Jan 112013
 

By Mike Shepherd.

“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”  So said Karl Marx.

The Scottish press has recently been full of echoes of the City Garden Project. First up was Dundee’s unfortunate Victoria & Albert Museum project, where a shortfall in funds has caused serious delays in its completion.

And what do we read in the Guardian this week?

“When the V&A at Dundee project was unveiled in January 2010 the promoters claimed they could quickly raise more than £45m – divided into three £15m chunks to come from the Scottish government, national bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund, and wealthy private philanthropists and corporate donors. Two of these have not materialised: the scheme’s only financial backer at present is the Scottish government …. But no generous private donor or cash-rich corporation has yet committed money.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/jan/08/v-and-a-scottish-project-delayed

Aberdeen’s City Garden Project was also £15 million short of private funding, and was also looking for support from the Lottery Fund to the tune of £20 million. The financing for the City Garden was based more on hope than reality and had the project been approved, it would very likely have run into to the same difficulties as Dundee.

Next up is Glasgow. The Council want to revamp George Square. A short list of six designs from international architects has been drawn up à la City Garden Project and one looks remarkably similar to an early design, the one with glaikit people walking aimlessly across a vast expanse of city square.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20948763

The language coming out of Glasgow is very similar to the tired clichés that were inflicted on the Aberdeen public for the last four years:

  • International hoohah“Glasgow City Council say the project has ‘caught the imagination’ of the international design community.”
  • Overblown hyperbole“This redevelopment is a hugely exciting moment in the growth of the city as Glasgow strives to forge ahead and meet its future challenges.”
  • Iconic“The prestige of the companies competing to redevelop George Square is a clear indication of just how iconic it is around the world.”
  • – and horror of horrors: “Funding of up to £5m from the overall investment programme will enable early delivery of phase one of the George Square redevelopment with an additional £10m assumed within the Buchanan Quarter TIF Business Case.”   Oh dear, TIF…
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/george-square-designs-are-unveiled-1-2726634

And as if that wasn’t enough, take a breath before reading this one:

“A leading figure in Glasgow’s SNP group has called for a speedy poll on the plans to help decide the fate of the city’s George Square… ‘I’m calling for a city-wide referendum on the George Square proposals, similar to the vote last year in Aberdeen.’”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/demand-for-public-vote-on-future-of-george-square

And finally, one of the Glaswegian activists involved in the campaign (and organising a demo against the plans next month) wrote on Facebook:

“This is a topic of sometimes heated debate, but it seriously doesn’t need to be. We can all be mature and listen to the opinions of others without resorting to personal comments. It’s important that this page gives a good, positive message about what we want for George Square – there are obviously others that disagree with us and that is their democratic right in this country! 

“So let’s all keep the level of debate to a high standard here! Otherwise, we’ll never be taken seriously enough to gain any substantial political support!”

Good luck with that, then…

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Oct 222012
 

By Bob Smith. 

Mair hooses are tae bi biggit
Near Pinewood, an Brig o’ Don
Is’t nae time tae ca a halt
An say noo jist haud on?

Faar there’s biggins ye hiv cars
At least een tae iverry hoose
Jist think o aa the clutter
If mair motorists are lit loose

Noo fowk div need a hoosie
Faar tae bide there’s nae doot
Yet a bittie sinse is needed
Afore the foons they are laid oot

Dinna bigg in the suburbs
Some planners noo div cry
Cos congestion on the roadies
Ye wull git by an by

Developer chiels they scoff at iss
Sayin new hooses they maan bigg
Tae maximise aa their profits
Be it Grandholm or near Nigg

Aboot aa iss hoose biggin
Fowks we maan hae a think
Afore iss gweed lan o oors
Ooner  hooses it dis sink

So awa an bigg yer hooses
On an inner city broonfield site
Afore aa oor bonnie green parks
Are a mass o concrete shite

©Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie” 2012

Picture  © Madartists | Dreamstime.com
http://www.dreamstime.com/row-of-stones-patio-bricks-imagefree19977

Oct 112012
 

As plans progress for a new 10 storey office block on the former Capitol cinema, Murray Henderson meets Charlie Davidson, an early member of the Aberdeen Theatre Organ Trust, who talks about his hopes for the legendary Compton Cinema Organ, still resident in the now derelict building.

During the Capitol’s spell as a nightclub, few clubbers could have known that beneath their feet lay an exquisite example of one of the most complex and beautiful musical instruments ever produced in Britain.
The mighty Compton Organ was sealed underneath the floor of the nightclub as a condition of planning approval to convert the cinema in 2002. It was built by master organ maker John Compton of Nottingham. His brand was the most popular in Britain, with a total of 261 organs installed in British theatres1.

Because of the silent nature of early cinema, it was left to virtuoso organists to provide the spine-tingling soundtracks to the era’s films. In its heyday the Capitol’s Compton was of some renown and organ performances in the theatre were even broadcast to the nation.

A previous planning application for the demolition of the Capitol auditorium was approved by Aberdeen Council and backed by Historic Scotland. Though the plans were not progressed, they included the display of the organ console alone, to be rendered unplayable, above the entrance as “a reminder of the original use of the building”2.

But that is not enough for former Trust member and Aberdeen-born organ maestro Charlie Davidson, who is intent on saving the entire instrument from the wrecking ball and ensuring that its unique sound can once again be heard in the city.

Aberdeen Voice (AV): Charlie, what is your association with the Capitol’s Compton Organ?

