Incremental Archives - Page 2 of 2

MSP Calls For Public Bodies To Stay Impartial On UTG

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Information, News No Responses »

Feb 162012

With thanks to Lewis MacDonald MSP.

North East Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald has called on Scottish Enterprise to maintain an impartial position in relation to proposals for building over Union Terrace Gardens, as city residents prepare to vote on whether to support the scheme.
Lewis Macdonald has written to Regional Director of Scottish Enterprise, Maggie McGinlay, seeking her assurances that she and the agency will not attempt to influence voters in the upcoming referendum on the proposed City Gardens Project.

Lewis Macdonald said today:

“The Scottish Government has indicated that it will consider the use of Tax Incremental Financing should the referendum indicate public support for the building over of Union Terrace Gardens. However, there is concern that this finance model is unsuitable as the City Gardens Project would not generate sufficient additional non-domestic rates income for the loan to be paid back.

“Whether to proceed with the City Gardens Project or not has become a very contentious issue in the city, and in light of these very reasonable concerns about the funding mechanism, it is crucial that publically accountable bodies, such as Scottish Enterprise, are impartial. That is why I have written to Maggie McGinlay for her assurance that Scottish Enterprise will not take a public view on this proposal, and that she will not do so either.

“Given the importance attached to the result of the referendum by both the city council and Scottish Ministers, it is essential that public bodies accountable to those ministers do not seek to influence the outcome of that referendum.”

Think Of A Number

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Articles, Featured, Information, News, Opinion No Responses »

Jan 272012

The business case for TIF and the City Garden Project by Mike Shepherd

The Technical Feasibility Study for the City Square Project was published in 2009. A key problem area was identified early on:

“The difficulty in quantifying the economic gain is considerable. To describe the benefits in cultural and civic terms and to focus on the future raison d’être of the City of Aberdeen will become the means of explaining the benefits. However it is very difficult to make these benefits seem tangible. Yet this is precisely what will have to be done for a proposal to succeed.”

Three years later, and with the scheme rebranded as the City Garden Project, they are still struggling to give any clear explanation for the economic benefit.

The business case for Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) was presented to Council on Wednesday. TIF is a mechanism whereby a local authority borrows money from central government funds to finance a development project. Any new business rates created by the project are used to pay off the loan and interest. It is intended to act as a self-financing mechanism.

The City Garden Project has a nominal cost of £140m, of which the promised private sector contribution is £70m. Aberdeen City Council is being asked to underwrite a £70m loan through a TIF scheme. This is part of a larger plan to redevelop the city centre which includes knocking down St Nicholas House, the Denburn car park and health centre area.

The TIF business case presented to councillors is, however, seriously flawed.

http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=18350

An Attractive Aberdeen

The main justification for the City Garden Project is that it would apparently create a high quality city centre to make Aberdeen more attractive. This is supposed to act to retain and draw in energy and other professionals, together with an increased number of visitors.

“Research shows that talented people choose place rather than job when making location decisions. As an Energy City, Aberdeen competes for skilled people with….areas like Abu Dhabi, Kuala Lumpur, Houston and Perth (Australia).”

Yet, a survey published two months ago makes this claim somewhat questionable.

“ABERDEEN has been rated one of the world’s top cities to live in for the second year in a row, a survey published today reveals. Quality of life in the Granite City is ranked above that of Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Houston and Dubai in the study, which is used by governments and multinational firms to help decide where to send staff.”

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2536835

Jobs Creation

Most controversial is the claim that regeneration of the city centre could create 6,500 jobs.

The report sets out how his figure was derived. A questionnaire was sent out by the Council to companies and a small number of interested parties in Aberdeen with the intention of assessing the economic impact of the city centre redevelopment. One of the target groups comprised key developers, land owners and agents. Of the 35 parties in this group, only one replied to the questionnaire. They then contacted all remaining 34 developers by phone. Even then, when directly approached, only six of the 34 were prepared to speak to them.

Unfortunately this question did not garner any responses

The developers were asked ‘to identify the extent to which the delivery of each of the five development schemes would result in uplift in development potential for housing, retail outlets, office space, business units, hotels, tourism and leisure in the City Centre’.

However:

“No respondents identified the project as having any impacts on the development potential for business/industrial units in the City Centre”.

Then:

“The next question in the survey requested developers to provide an indication (in quantifiable terms such as the number of units, square footage etc) of the extent to which the identified benefits would impact upon their organisation’s investment plans and/or objectives. Unfortunately this question did not garner any responses as consultees felt it was too soon and/or complex to attribute impacts in these terms.”

