To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Morally wrong to spend so much on a strip of land
Share this:
From John Davis.
I READ both Mr Leslie’s letter (JEP, 6 November), and also one by Ms Benest (JEP, 9 November). Both have valid points, but we need to get to the reality of the situation, removing emotion out of it.
Firstly, there has been mooted the concept of a compulsory purchase order being considered. My understanding of this is that such an order required it to be made where there is benefit in terms of necessary infrastructure for the ‘betterment of society’.
If the owner of the land challenges a CPO, then the onus is on the States to prove this. I would find it difficult for the States to be able to justify such an order, and therefore we can probably rule out such a path, otherwise legal costs will be endless.
Secondly, the figure being discussed relating to an offer of £8 million, with the National Trust contributing £2 million to this is irrelevant. These are numbers that the trust has arrived at. No negotiations have been made from my understanding, and from all I read, the owner is not going to consider selling unless we are talking about well into double figures.
Therefore, if the owner decides to sell at £12 million (the lower end), and the trust tip in £2 million, then we are talking about a massive contribution from the States for a strip of land that only a handful of Islanders will use. If there are 50,000 taxpayers, each of us is tipping in £200 each. I believe that such a decision is morally wrong when we have a need for improved mental health facilities (and this is just a start).
Ms Benest comments that healthcare and education should not be the preserve of the well-off. The States does not have an endless pot on which to call, and these types of decisions such as to acquire Plémont will result in funds that could otherwise be directed to healthcare and education into a strip of land, therefore indirectly causing the concerns which Ms Benest speaks of.
The simple question is this: does the proposal meet the current Island Plan? If it does, then pass it (otherwise there is no point having an Island Plan). If it does not, then the plan should be rejected and the owner advised accordingly to submit a proposal that does comply.
This should be treated along the same lines as anyone else, no special treatment one way or another.
Related