Charlie Davidson (CD): I was born and raised in Aberdeen, and studied organ at St Andrews Cathedral in King Street Aberdeen in the 1960s but also discovered there was a magical Pipe Organ in the Capitol at the same time. I was allowed in to play the Compton on Saturday mornings which was wonderful. This was about 1965 and the Compton in the Capitol was the first Cinema Pipe Organ I ever played. The Capitol Organ, and in fact the entire cinema, was a big part of my life.

AV: Can you describe the Compton and how it felt to play in the Capitol?

CD: The Compton was a wonderful instrument. The acoustics of the Capitol were great and the organ console was on an electric lift situated in the centre of the orchestra pit. It was a great thrill to push the ‘up’ button on the organ console whilst playing and you would be lifted up to stage level in full view of the audience.

AV: How does a Cinema Organ differ from a Church Organ, which people might be more familiar with?

CD: The mechanical side of the organ is very similar to some Church Organs but the stops, or ranks of pipes, are quite different. Because the Cinema Organ was originally designed to accompany silent films, its main purpose was to imitate an orchestra. Having said that, it can still sound like a Church Organ if required.

The technique required is quite different to Church Organ playing. In fact, you will find that practically all cinema organists can play the Church Organ, but few church organists can play the Cinema Organ. The percussions were a major part of this design.

The Capitol Organ has a xylophone, glockenspiel, cathedral chimes, vibraphone and a full set of drums, cymbals and sound effects. The effects are operated by buttons above the pedals and consist of things like horses’ hooves, bells, buzzers, car horns, sirens, etc. – all great fun.

AV: It sounds like a very complex instrument.

CD: The organ is not just the console in the pit; it also has a massive blower in the basement and two rooms full of organ pipes and percussion instruments half way up the proscenium arch on the right hand side. There are also miles and miles of cables and relays etc. Restoration is a big job and I should know as I have removed several of these instruments over the years. The last one was in Mallorca this year.

AV: Can you tell us more about your previous restoration work?

CD: Another of the organs I rescued was from the Rex Cinema in Stratford, east London. This organ has now been fully restored by a team of enthusiasts in the Royalty Theatre in Bowness on Windermere and had its opening on the 6th October3. In addition, I have the unique Ingram Organ from the Astoria Corstorphine in storage and also a fine Wurlitzer Pipe Organ from the Ritz Workington.

AV: I understand the Capitol Compton was broadcast.

CD: Yes, the Capitol organ was broadcast many times on the BBC. We had lots of famous resident organists including Rowland Timms, George Blackmore, Bobby Pagan and others – all of whom broadcast regularly. The Capitol was very well known to the UK BBC audience.

AV: There seem to be a number of different Compton designs, do you know if the Capitol’s Compton was unique, designed especially for the cinema?

CD: There were many designs of organ console. The Capitol console was unusual but not unique.  The art deco end boxes are known as ‘coffin ends’ for obvious reasons and are really just for show, to make the organ look more impressive as it rose out of the pit in the spotlight.

AV: Do you have any idea of how rare these instruments are nowadays?

CD: There are now only four Cinema Pipe Organs left in Scotland – the Capitol Compton, a very fine restored Wurlitzer in Glasgow, a Hilsdon organ in Greenlaw (ex Playhouse Edinburgh) and a Compton under restoration in the Heritage Centre Coatbridge. To the best of my knowledge, these are the only Cinema Pipe Organs left in all of Scotland. The Capitol Organ was a particularly good instrument as was the one in the Astoria Aberdeen.

AV: What became of the Aberdeen Astoria Organ?

CD: It was rescued and installed in the hall of Powis Academy. In November 1982, an arson attack by a pupil destroyed parts of the school including the organ. It had a glass surround and organ bench and the organist could change the colour of the entire lighted console at the flick of a stop. It could also be set to ‘auto’ and gently fade through all the colours of the rainbow. These illuminated consoles were known as ‘jelly moulds’ again for obvious reasons. They were unique to the UK which I always found surprising. The American Cinema Organs never had anything like it.

AV: How did you learn the skills necessary to restore Cinema Organs?

CD: Sheer trial and error. I bought my first pipe organ from Letterfourie House in Buckie when I was 14 years old and completely rebuilt it. It was a really historic organ and is still going strong with a local organ builder. It just went on from there and I got interested in the mechanics of Pipe Organs. The restoration encompasses woodwork, electrical, relays, etc. which I love and you end up with something you can play.

AV: In your opinion is the Compton Organ in the Capitol restorable?

CD: The Capitol Compton organ is most certainly restorable. It will require a lot of work, but it is such an important piece of Aberdeen’s history it really has to be done.

References:

1.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Compton_(organ_builder)

2.       Aberdeen City Council Approval Notice for Planning Application (P101757) searchable on ACC website. Current Capitol Planning application is (P101757).

3.       http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19270424

 Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

 

 

 

Sep 212012
 

Aberdeen based musician Simon Gall will present a talk on democracy and development in Venezuela next Thursday. With thanks to Mike Martin.

On 7th October there will be presidential elections in Venezuela – a country which has more elections than nearly anywhere else in the world, all certified free and fair by respected international bodies.

Record numbers are registered to vote – up from 11 million in 1998 to 19 million today – due to the removal of obstacles that stopped many poorer people voting.

Alongside Venezuela’s democracy, there has been a flowering of social programmes that have delivered free healthcare, eradicated illiteracy and lifted millions out of poverty.