That questionnaire wasn’t that much help then.

“Additionally it was apparent that individual developers and other respondents identified potential uplifts in activity and recognised that the timing of investments would be brought forward as a result of TIF. However, many of these developers still had expectations that, irrespective of future economic conditions or City Centre Regeneration Scheme (CCRS) , their specific sites will be taken forward. It was apparent that individual developers and other respondents identified potential uplifts in activity and recognised that the timing of investments would be brought forward as a result of TIF. However, many of these developers still had expectations that, irrespective of future economic conditions or CCRS, their specific sites will be taken forward.” (HA!)

SO WHAT DID THEY DO NEXT ?

“In balancing these different responses (i.e. CCRS will act as a stimulus to market uplift in general versus developers views that each individual site is likely to be taken forward anyway) the Council, ACGT Enterprises and their advisors have initially assumed a profile of development under the no CCRS scenario whereby:

“None of the cultural, leisure or retail elements of the CCRS projects will be taken forward;

“At least one major site totalling 0.720 million square feet will be taken forward in the anticipated timescales projected by developers regardless of CCRS; and,

“On the remaining sites identified, 1.369 million square feet will go forward without TIF over the 25 year period considered, but such developments will lag, on average, three years behind the profile assumed with CCRS.

“On the remaining sites identified, 2,029 million square feet of development (out of total development potential of 3.468 million square feet) will not go forward without the CCRS, over the proposed 25 year TIF period.”

THIS IS THE KEY BIT

“the Council, ACGT Enterprises and their advisors have initially assumed a profile of development “

AND THEN …

Took the 2,029 million square feet figure, multiplied it by ‘standard job density ratios,’ and came up with 6,500 jobs.

Assumptions?

So what happened next?

“In balancing these different responses (ie CCRS will act as a stimulus to market uplift in general versus developers views that each individual site is likely to be taken forward anyway) the Council, Aberdeen City Garden Trust Enterprises and their advisors have initially assumed a profile of development under the no CCRS scenario whereby:

…. 2,029 million square feet of development (out of total development potential of 3.468 million square feet) will not go forward without the CCRS, over the proposed 25 year TIF period.”

The footage was multiplied by standard figures which relate development area to the number of jobs likely to be created, hence 6,500 jobs.

The key word here is ‘assumed’. An exercise in speculation somehow translated into a press statement that the City Garden Project will create 6,500 jobs. This wild claim led to much scepticism. It was pointed out that the London Olympics are only predicted to create 3,000 new jobs.

The Risks

The discussion on project risks is somewhat lightweight. One concern is the possibility of massive cost over-run on the project. The report even tacitly recognises the possibility:

“It has demonstrated with the redevelopment of Marischal College that it can have a major project delivered on time and under budget. This is a rare accomplishment in such large projects.”

In June 2010, I gave a deputation to a Council meeting where I asked who would pay for any cost over-run on the City Garden Project. The then Chief Executive, Sue Bruce, decreed that the private sector would pay, not the Council. Since that meeting, there has clearly been little progress on the matter. The report mentions that:

“Before entering into any TIF arrangement, ACC will endeavour to structure an arrangement with its private sector contributors that minimises ACC’s risk exposure.”

The Council should walk away from the project unless it gets a legally-binding commitment from the private sector to cover all costs of any project over-run. The major financial problems caused in Edinburgh Council as a result of the projected £200m-plus overspend on the trams project should be foremost in councillors’ minds, one would hope.

TIF can be a risky way to borrow money. The risks are understood by the Council:

“For most TIF projects the most significant risk would be in relation to the business rates identified not materialising or being delayed. This would result in ACC having insufficient revenues available through the TIF mechanism to service and repay their borrowings.”

There is another risk. The loan will be in place for a period of 25 years, gradually being paid off, it is hoped, by new business rates. Like a mortgage, interest will accrue on the unpaid part of the loan. The business case assumes an interest rate of 5.2% over the 25 year period. Should interest rates rise by only 1%, then there will be a predicted shortfall of £20.7m left to pay after 25 years.

Careful reading of the TIF business case for the City Garden Project shows that it is based on unexplained assumptions, optimistic extrapolations and will involve financial risk for the Council. Yet the public are being told otherwise.

