QUOTE (Sherlock @ Apr 8 2016, 06:50 AM)
Perhaps it makes some sort of sense and Cllr Law is just incredibly bad at explaining it? We need a properly independent review not one (reading between the lines of another council related letter on this week's letters page) chaired by an 'independent' consultant paid £650 a day to give the results the council wants...
Well, that's one way of putting it; and I'd hazard there is a great deal to explain.
On the face of it, the Council has simply disposed of some old assets which are no longer needed by the community And used the proceeds to pay someone to deliver something that is actually needed. In other words, in the years before, they've been saving up to do the job, but instead of putting it in the bank invested in property.
So far so good.
BUT
That all assumes there is a fairly detailed long term plan that both main parties wholly agree with. It must also mean we've been holding some pretty valuable assets whilst we knew that key services were threatened. Equally, as these 'developments' are ongoing, there are probably more such assets and more such development plans.
Who, of us, the great unwashed, has seen, let alone agreed with the 'big plan'? How come it's never mentioned in any of the election addresses, etc, etc, etc. Oooh we haven't any money to do anything......
Yes,
they are all in it together - up to their necks in it.