Simon has recently returned from Venezuela where he was hosted by the Ministry of the Environment.

Simon’s talk will be followed by a 20 min video “Experience in Democracy (A Quick Glance at the Venezuelan Electoral System)” and a discussion facilitated by Gordon Maloney of the AUSA.

Time and Date:  7pm, Thurs, 27th September
Venue: New King’s NK14, Aberdeen University

For more information: www.venezuelasolidarity.org.uk
Or contact Mike: 0797-476-3082

Sep 132012
 

By Andrew Watson.

Where do I start? I have to be frank and say that I’m not particularly knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the City Garden Project and other megabucks initiatives that seem to have been put on ice by the Aberdeen City Council administration.

However, I have an opinion on most of these things, regardless of my sometimes shocking lack of insight.

You see, I voted in favour of the proposal to change irrevocably the landscape of Union Terrace Gardens, and, of course, the city centre itself, because I’m a contrarian by nature.

I was totally fed up with people seeming to bemoan the loss of the heart of Aberdeen, a reference to our great Victorian architectural heritage.  Did anyone ever use the Gardens before Ian Wood came along with his £50m? Alternatively, I suppose, would it not cost more than, say, £100m to bring the Gardens to street level? However, why were the proposals thrown out when a public vote, albeit a narrow one, wanted them to happen?

I could have sworn that it was only at that point that the Gardens, admittedly an island of green amidst a sea of cold, grey granite, had anyone taking notice of them. Now they’re holding placards. Better late than never.

Anyway, I digress.

Friday 7 September, was the day when I was meant to have a rather innocuous look at ACSEF’s AECC conference Securing Investment for Success.

Tom Smith, ACSEF chairman, said:

Our economy continues to punch well above its weight compared to other regional economies in the UK. Yet the public funding we receive is not commensurate with this economic contribution. We are in the process of confirming a strong line-up of public and private speakers and are looking forward to a robust debate and some strong recommendations and potential solutions coming out of this summit.”

Fair enough. A push towards The Big Society? Very nice.

A public consultation? After all, ACSEF is funded by Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire taxpayers.

Not a chance. Just senior managers from the business community, Council officials and local MPs and MSPs.

Despite this, I was told I shouldn’t have too much problem getting in. Well, you’d have thought so. But no, two invited delegates, who couldn’t make it, and from whom I tried to gain delegation, couldn’t help either. One had invited his brother instead. No problem.

“What about you, Iain Richardson?

“Yeah sure, will ping an email to Katrina Dunbar, Events Director with the Big Partnership”

‘Hi Katrina

Thanks, I’d like to pass my place on to Andrew Watson, please.

All the best

Iain’

I have seen this very email, sent to Katrina by Iain Richardson, stating that he was more than willing to pass his invitation on to me.

Katrina responded:

‘Hi Andrew

The communication I had with Iain Richardson, from what I could recall, is that he was planning to send the invite on to other contacts but we are within our rights to restrict entry to those who are not representing business as I previously stated. I’m afraid that I am only stating the guidelines that I have been given in terms of entry to the Summit.’

Concluded with a rather curt ‘trust this settles the matter’. Our only hope, to be honest, is that our business people represent the thoughts and feelings of the general Aberdeen public as best they can, and I have no doubt they will.  However, it doesn’t present the full picture, does it?

Which brings another of Mr Contrary’s bugbears to the forefront

Why were the proposals for my beloved Aberdeen FC chucked out?  Pittodrie’s crumbling, or so I’ve been told. Cue angry responses, including from me. I can’t help but feel, rather flippantly, without our slice of Dubai rock in UTG, and without our modern stadium in Loirston, you know, getting with the times and all that, are we forever to be relegated to provincial town status?

Don’t get me wrong, part of me, a defiance rooted somewhere in Teuchterville, wants this always to be the case. I don’t claim to know all the answers, but I know this cannot go on forever, and it irks me somewhat that not more of a concerted effort is being made towards public consultation, rather than just a yap between businessmen and councillors.

Take the proposed pedestrianisation of Union Street, or even the Loirston proposals.

The hub of our one-street town grinds to a halt most days, never mind when the International Market takes place on Union Terrace. What will divert crowded traffic elsewhere? A bypass, perhaps? Is that going even to happen?  What about surgery for the Haudagain artery? A long-term chronic heart problem for our city, if we’ve ever had one!

Loirston needs serious work. Where is the infrastructure in the area to support the stadium proposals and the crowds, cars, and busloads of fans transferred from King Street to Cove? Would we be not better taking the stadium somewhere else, which already has easy access in, out and away from the city centre? With common sense, would infrastructure projects like these really have the combined cost of £900 million, mooted by ACSEF?

How about asking bus, truck, lorry and taxi drivers what they think should be done? Or hell, have a consultation of commuters, for all I care. Just get it done!

I’m afraid my generation is the one likely to have to pay for this convoluted ‘granite web’, and the £900 million building plan ACSEF has announced is one bitter pill for the heart.

  •  Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Sep 132012
 

By Suzanne Kelly. 

‘Undemocratic!’ is the cry coming from various people in Government and some Aberdeen residents concerning the death of the granite web scheme.

The truth is that democracy took a beating in the way the referendum campaign was waged, in the secrecy over the TIF ranking the scheme received, and in the statements made by ministers who should know they were overstepping their bounds.

For those who really care about ‘Democracy’ and how it has been chipped at by those insistent that the web goes ahead, here is an overview of some newly emerged issues.