Tuesday’s ‘Press & Journal’ quoted a City Garden Trust director, who mentioned they had polled 50 people in Aberdeen. Those against the City Garden Project had said the city could not afford the project.

“When the funding was explained and the economic benefits outlined, ten of these people changed their minds. “

This is what I would have told them instead.

“Your house needs doing up, you are heavily in debt, you can barely find the cash for the essentials in life. Should you take out an enormous mortgage for a new patio and garden? No!”

Build It And They Might Come – Tourism And The Fate Of UTG

Aberdeen City, Articles, Environment, Featured, Information, News, Opinion No Responses »

Jan 062012

Over three years ago, Sir Ian Wood announced the City Square Project with the intention of replacing Union Terrace Gardens with “a cross between the Grand Italian Piazza and a mini Central Park.” It has since been renamed the City Garden Project. The cost of building the project is nominally £140 million, of which it has been proposed that £70M of this would be borrowed by Aberdeen City Council involving a tax scheme. Mike Shepherd offers some analysis of current local government trends, the recession, and what it may mean for Aberdeen.

So what is the justification being put forward for this expensive project, a project that has caused so much controversy since it was announced?

The project’s supporters allege the City Garden Project is needed to ensure that Aberdeen is attractive enough to retain energy professionals long term and to ensure Aberdeen’s economy is based on tourism post-oil.

For instance, an advert by ACSEF in the Press and Journal (January 2010) stated that:-

“Creating a new heart for Aberdeen presents a unique opportunity to put the city on the ‘must visit’ list.”

Aberdeen City Council is £562 million in debt (2010 figure).
See: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/02/21143624/4

Last November, Perth and Kinross Council approved demolishing the listed Perth Town Hall to build a Civic Square in its place, a move that has raised much controversy. The BBC reported:

“The council said many local businesses supported the civic square proposal. And council officers have argued that full demolition and reuse of the site as a public space would provide the most additional value to the local economy. The cost of scheme is estimated at £4.4m, but the report said an additional 15,000 people per year would extend their stay in the city, with an extra 60,000 coming for events. “This would result in a combined additional spend per person per visit of £23 generating a total gross expenditure of £1.65m per annum,” it added.
See:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-15742937

Perth and Kinross Council is £222 Million in debt (2010 figure).

A similar controversy has been raging in Cork, Ireland, where the struggling Cork Council has been involved in a plan to install the Sky Garden Project. Celebrity TV gardener Diarmuid Gavin’s Irish Sky Garden won the gold medal at the Chelsea Flower Show (It looks like a giant hanging flower basket).

There is a pattern here. Local governments the world over are in serious debt

The Council agreed to put the garden on permanent display in the city’s Fitzgerald Park at a cost of at least €300,000, with more than €1.7 million given to the project by Fáilte Ireland, the Irish tourism body.

In tones, redolent of the Aberdeen controversy, the Irish Independent wrote:

“THE taxpayer could be hit with a further bill of over €100,000 in costs connected to Diarmuid Gavin’s award-winning garden.

“Workers’ Party councillor Ted Tynan said the council needed to clarify precisely how much the garden cost, and what the council would pay in transport, insurance and operating costs. He also expressed disbelief that the garden — including its 30-metre high floating ‘pod’ and crane — may only open for three months each year.

“I love gardens and flowers and parks, but this is absolutely ridiculous. You’d put a hell of a lot of flower beds around the city for this kind of money. We should keep our feet on the ground not in the clouds with a sky garden’,” Mr Tynan said

“There are 500 boarded-up council houses in Cork and 120 people with various disabilities waiting on home adaptations. But the funding to go to all this has been cut by central government,” he added.

“Last night, the council said support for the “iconic garden” was in line with the policy that led to the creation of successful visitor attractions in the city.”

“This is part of a long-term policy to create a necklace of top tourist attractions that will bring people to Cork, get them to stay longer here and spend more money here,” a council spokesman said.

“Fáilte Ireland insisted that the garden would generate significant tourism earnings.”

See: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/diarmuid-gavinrsquos-euro2m-lsquosky-gardenrsquo-growing-in-cost-2661548.html

There is a pattern here. Local governments the world over are in serious debt. Services and amenities are being cut, yet it doesn’t stop them from spending money on expensive big-ticket items that might bring visitors in. There is a feedback loop between local government, chambers of commerce and national government that serves to create the syndrome, “if we build it, they will come”.

