Not surprisingly, there was the usual barrel full of support on the online version of this newspaper (thisisjersey.com) for Simon Crowcroft’s stand against the development of the former La Folie pub down at the harbour into luxury flats.

We are told that the pub premises allegedly date back to the 1700s, as if that should make a difference. When it comes to what to do with publicly owned old buildings – or indeed any old buildings about which someone is suggesting doing something useful with – I’m firmly in the camp of one of the former inhabitants of the Big House (whose sensible observations have been sorely missed since he left politics), Jerry Dorey.

As he said more than once, but notably when the States had let the former Martin’s Bank Chambers fall into such a disgraceful and dangerous state of disrepair that there appeared no other option but to knock it down, just because something’s old, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it must be preserved at all costs, as some were suggesting.

I won’t say that this bolshie little crapaud was writing about the absolute disgrace of letting a fine, publicly owned building such as the former La Folie Inn and its surroundings fall into the appalling state of disrepair that it has before Mr Crowcroft knew that this particular folly ended in ‘ie’ but it certainly was a long time ago.

Indeed, it has been referred to in this column on a number of occasions – not, I stress, because of any particular affection I have for either the former pub or the area in which it is situated but simply because of the sheer waste of an extremely valuable resource.

Now, at long last, someone or something in the shape of the States of Jersey Development Company – the entity which is replacing that well known gravy train called the Waterfront Enterprise Board – seems to be doing something about it and that’s where young Simon and the usual suspects who comment on such things on thisisjersey.com climb aboard their particular bandwagon.

The JDC apparently want the site for the development of (yet more) luxury flats complete with their own boat moorings. I don’t criticise the company for doing this – they are doing what they should be doing, which is identifying sites which give us, the long suffering tax payers of this small rock, the best return they can come up with for our money. What seems to be wrong is that they appear to have the final decision.

Surely the decision as to whether we should go in this case with the best financial – as distinct from political – option must rest those we elect to represent us; that lot in the Big House.

The general theme of the online comments I’ve read seems to be against the sale for the development of luxury flats – with or without moorings and, in a harbour which dries out twice a day these aren’t as valuable as they appear – and in favour of the development of the site for ‘ordinary homes for ordinary people’.

I’d go along with that but with one proviso. Lets the ordinary homes be occupied by what are now trendily called ‘social housing’ tenants – they used to be called States rental tenants but with housing associations now doing most of the work in this sector the term is no longer appropriate – being housed in them and paying rent rather than owning them.

The reason is simple. I am fed up with my money being used to subsidise so called first time buyer or first rung on the ladder homes, only to see those properties sold (often before the original owner has even lived in the place) at huge profits. Each time it happened we – those of us footing the bill – were assured that this or that particular loophole had been plugged and each time we got such assurances it happened again, and then again.

It is an absolutely indisputable fact – and those are the only assurances I’m interested in – that no one can make a profit (that should read no one should be able to make a profit) from being allocated a publicly owned home for which they pay a reasonable rent.

Left to me, I’d have as tenants those who over the years have demonstrated that they take a pride in their homes and surroundings and are therefore deserving of the privilege of living in an extremely desirable and potentially attractive part of the Island.

I certainly wouldn’t flog either the site or the dwellings which may or may not be built on it simply to allow either a property developer or a greedy and ungrateful so called first time buyer to make a swift barrow load of bucks, that’s for sure.

But please don’t blame the JDC – in seeking to do something about a shamefully derelict publicly owned property, they’re only doing what that lot in the Big House should have done years ago.

A word before I close about the reopening of a much loved and much used facility – the splendid Hospital League of Friends’ cafe and shop near The Parade entrance to the General Hospital. As someone who started using the cafe while waiting for hospital appointments but who now uses it for a nice coffee and toasted tea cake whenever I am in that area (usually waiting for Herself to finish examining the de Gruchy’s sale rail), I can happily testify to the unfailing good humour and courtesy (reminiscent of a bygone age, if I may say so) of the volunteer staff. It’s great to have them all back.

And finally,

Having read the transcript of the questions put in the Big House by Geoff Southern to Philip Ozouf published last Tuesday, can someone please tell me what contribution to Jersey’s good government was made by this interchange?