  • TIF Application:  Information Wrongfully Withheld

Last Sunday 9 September, the  Sunday Herald  carried two articles pertinent to how undemocratically the granite web has been pushed.  The first piece by Steven Vass was entitled FOI Victory Over Aberdeen Project’.  Vass explains that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust have been criticised by the Information Commissioner.  These two organisations are refusing to release information on Aberdeen’s TIF bid, in particular how it was ranked against other projects. 

TIF is meant to be used for deprived areas.  Our city centre needs improvement, and a good place to start would be practical assistance to local businesses which now must compete with multinationals in our shopping malls (which have far more financial power than the little guy does). 

We are not, however, a deprived area; businesses are continuing to set up shop here, our housing prices are good, and our standard of living has on the whole been found to rank highly in the UK. 

So why can’t we find out more about the TIF application?  Is it possible that our TIF application was one of the lower-scoring ones? (It was ,after all, soundly criticised by an independent accountant.)  If it was not a high-scorer, then was it given priority unfairly over other projects? 

In the interests of democracy, whatever side of the debate you are on, you have to agree that withholding critical information which could help evaluate the facts is undoubtedly undemocratic.  The information Commissioner has concluded as much , and hopefully on 22 October the truth of the situation will be revealed.  Either that, or the Government and the SFT will appeal to the Court of Session. 

It will be interesting to find out who was involved in this non-compliance with the democratic principle of Freedom of Information, and to find out what they have to hide.  It will be interesting as well to see if the Government refuses the Information Commissioner’s decision and lodges a Court of Session appeal.  

There is legislation saying this information should be supplied, and yet it is being withheld against the Information Commissioner’s decision. Verdict:  Undemocratic

  • Above the Law?  How BiG Partnership and an Anonymous Group of Businessmen Seized the Airwaves with Propaganda

The other article in the Sunday Herald brings us to an even more serious issue.  This article, entitled ‘How to get ahead in the race to the White House…by advertising’ explains how voters are bombarded with election propaganda and how important it is to spend on adverts.  It also brings us to the decision just released by OFCOM against the radio advertising that took place during the referendum.

The Herald article explains the vast sums spent on TV and radio ads to try to secure election victories in the US.  The article quotes Erika Fowler, the associate professor running the Wesleyan Media Project:

“  Campaigns are not going for efficiency, they are going for moderate voters in the centre who have not made up their minds.  There are going to be many, many people tuning out the messages, but in a competitive election cycle, you really are going for that last one or two percentage points.  So the parties and the interest groups… are going to do whatever it takes to get a competitive advantage.”

And as the article says,

“That means spending money…”

The American spin doctors and PR firms know, as do their UK counterparts, that advertising works.  And OFCOM, the communications regulator, knows it as well.  It exists to prevent the public being misled, and it has come down hard against the aggressive saturation campaign and adverts placed by The BiG Partnership on  behalf of the anonymous VFTCGP members- what do they have to hide?

As a referendum campaigner who had to obey stringent rules and spending limits, I was astounded that an unelected and anonymous group, ‘Vote for the City Gardens Project’ were allowed to place a huge volume of radio and print advertising.  Not only did they have a degree of media saturation which I couldn’t have hoped for – but the contents of their ads were misleading.  Why do I say that?  Here are two direct quotes from the ads and my comments on each:-

1.  Quote:  “I’m voting yes because of the £182 million of investment to the city centre – and it’s all coming from grants and private donations so it won’t cost the taxpayer a penny.”

“The City Garden Project won’t cost you a penny, it will be paid for through private donations and business rates.”

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb213/obb213.pdf – see Pages 6 and 7

Comment As demonstrated by invoices paid by the City Council, taxpayer money has ALREADY been spent on this project for advertising, PR and ‘stakeholder engagement’ in the region of at least £200,000.  What is galling is that the BiG Partnership, working closely with ACSEF would have known this.  In fact, it is still a mystery what agency or agencies carried out the PR, advertising and photography:  was BiG a recipient of taxpayer money?  If so, how democratic or ethical was this agency acting when it submitted these ads for broadcast?

2.  Quote:  “It will create twice as much green space in the City Centre.”  (reference as above)

Comment We have a green park – when I say green, there is a deep, rich fertile layer of soil supporting wildlife and ancient trees. (Democracy fans note – there are trees and species in this park which are protected by UK and EU law, even though the past administration allowed fireworks displays in the gardens). 

If you build underground structures and have a layer of topsoil over them, you won’t have the same environmental quality as we do now. 

If you chop the trees down, and build a 5,000 seat outdoor theatre on formerly rich soil, then there is absolutely no way that you are going to double the amount of green space. 

Layers of turf over the concrete theatre’s roof and making similar turf-clad structures does not mean you can claim you are doubling genuine green space. 

By the way, the idea of building an outdoor theatre in Aberdeen makes very little sense indeed weather-wise.  Building a theatre in front of where a theatre already exists raises questions about the ‘non-displacement’ concept – rules are  supposed to prohibit using public resources to build something that will compete with or take away from an existing business – but this is being conveniently overlooked. 

Aside from my opinions on the accuracy of these ads – Aberdonian citizens were bombarded with over 200 ads on Northsound 1 and 2, and Original 106 played ads over 100 times  between 16 and 29 February.  ( In contrast, Mike Shepherd had one ad played a total of 26 times).

