portobello Park at the same time
as W Wilson - there were lots of people on PP, he obviously has selected vision too?
Bob Jefferson wrote:Can I possibly assist in bringing this line of enquiry to a swift conclusion? Gemini, were you in Portobello Park on Tuesday at 1 pm, the time when Mr Wilson made his observation?
Want to know what I think? Gemini using her fabled powers of deduction, got the wrong tuesday and Gemini thinks the EN publised W. Wilson's letter 1 hour and 15 minutes after he wrote it.
Anyway the letter was published today which is Thursday not Tuesday

And who is Mr P?

Where does Mr P come into it? Want to know what I think. Mr Wilson was in the park Tuesday 2nd, Gemini was in the park Thursday 4th and everything else is just confusing.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

has any one seen