O/T We'll fight them on the prom

[Joel Ninety]

I am enjoying the intelligent discussion within this thread.

What is happening with the Beachcomber design that was put forward for a marina? Is that a viable option that is being considered or has it been relegated to merely an award-winning concept?

[North Stand Shrimp]

I am enjoying the intelligent discussion within this thread.

What is happening with the Beachcomber design that was put forward for a marina? Is that a viable option that is being considered or has it been relegated to merely an award-winning concept?

The problem was that when pressed about things like financing, sustainability, expected visitor and user numbers/catchment area, the ecology and to be honest anything in-depth the designer hadn't done his homework and provided not many answers. In theory a great idea but nothing to back it up.

[Truth]

Over 3000 views now on this thread. (500 just for yesterday). I hope that the silent majority are truthseeking local ratepayers. I'm trying to keep the debate civilised, insult free,focused on identifying the truth and evidence based but its one hell of a challenge.

Forget the politics folks, its a dirty game of deception and lies. ,Truth is never respected and it it does not stand a chance. The system does not cater for honest politicians, Despite this the fact is you cannot subjugate an educated public.

If you want to see how the decision making process works at Lancaster City Council I would suggest that you read Mr Portmans (District auditors) report on Blobbygate. Its the truth. A process of a majority of irresponsible councillors just rubber stamping incompetent and huge error of judgement decisions made by top ranking council Officers recommendations.

Local rateapyers and the area need highly educated young people (not Common Purpose trained/mind conditioned) as Councillors.

IMO there is a huge conflict of interest concerning the regeneration of Morecambe and Councillor Archer. She would put the interests of her beloved Winter Gardens before the interests of local ratepayers. All Urban Splash need to do is offer her a few million/assistance to get the Winter Gardens operational and she'd forget representing the best interests of local ratepayers. I am still waiting to see a viable business plan for the Winter Gardens.

I am enjoying the intelligent discussion within this thread.

What is happening with the Beachcomber design that was put forward for a marina? Is that a viable option that is being considered or has it been relegated to merely an award-winning concept?

Would a London billionaire be interested in investing?

Mr Hughes's Mariuna design proposals were creative and very positive but were is the funding coming from?

The local press have publicised the cost of the redevelopment of the Central Prom area at £80 million.

Where did they get this info from?

Where is the £80 million coming from. Urban Splash or public monies. If its a public/private partnership whats the split?

With the exception of ????? we know the truth of the split on the Midland Hotel:-
£0.5 million Urban Splash for purchase of the Midland
£9 million public monies to fund the construction costs
£??? million Urban Splash to fund the construction costs
Fit out/furniture costs funded by?

Anyone had any joy yet with revealing the content of the Partnership Agreement between our Council and US. Councillor Archer informed me it was on the Councils website which clearly was disinfo/misinfo!

A final thought/key question for readers to ponder. Did US have to provide a viable business plan for the Midland before getting £9 million of public money?

[Joel Ninety]

Would a London billionaire be interested in investing?

If I were a billionaire, or even a millionaire, my money would have been straight out of my pocket to buy a certain goalkeeper for Morecambe Football Club.

I have seen Wayne Hemingway's name mentioned a few times and he has given his opinions on the developments in the paper. Is he looking to offer a design solution himself, now being involved with urban planning http://www.hemingwaydesign.co.uk/html/urbandesign.htm?

Maybe then he could celebrate a moral victory, and also pick up a contributor's credit for aiding the regenration of his birthplace. Its like a prime time Saturday night game show, with Urban Splash as Vernon Kaye and Wayne as the celebrity guest.

[Truth]

In this weeks Visitor (page 6/7 it shows the masterplan but gives no information on the extent of the high rise development and states:- the entire dvelopment consists of 381 flats, 130 additional rooms in a possible Midland Hotel 2, 22 beach houses, 8 commercial units and 616 car park spaces 493 of which are private.

The Visitor also reports that US intend to start on site at the end of 2008 and finish in 2016.

Theres a bit of a discrepancy in the Visitors figures. Its disinfo, why?