The point is that if so much as one person heard these hundreds of ads, assumed they were true (after all, the trusted radio stations continued to run them) and voted for the web based on these spurious claims (no cost to the taxpayer, double (??) the green space magically created), then the commercials and the big money behind them unduly influenced the referendum result.

What really beggars belief is the behaviour of the BiG Partnership.

They were involved with ACSEF to push the web scheme.  They know that invoices were paid by the taxpayer for consultation, PR, ‘stakeholder engagement’, photos and the like (even including a photo for about £150 meant to show how ‘inaccessible’ the gardens are). 

They knew that the web was already costing the taxpayer money, yet they were involved with creating and placing advertisements on radio saying the taxpayer wouldn’t pay a penny.  Whatever your position on the web is, don’t  you agree this is unethical?

  People would have been influenced by hundreds of ads

BiG also appear to have placed these ads apparently without getting full advice and clearance.  Reading OFCOM’s decision, it is easy to conclude the ads would not have been deemed acceptable had clearance been asked for in advance.

How does an organisation as big and experienced as BiG explain itself to the regulator?  This is what they said:-

“Northsound told us that this organisation was set up by a group of private individuals who supported the re-development project. They were not a formally constituted organisation, the Licensee said, and had “no legal status”. This advertiser appointed The BIG Partnership, a public relations consultancy, to run and manage its campaign.

“The BIG Partnership made the following comments through the Licensee:

“This campaign was set up a by a group of private individuals who wanted to see the project go ahead. They were not a formally constituted organisation. They have no legal status. They got together and appointed The BIG Partnership to run and manage the campaign and they provided funds for that campaign. The City Garden Project, as part of the wider city centre regeneration scheme, will be funded by private donations and a TIF scheme whereby Aberdeen City Council borrows money to pay for the regeneration and uses the new business rates generated by new business across the city as a result of the regeneration to pay back the loan. It will not be financed by Aberdeen City Council’s annual revenue budget and therefore not have an impact on local council tax payers or on the delivery of public services. The group behind the campaign is not political. The campaign aimed to influence the outcome of the referendum by communicating the facts and the benefits of the project to the public. The objectors to the project also ran similar advertisements.”

If there is even a single person  who voted for the project based on these radio ads, which should never have been aired, or has a friend or relative who was taken in by these ads, then they should come forward now and say so.  (Write to me if you wish; I can keep your details anonymous if you prefer  sgvk27@aol.com)

An anonymous group of people, via an experienced agency,  placed ads which should never have been aired .  The ads contain spurious claims, but at the time the regulatory bodies were unable to intervene.  The regulator has found the ads in breach of code. 

We need to know who the VFTCGP members were to see whether there were any conflicts of interest.  People would have been influenced by hundreds of ads, the contents of which could not be contested at the time. 

Whatever side of the issue you are on, if you care about law, democracy and fairness, you must admit these ads should not have aired and would have influenced the voters who heard them.  Verdict:  Extraordinarily Undemocratic

( Note –  BiG has not answered questions on this issue at the time of going to press. )

  • Local Newspaper Coverage:  Lacking and Slanted

Unfortunately our local hard copy tabloids, the Press & Journal and its sister, the Evening Express, are clearly in favour of the web going ahead. 

Their coverage in the past has seemed one-sided.  However, they have chosen to exclude the news item about the information Commissioner’s verdict re. the TIF details.  They have covered other Information Commission decisions in the past, and this one certainly has local importance. 

More importantly, at the time of writing, no local tabloid has mentioned the OFCOM decision, and instead have run pieces critical of the Labour administration.  The BBC and the Herald have decided these two stories were newsworthy enough to be published.  The local press did not find room for them, but do have articles on a new chocolate shop opening in the mall, and a photo of a black swan. 

Note –  The local press has not answered questions on this issue at the time of going to press.

Is it possible that our papers are slanting coverage to please their advertisers?  It just might be possible.  Verdict:  Newspapers can take any side of an issue they want; that is democracy.  However, do you want a paper that gives you one side of an issue, or one that covers all ground?

  • Democracy:  Labouring the Point

This is a good time to discuss Labour and Democracy.  When the referendum was announced, Labour said at the outset it did not agree with holding it, and explained they were already legally representing their constituents.  They also pointed out that the referendum was not a legal vote that had to be adhered to; it was in law always just a consultation (like the one we had before which rejected the city square). 

Labour told the people that if elected, they would scrap the City Gardens Project, which by the way was still in its infancy.  Some people seem to feel the web was a done deal.  It had not had TIF approval yet – it lacks details (we don’t have anything other than fanciful artist drawings which ignore necessary architectural and safety features which would make the thing look far different from the concept art), and it had to go through planning.

Labour explained what was wrong with the referendum before it started, and vociferously objected to all the abuses that went on during the campaign.  They asked to be elected with scrapping the CGP as a main campaign plank:  they did what they were elected to do  Verdict:  Democratic

  • SNP Sniping

It is very interesting to see in today’s Press and Journal our Scottish Government minister for planning,  Derek MacKay, speaking out against Labour over the web – which is a planning issue.  There are guidelines which direct him not to make such statements, but he seems to be ignoring them.

Is a minister involved with planning overstepping his remit and going contrary to Scottish Ministerial Code?  Seems like it.  Verdict:  Out of Order
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/12/01141452/9

  •  Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Aug 172012
 

As crucial Aberdeen City  Council votes loom large for the future of Union Terrace Gardens, Mike Shepherd considers the TIF business case and finds it lacking.