While a worthy cause, this has caused controversy as the annual budget will be part-funded by the city’s Common Good Fund

Where local economies have failed as in Cork for example, tourism may be the last throw of the dice to engender outside income. There will be much competition for the dwindling number of international tourists as the recession bites. Recent reports suggest that countries such as Greece and Spain will focus relentlessly on promoting tourism as the last glimmer of light in their busted economies.

Aberdeen has caught up on the trend of pushing long-term tourism. The local chamber of commerce have been promoting a new destination marketing organisation for the city called ‘Visit Aberdeen’.

While a worthy cause, this has caused controversy as the annual budget will be part-funded by the city’s Common Good Fund; £107,000 for 2011 / 2012 and potentially for the next six years also. Arguably this is more ‘commerce good’ than ‘common good’.

The draft business plan recognises the future of the City Garden Project / Union Terrace Gardens as a primary issue. It is to be hoped that an organisation part-funded by Common Good money will not be promoting the controversial development of a public park that lies on Common Good land.
See: http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=15678

Are the citizens of Aberdeen willing to support the allocation of scarce resources to “a build it and they might come” vision for the city, allowing a public park to be developed for the sake of possible future tourists? Or is this all pie in the sky stuff that will use up money desperately needed elsewhere and will result in the appearance of the Granite City changing forever?

You have the chance to decide yourself. The referendum on the fate of Union Terrace Gardens will be held in February.

Union Treeless Gardens

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Dec 292011

By Mike Shepherd.

The jury for the City Garden Project will announce the final scheme for the proposed development of Union Terrace Gardens sometime in January. The choice will be between two designs, one with a web-based motif and the other with a big glass building in the middle which looks like a giant worm.

It is clear from both designs that most of the existing trees will be removed to build the new ‘garden’, whichever is built.

New trees could of course be planted, but it would be decades before these grew to a comparable size, and this may not even be possible in those areas with a shallow concrete substrate. There will be claims that some of the smaller trees could be replanted, although the practicalities of this are obvious.

The big trees are particularly important as they absorb carbon and filter more pollution from the air compared to smaller trees. One study concluded that for this purpose:

“Big trees, the ones the Victorians planted for us, are what we need to maintain, but they are few and far between.”
See: http://www.theecologist.org

This week saw the shocking news that people living in Scottish cities are being exposed to dangerously high levels of pollutants. A WWF Scotland report identified three pollution hotspots in Aberdeen; Union Street, Market Street, and Wellington Road. These show levels that are in breach of EU targets intended to protect human health. The main problem is the high levels of nitrogen dioxide caused by traffic fumes.
See: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk

Aberdeen has a highly-polluted city centre. The solution to the problem would be to reduce the level of traffic in the city centre; pedestrianising Union Street has been suggested as an option.

It is also clear that we need to maintain the tree population of the city centre to help absorb the pollution. The key areas are Bon Accord Gardens, St. Nicholas churchyard and Union Terrace Gardens itself. Otherwise, Aberdeen city centre can hardly be described as awash with trees.

Yet, the proposed City Garden Project will remove a population of mature trees from the city centre. The problem is acknowledged in the Technical Feasibility Study for the project.

“Removal of mature trees and existing ecological habitat; 78 mature trees would be lost including 17 number mature Elm trees. The ecological value of these trees would take decades to replace as many of the trees are up to 200 years old.”

The City Garden Project will itself be a major source of pollution while it is being built (for the duration of almost two and a half years according to the same study).

“Excavation of rock/earth; It is anticipated that 30,000m3 of earth and 35,000m3 of granite will need to be removed from site. This which will cause large environmental impacts from noise, dust, transport and energy use. The removal of this volume of material is equivalent to approximately 3,947 dump trucks of earth and 4,605 dump trucks or more of granite to be removed from site or re-used where possible on site. This would have large environmental and social impacts on the local area and community surrounding the gardens.”
See: http://www.acsef.co.uk

It is clear from this, that the ecological downside of building the City Garden Project is substantial. The construction phase will see a protracted period of dirt and pollution in the city centre. By contrast, it is no exaggeration to describe Union Terrace Gardens as the green, living heart of the Granite City; its big trees acting as a natural washing machine, helping to keep us healthy by removing noxious pollution.

Those living in Aberdeen City will receive a postal ballot in mid February allowing them to decide between retaining Union Terrace Gardens or sanctioning the construction of the City Garden Project.

I will vote to retain Union Terrace Gardens.

Problems Are Stacking Up For The City Garden Project

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Nov 172011

By Mike Shepherd.