Please could the honorable Mr Shrimper or one of his associates address the misinfo/disinfo in this weeks Visitor.

It states 381 flats when in truth the application totals 533 residential units.

BTW Mr Shrimper no pms lets keep this debate in the public domain and at last on a level playing field.

Peace, truth and respect Mr Shrimper

[Heaton Shrimp]

"IMO there is a huge conflict of interest concerning the regeneration of Morecambe and Councillor Archer. She would put the interests of her beloved Winter Gardens before the interests of local ratepayers. All Urban Splash need to do is offer her a few million/assistance to get the Winter Gardens operational and she'd forget representing the best interests of local ratepayers. I am still waiting to see a viable business plan for the Winter Gardens."


You might just have a point there.

[North Stand Shrimp]

"IMO there is a huge conflict of interest concerning the regeneration of Morecambe and Councillor Archer. She would put the interests of her beloved Winter Gardens before the interests of local ratepayers. All Urban Splash need to do is offer her a few million/assistance to get the Winter Gardens operational and she'd forget representing the best interests of local ratepayers. I am still waiting to see a viable business plan for the Winter Gardens."


You might just have a point there.

May I suggest she should think about doing a "David Davis" then and step down as being responsible for Regeneration and fight this campaign against US independently as a Friend of the Winter Gardens?

IMO her posistion as become untenable due the conflict of interests.

[stoyles]

As a silent reader of this post from the beggining I would just like to add I'm all for the development put forward. Morecambe needs to move forward.

[North Stand Shrimp]

Well done Truth you've found the Quote button. not quite sure what you're getting at though as you've just quoted one big paragraph and not put any of your own comments or questions in there?

[Posh]

So are you saying John Donnellon went because of the Morecambe bay independents

No. I said he went because of a lot of people objecting to proposals by saying no without any thought, discussion or consideration. If by reading the word 'naysayers' YOU think that means the Morecambe Bay Independents that that's your view. I couldn't possibly comment.

[Posh]

If you want to see how the decision making process works at Lancaster City Council I would suggest that you read Mr Portmans (District auditors) report on Blobbygate. Its the truth. A process of a majority of irresponsible councillors just rubber stamping incompetent and huge error of judgement decisions made by top ranking council Officers recommendations.

There is an element of truth in that but very little. Of those councillors supporting the proposal only Stanley Henig as leader was criticised for a failure to monitor the activities of officers but his reprimand was very minor and utterly at odds with the lies and smears from opposition parties at the election which followed. The biggest criticism was reserved for Bill Pearson as Town Clerk who failed to sign pieces of vital paperwork that caused the City Council to be liable where it shouldn't have been. Yet, as I understand it, the MBI-led administration let him retire quietly on a full pension without any reprimand for the millions of pounds it subsequently cost ratepayers.

The report's strongest criticism of any councillor was directed at the Morecambe Bay Independent leader Tricia Heath for deliberately misleading the auditor.

[Truth]

Well done Truth you've found the Quote button. not quite sure what you're getting at though as you've just quoted one big paragraph and not put any of your own comments or questions in there?

Sorry if that caused confusion North Stand Shrimp. That particular post was an addendum to the earlier one; i.e:-

Please could the honorable Mr Shrimper or one of his associates address the misinfo/disinfo in this weeks Visitor.

It states 381 flats when in truth the application totals 533 residential units.

BTW Mr Shrimper no pms lets keep this debate in the public domain and at last on a level playing field.

Peace, truth and respect Mr Shrimper

I hope that clarifies the situation and that Mr Shrimper will be able to play ball on that particular question.of professional independent journalism. Acting in the public interest and keeping them fully and properly informed its referred to as by the Press Complaints Commission.

[shrimper]

live/work units:- 22 - or 'beach huts'

1 bed flats/maisonettes:- 246
2 bed flats/maisonettes:- 91
bedsit/studios:- 174

which equals 511 (plus the beach huts = 533)

In this weeks Visitor (page 6/7 it shows the masterplan but gives no information on the extent of the high rise development (shows an image, though so I think most people get the idea) and states:- the entire dvelopment consists of 381 flats, 130 additional rooms in a possible Midland Hotel 2 (which would take the form of serviced apartments, as we said in a previous story - but these could also possibly be bedsits)

381 plus 130 also equals 511 - plus the 22 beach huts.