Just imagine you are the managing director of a big business.  An opportunity has come up to build a new development.

Private investors have promised you £70 million, but it means that you have to borrow £92 million and the government have said they could find £20 million of grant to fund the rest.
Half the shareholders are revolting as they think the venture looks far too risky and the existing company debt is humongous.

The time comes to make a decision on the investment and submit a business case for borrowing to the board of directors.  It turns out that the private investors can only come up with £55 million and now the grant funding has fallen through because the funds never existed in the first place.  

Calamity – the project now has a shortfall of £35 million.  What do you do?  The sensible thing would be to walk away.

Not Aberdeen Council.  I refer of course to the TIF business case written by council officials recommending that the council borrow £92 million for the redevelopment of Union Terrace Gardens and other city centre projects.

The final business case for TIF has been made public and will be voted on at the finance committee on Friday 17th August.
(The agenda for this meeting can be seen at http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=146&MId=2668 )

A critical reading of the report makes one thing obvious – they haven’t got all the money!

Yet, it hasn’t stopped council officials from producing a business case where the critical points are buried in waffle and padded out to 187 pages.

Out of the badly argued case (with assumptions, inconsistencies and dodgy data) emerges this conclusion on page 141:

Underpinning the TIF business case is the requirement for £182 million of investment in enabling infrastructure.  At present the business case shows that there is a commitment for £90 million of investment from the private sector and the need for £92 million of public sector investment.

However, there is a shortfall of £35 million on the public sector funding required for the project.

£70 million is recognised as the private sector investment in the quote above, yet they are £15 million short.  As page 46 notes:

This includes £55 million that has already been pledged to the City Garden Project by private donors and a further £15 million still to be raised.”

So where is this extra £15 million supposed to come from?  Page 50 records that:

“Aberdeen City Garden Trust will provide capital funding, act as developer for the City Garden project …  ACGT have also undertaken to raise a further £15 million of philanthropic donations, to supplement the £55 million already pledged to this project from philanthropic donations.”

The begging bowl is going out for £15 million.  Chaps, you have less than a week to get the money.

The remaining £20 million of, “investment from the private sector” comprises “potentially £20 million of grant funding” for an Art Gallery extension.   But does this money exist?

Further reference to page 50 shows that:

The remaining £20 million of grants is attached to the Aberdeen Art Gallery Project.  Officers will pursue a variety of grants to secure the required funds.”

Note the use of the future tense, “will pursue” here.

Council reports show that officers have yet to apply for any funding and, with the exception of a possible £4 million of Scottish Heritage Lottery funding, no other sources of money appear to have been identified.

So what happens if they don’t get the £20 million grant funding for the Art Gallery?

To page 50 again:

Should there be a funding gap officers will need to consider how additional funds will be attracted, generated or secured via other fiscal arrangements.

Anybody fancy a Monet, Turner or a Cezanne?  Going cheap …

This isn’t a business case, it’s a bankruptcy case.

Last year, in a discussion with a council official, I mentioned the possibility of the City Garden Project proving a financial disaster and bankrupting the council.  I was cheerfully told that a public body can’t, technically, go bankrupt although it can end up in a state that closely resembles it (Greece comes to mind).

But make no mistake, Aberdeen Council are going to get burnt here.  Councillors are being asked to vote on borrowing £92 million for a project where there is a very large shortfall on external funding and no guarantee that any of this money will ever turn up.

It would of course be sensible to delay the vote until the money does actually appear.  Yet there is an insanely mad rush to progress with this project, even if it doesn’t make any sense to do so.

What is not discussed anywhere is the mechanism by which Aberdeen Council will guarantee the loan

Another problem with the report is that no detailed costings for the various projects are given.  For example, the £140 million cost for the City Garden Project is a nominal cost from the original technical feasibility study written over three years ago. It is certainly not the final costing.

This means that councillors could be committing to a multi-million basket of projects with no clear provision of accurate costs.  I find this situation alarming and hope for our sake that they do so too.

So who takes the risk on the borrowing?  This is made clear on page 50:

“Aberdeen City Council also recognise that the risk sits with them.”

The report mentions that the borrowing would be from the Public Works Loan Board.  What is not discussed anywhere is the mechanism by which Aberdeen Council will guarantee the loan.

The Scottish Futures Trust, operating on behalf of the Scottish Government, have provided guidance as to how a TIF business case should be submitted to them.
See http://www.facebook.com/l/QAQE16FGI/scottishfutures.ehclientsTIF

In Section 4.4 it is stated that:

“Economic assessments to be carried out:

  • By an objective economist with a recognised track-record of economic assessment for public bodies”

On page 72 we find that Aberdeen City Gardens Trust is identified as providing:

“Core expertise to assist in a robust TIF business case in order to support ACC’s efforts.”

Let’s remind ourselves who Aberdeen City Gardens Trust are again by referring to page 46:

“ACGT will provide capital funding, act as developer for the City Garden Project …”

An earlier draft makes it clear that the advisors to the ACGT were also involved in providing critical input on economic uplift that is supposed to result from building the City Garden Project and related schemes.

Thus a private company seeking to take over a lease and operatorship of council property have been allowed to influence a report justifying the case for Aberdeen Council borrowing £70 million to fund a project that the company has a direct interest in.

In a statement published by the Press and Journal last Monday I wrote:

“The Council would most certainly not allow developers to provide direct input into a report recommending planning acceptance; so why is it appropriate to allow developers to provide economic advice to councillors when the outcome could clearly act in their favour?”

I have complained vigorously to the Chief Executive of the Council on this matter.  It is very bad governance.  I have also drawn this matter to the attention of the Council Monitoring Officer and asked her to investigate this.

Councillors will vote on Friday as to whether this business case is approved or not.

It would be sensible to delay the vote until the business case can be proved to be robust.  Aberdeen Council also needs to find an objective economist, someone who is not directly involved in the project, to give advice.

Otherwise madness would lie in approving the business case and exposing Aberdeen Council to financial disaster.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Jun 282012
 

Following the release of the City Garden project business case on Thursday afternoon, youth councillor Kenneth Watt comments on the financial plan.

“The report highlights initial concerns with the City Garden Project. All risks featured in the business case are of high or medium risk.
Most concerning is the risk of running out of private sector donations, which is the most severe risk in the report, at 75%. Aberdeen City Council are expected to gamble over half of the funding through the risky TIF scheme. 

“There’s no substantial back-up plan for failure to capture private investment.”

“Even if capital costs increase by just 10%, the loan won’t be repayable in 25 years and the council will have to increase its borrowing to over £100m. A leading economist said last year that capital projects such as these could easily cost double.
( Ref:
 Neil Baxter, Press and Journal 14/5/2010 )

“This project could really drive the city in to more debt which is not what my generation needs.”

“I’m worried about the long-term impact the project could have on the city. There has been no investigation in to the effect of building another theatre on our existing arts venues. I fail to see real evidence on how over 8000 jobs are going to be created by replacing a park with a park, adding an extra floor to the Art Gallery and improving pedestrian routes in the city centre.”

“The risk is just too high and I remain unconvinced by the business case. People inAberdeenvalue public services and are already feeling the effect of £618m of debt. They don’t need more worry caused by short-sighted economic plans centred around a park pushed only by the city’s out-of-touch wealthy elite.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Jun 272012
 

You’ve Been Trumped,  the highest rated documentary in UK history, will receive its official cinema release in Scotland just days before the ‘star’ of the film can hit the first golf ball on his troubled development near Aberdeen. With thanks to Anthony Baxter.

The feature, which scooped up 10 major awards during its global festival run, premieres on Friday July 6th in the home of golf, St. Andrews.

This will be followed by an unprecedented cinema run in Aberdeen, Inverness, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Stirling and the Highlands and Islands.

The film will also play in London and selected theatres elsewhere in the UK before opening in the United States in August through Manhattan based International Film Circuit. 

Hollywood star Alec Baldwin, who is a ‘great admirer’ of the film, has asked to host a screening during You’ve Been Trumped’s premiere week in New York.

The brand new cinema release version of the film, given a PG rating by the British Board of Film Classification, features fresh scenes – including a moment where Mr Trump appears uncertain as to whether his golf course is situated on the east or west coast of Scotland.  It also features a beautiful, but scathing, song by Scots folk favourite Karine Polwart.

Director Anthony Baxter, who recently received an apology from Grampian police for being thrown in jail while making the film, says:

 “The timing is no accident.  We felt it was essential to get the film in front of the Scottish public before Mr Trump’s global hype machine churns into action.  And what better place to open the film than St. Andrews, where you really do find the best golf course in the world.”

Donald Trump’s publicity efforts seem not to be as effective as they once were.  After a disastrous appearance at the Parliamentary committee looking into wind farms Mr Trump has had to change his plans for his opening fourball, which he once predicted would include Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond and Sir Sean Connery.  According to press reports, both men are avoiding the launch of the development on July 10th.

Meanwhile emeritus Professor Paul Cheshire from the London School of Economics, the leading economist who predicts in You’ve Been Trumped the economic benefits promised by Mr Trump and Mr Salmond would never materialise, says he has been proven right and that Donald Trump’s objections to wind farms are a diversion.

“Mr Trump seems to be using the offshore wind farm plan as a way of saving face while kicking sand in the face of the Scots.  The people of Aberdeenshire have sadly lost a habitat of wild beauty for no noticeable economic gain.”

“Thus far, only a handful of full time jobs have been created by the resort, just a fraction of the 6,000 promised by Mr Salmond and Donald Trump.”

Leading geomorphologist, Dr Jim Hansom of the University of Glasgow, who gave evidence against the Trump plans at Scotland’s Parliament on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage, is warning fellow Scots not to be fooled by glossy newspaper and TV images of green fairways.

“What was once a wild, dynamic and inspirational place is now just another manicured and polished piece of coastal real estate.  Mountains of sand trucked in and bulldozed into shape are concealed by a superficial veneer of golf-course green.  A human-made place and a wilderness destroyed.”

  •  Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Jun 072012
 

What is the probability that the City Garden Project will actually happen? Mike Shepherd looks at some of the obstacles it currently faces.

The City Garden Project cannot proceed if £70 million of private finance is not in place to fund it:

The nominal cost for the City Garden Project is £140 million, with £70 million each to be contributed from the private and from the public sector.
So far, only £55 million of private money has been pledged, although £70 million has always been the target figure. The project will stall if the full £70 million of private funding is not committed.