It's about how these units are described in different documents - the figures are the same, though.

[North Stand Shrimp]

I hope that clarifies the situation and that Mr Shrimper will be able to play ball on that particular question.of professional independent journalism. Acting in the public interest and keeping them fully and properly informed its referred to as by the Press Complaints Commission.

Well, Shrimpers last post seems to clarify that one.

[Truth]

live/work units:- 22 - or 'beach huts'

1 bed flats/maisonettes:- 246
2 bed flats/maisonettes:- 91
bedsit/studios:- 174

which equals 511 (plus the beach huts = 533)

In this weeks Visitor (page 6/7 it shows the masterplan but gives no information on the extent of the high rise development (shows an image, though so I think most people get the idea) and states:- the entire dvelopment consists of 381 flats, 130 additional rooms in a possible Midland Hotel 2 (which would take the form of serviced apartments, as we said in a previous story - but these could also possibly be bedsits)

381 plus 130 also equals 511 - plus the 22 beach huts.

It's about how these units are described in different documents - the figures are the same, though.

Thanx for that clarification and for playing the ball Mr Visitor Editor. Can you inform us which document the Visitor was using when it compiled its report.

My take/opinion = deception.

Key question for local ratepayers, (Dooh sorry Council tax payers) excluding Mr Shrimpers associates..................... Whats your take on Shrimpers clarification?

BTW could you also clarify which of the blocks shown on the outline plan is the Midland 2
which you refer to and why you failed to bring the proposals to our attention when the date both the outline application for the whole site and phase 1 was submitted to the Council in December 2007.

Peace truth & respect

[North Stand Shrimp]

As someone who likes the ball to be played and not the man it seems strange that you have now diverted your attetions to one particular person. I'm affraid you've lost my attention on this one now Truth, you've turned it from a very interesting debate to a witch hunt in your own conspiracy theory.

[Paul Mac]

live/work units:- 22 - or 'beach huts'

1 bed flats/maisonettes:- 246
2 bed flats/maisonettes:- 91
bedsit/studios:- 174

which equals 511 (plus the beach huts = 533)

In this weeks Visitor (page 6/7 it shows the masterplan but gives no information on the extent of the high rise development (shows an image, though so I think most people get the idea) and states:- the entire dvelopment consists of 381 flats, 130 additional rooms in a possible Midland Hotel 2 (which would take the form of serviced apartments, as we said in a previous story - but these could also possibly be bedsits)

381 plus 130 also equals 511 - plus the 22 beach huts.

It's about how these units are described in different documents - the figures are the same, though.

Thanx for that clarification and for playing the ball Mr Visitor Editor. Can you inform us which document the Visitor was using when it compiled its report.

My take/opinion = deception.

Key question for local ratepayers, (Dooh sorry Council tax payers) excluding Mr Shrimpers associates..................... Whats your take on Glen Coopers clarification?

BTW Glen could you also clarify which of the blocks shown on the outline plan is the Midland 2
which you refer to and why you failed to bring the proposals to our attention when the date both the outline application for the whole site and phase 1 was submitted to the Council in December 2007.

Peace truth & respect

For someone who won't give an answer to questions directed at you, you like to ask plenty! Also, and maybe it's just me but you seem to be getting a bit more personal each and every post.

[shrimper]

http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/morecambe-news/Morecambe-may-get-second-Midland.3674806.jp

Front page (I thought that was probably enough prominence to inform people). It wasn't December (January) but we were the first to bring it into the public domain and I can't honestly say I knew the precise date of the submission. It may have been that it took a while to be processed, I don't know.

This is my last contribution to this thread.