Aberdeen Council voted in January to agree the following:

“Instructs officers to enter into negotiations with a view to putting in place a development agreement with Aberdeen City Garden Trust (ACGT) and/or their representatives, which sets out the terms upon which Aberdeen City Council (ACC) would be prepared to make necessary Council owned land available, to realise the proposed development subject to;

“(x) Requires ACGT to confirm, in a legally binding form, that they have access to at least £70 million of private sector funds to invest in the CGP, prior to the signing of;

a. An appropriate Development Agreement, and

b. A TIF agreement confirming ACC’s ability to invest at least £70 million in enabling infrastructure related to the CGP.”
http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=18252

A council vote to give final approval to signing the Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) agreement will probably come up this summer. This is basically a request for a £92 million loan from the Scottish Government, £70 million of which would fund the City Garden Project.

The £55 million of pledged private money has been on the table since early 2010 and the full £70 million remains an unfulfilled aspiration two years later. The funding gap of £15 million will be difficult to make up.

One issue is that big companies who could afford to make donations on the scale of millions may be reluctant to get involved with such a controversial project.  They will not want to come under severe criticism from either the public or their workers.

Sir Ian Wood could come up with the extra £15 million, perhaps anonymously.  This would however be an admission that the project has failed to motivate the business community in the place where it matters: the bank vault.

The TIF business case is risky:

Noted academic Professor Tony McKay has criticised the business case for public funding through TIF as “the worst he’s seen this year”.

Claims that the project will create up to 6500 jobs and add £122 million per year to the city’s economic output are ludicrous, he says. He thinks that the Scottish Government will reject the application for a loan from central funds.
dailyrecord.co.uk/aberdeen-city-garden-business-plan-is-worst-i-ve-seen

TIF funding is based on the idea that without the core project, new businesses will not happen. These are the “But For” criteria that give the green light for putting a new TIF scheme in place. The new businesses created provide business rates to pay for the loan.

The Aberdeen business case contends that much of the commercial activity in two new business parks in the north of the city, and in the city centre, will not happen without the City Garden Project.

I suspect that few truly believe this, as the new business parks will attract inward investment to the city on the back of a currently resurgent oil industry anyway.

Nevertheless, I suspect that the Scottish Government will give a few knowing nods and winks to the “But For” criteria here. They may be amenable to allowing new business rates to be captured to pay off the Council’s loan of £92 million for the proposed city centre redevelopment.

But will it be enough? The business case makes it clear that the revenue will pay off the £92 million loan and accrued interest with a small margin to spare after 25 years. And required to do this are 6,500 new jobs and £122 million added to the city’s economy each year for the next 25 years, a “ludicrous” estimate as mentioned previously.

Let’s take the lesser case whereby the city gets 5,000 new jobs and about £100 million per year of added value. This would also be miraculous news for Aberdeen if it were to happen, but it would be a disaster for Aberdeen City Council. The council would be left with a shortfall on a very large loan. It might have to sell off assets to pay the difference.

Audit Scotland was aware of these problems when it expressed concerns about the City Garden earlier this year, stating that “a key risk will be the affordability of the project and its impact on the council’s finances”.
[Audit Scotland: ACC Annual Audit Plan 2011/2012 p. 10]
http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=18879&txtonly=1

The land issues are complex:

At some point Aberdeen Council will have to approve a deal transferring property rights to the Aberdeen City Garden Trust (or its equivalent). This deal would be likely to involve assigning a long-term lease, and the council have said that they will not sell the land.

There are major issues here, not least those arising from transferring what would be a property lease for public land, potentially worth millions, to a limited company.

Union Terrace Gardens lies on Common Good land and at some point the Council would have to apply to a Court of Session to allow development to take place.  Additionally, there are contracts in place for the use of Union Terrace Gardens as a park. A legal document from 1871 states that the area of  Union Terrace Gardens should on no account “be appropriated to any other use than that of a recreation ground for the public.”

The City Garden Project website mentions the following: 

The gardens will be run on a not for profit basis. All income will be put back into the running costs for ongoing upkeep and improvement of the gardens. The City Gardens will be able to generate income through activities held within the park; exhibitions, conferences and returns from coffee shops and restaurants.”
http://www.thecitygardenproject.com/faq.htm

I’m not a lawyer, but these issues look to be somewhat contentious. The January council meeting approved the allocation of up to £300,000 of council money to be spent on carrying out legal due diligence for the City Garden Project. The council lawyers must be very worried.

The new council make-up is not favourable to the City Garden Project:

The last council progressed the City Garden Project through its voting procedure with a comfortable majority on most occasions.

The new council looks to have an almost equal split between the ‘pros’ and the ‘antis’.
In addition, the Labour Party leading the new council administration has pledged to kill the City Garden Project.

There will be several votes to come, including a likely knock-out vote at the full Council meeting on August 22nd.

The City Garden Project will also need to survive the TIF business case approval, the development agreement and the planning submission.

This is an administration that will have other concerns. I’m told that central funding for Scottish councils is being cut by millions over the next three years, yet only 18% of the cuts have come through so far. The last thing any new administration will want is the divisive distraction of the City Garden Project and its potential to suck much-needed resources out of the council, for example the £300,000 on legal fees.

Council leader Barney Crockett is opposed to the City Garden Project. He has now been assigned as the Council representative on two bodies that support it: the City Garden Project management board and ACSEF. He will be a veritable cuckoo in what have previously been two cosy nests for the scheme.

The City Garden Project could itself be described as a cuckoo in the nest; its big yawning mouth crying to be fed with big gobbets of public money while other more deserving mouths lack succour. A hard landing beckons for this particular cuckoo.

  • Have your say in the comments box below. Note – All comments will be moderated.