[North Stand Shrimp]

http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/morecambe-news/Morecambe-may-get-second-Midland.3674806.jp

Front page (I thought that was probably enough prominence to inform people). It wasn't December (January) but we were the first to bring it into the public domain and I can't honestly say I knew the precise date of the submission. It may have been that it took a while to be processed, I don't know.

This is my last contribution to this thread.

It does feel like there's not much constructive happening here now, over and out for me too.

[Phoenix]

From the North stand.................."Oh its all gone quiet, all gone quiet, all gone quiet over there!"

It certainly has in the amount of answers you have provided to direct questions various people have put to you.

I also feel Truth has managed to sidetrack the main point of the thread with so many diversionary tactics that the aim of it is being lost at a time when the momentum is building elsewhere.

As Truth has said, they've spoken to Evelyn Archer and put in an objection letter. That says a lot about the tactics Truth is using.

For now, the Foe button will suffice to keep this a decent debate.

[Truth]

I post this:-

Thanx for that clarification and for playing the ball Mr Visitor Editor. Can you inform us which document the Visitor was using when it compiled its report.

My take/opinion = deception.

Key question for local ratepayers, (Dooh sorry Council tax payers) excluding Mr Shrimpers associates..................... Whats your take on Glen Coopers clarification?

BTW Glen could you also clarify which of the blocks shown on the outline plan is the Midland 2
which you refer to and why you failed to bring the proposals to our attention when the date both the outline application for the whole site and phase 1 was submitted to the Council in December 2007.

Peace truth & respect

and get this response from Glen:-

http://www.thevisitor.co.uk/morecambe-news/Morecambe-may-get-second-Midland.3674806.jp

Front page (I thought that was probably enough prominence to inform people). It wasn't December (January) but we were the first to bring it into the public domain and I can't honestly say I knew the precise date of the submission. It may have been that it took a while to be processed, I don't know.

This is my last contribution to this thread.

North Stand Shrimp and Paul Mac also take their bats home. Thats their choice but imo actions speak louder than words.

I'm affraid you've lost my attention on this one now Truth, you've turned it from a very interesting debate to a witch hunt in your own conspiracy theory

Its a truth hunt, honestly. Those who deal in spin or attemt to cover up the truth imo have to account for their actions.

Editors of newspaper have tremendous power and influence over joe public and are major players in society.

All I am trying to say is let local council tax payerswho own the land make a democratic decision that is based on truth. Give us the information (not disinfo, misinfo or spin) to make an educated decision and maybe this time we'll be able to get it right!

Peace, truth & respect.

[Keith]

This is my last contribution to this thread.

I would have to say that had I seen this thread earlier today I would have spiked Truth before Shrimper replied. Shrimper posts on here as a very long term Morecambe FC fan, not in his professional capacity. The fact that he deigned to respond is to his credit. If you want to post personally attacking someone's professionalism, please take it elsewhere. If you want to continue to debate the proposals & merits for the regeneration of Morecambe, then you are welcome. If you'd care to answer any one of the number of questions I've posed for you with regard to alternatives, you'll be even more welcome.

When you talk of 'the silent majority', you can not assume their silence is because they agree with you. I would suggest that you look at the facts, which in this thread at least, are two against the development, everyone else who posted is for it. If you want to convince the majority that they are wrong, you had better produce a more cognisant argument.

[Phoenix]

As the originator of this thread I would also like to add that the personal attack on the editor of a local newspaper is unjustified and unwarranted. To single out one person in name for such abuse is pathetic and childish especially coming from someone who has refused to put their own name to their comments.

Peace, truth, respect & bullshit.

[Paul Mac]

North Stand Shrimp and Paul Mac also take their bats home. Thats their choice but imo actions speak louder than words.

Bat!! Wrong forum. I'm staying put. I'm enjoying this thread. I'm also the sort of person that could be swayed by the putting forward of a good argument. I don't consider myself clever enough to get into this discussion in any great depth but I would like to hear your alternatives as to what has been asked earlier.

[Keith]

Anyone else notice it all got horribly personal and stopped being about the development of the town on the last page of messages?

I am enjoying the intelligent discussion within this thread.

Coincidence?