On Tuesday a Council committee voted to defer a decision on a referendum for the City Garden Project to the full Council meeting on the 14th December.

Although an amendment was introduced to propose an opinion poll as an alternative, a vote for a referendum looks more likely.

If such a referendum was to happen it would be held either two months before or two months after the local council elections on May 3rd.

This is one of many setbacks to have affected the City Garden Project (CGP). Here is a summary of the problems facing the scheme:

The City Garden Project is way behind schedule: It is almost exactly three years since Sir Ian Wood announced his Civic Square proposal at His Majesty’s Theatre on the 11th November 2008. Although we are close to seeing a final design, the project is nowhere near planning submission and funding is very uncertain.

The vote on Tuesday looks to introduce further delays. It also probably shunts the planning decision well into the next Council, when at least one of the proponents of the scheme, John Stewart, will not be on the Council any more, having announced that he will stand down.

The City Garden Project is unpopular: This statement gets vigorously challenged by supporters of the CGP, yet it is clearly the case. The consultation held two years ago saw a ‘no’ vote for the CGP, and various online polls have shown a consistent numerical advantage to those wanting to keep the existing Gardens. The probability is that a referendum would reject the CGP.

The Design Exhibition failed to create any buzz in the city: The Friends of Union Terrace Gardens canvassed opinion outside the exhibition while it lasted. About half of those we talked to were unhappy about the designs. Many spoiled their votes.( by attempting to vote for the non-existent ‘option 7’.) Of those that voted, a common vote was for a design that appeared to preserve the Gardens (it doesn’t), although they reported they did this without much enthusiasm.

The land issue is a headache for the Council lawyers: Union Terrace Gardens lies on Common Good land and any land transaction, i.e. assigning a long term lease to a limited company or trust, would probably require an application to a court of session to apply for a change in status of the property.

The Council lawyers are well aware of the legal pitfalls that could ensue over the details of a property transaction (as witness the pending court case between Aberdeen Council and the Stewart Milne Group).

it involves the allocation of scarce public money using non-economic criteria

Currently,Union Terrace Gardens has negligible value as it is zoned as public open green space in the local plan. However, should this status change at a later date and the property is re-zoned as commercial space, the land value will be in the tens of millions as prime down-town real estate.

The lawyers will have to be especially careful on this issue, particularly where a long term free-hold lease could potentially be assigned to a limited company.

Funding the City Garden Project is a big problem: To date only £55M of private money has been pledged for a project nominally costing £140M. The CGP are pushing the Council to underwrite a loan of £70M through Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) to help part fund the scheme.

Aberdeen Council’s business case was so feeble it didn’t even rank in the top six schemes assessed for recommendation by the Scottish Futures Trust. Even so, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, Alex Neil, has told Aberdeen Council that their TIF application may still be considered. However, the TIF would be awarded on a ‘geographical’ basis rather than an ostensibly ‘economic’ basis.

This can be criticised as very poor Government practice; it involves the allocation of scarce public money using non-economic criteria. It also begs the question that if the business case doesn’t stack up, why is the debt-ridden Aberdeen Council under consideration to be allowed to borrow money for it?

Questions are being asked in Holyrood about Aberdeen’s TIF funding. This is from an article by Steven Vass in last weekend’s Sunday Herald:

“First Minister Alex Salmond’s decision to permit Aberdeen’s £70M borrowing plan for redesigning the city centre will come under renewed fire when he is forced to answer questions in the Scottish Parliament this week.

“Lewis MacDonald, the Aberdeen MSP and long-time opponent of the scheme, said there was a “scandal lurking under the surface” around the permission. He has tabled a series of parliamentary questions demanding answers to speculation the Government’s approval overruled the economic advice of specialists at the Scottish Futures Trust, who were supposed to decide which projects would go ahead.”

Another potential show-stopper is that last year the Council decreed that borrowing money through a TIF scheme must present ‘zero risk’ to the Councils finances. The only realistic way this could happen is if an organisation or individual was prepared to underwrite the Council loan.

This would be a major commitment to say the least, as it would involve underwriting £70M for a 25 to 30 year period. Perhaps Sir Ian Wood is willing to do this, but even for him or his family trust, it would involve a significant allocation of capital resources over a long term period.

Add to this the question of cost over-run. One architect told me this week that with the massive rock excavation operation involved and the difficulties of building over the railway line, there was no way of this project coming in on budget. Yet, very little has been said about what would happen if the costs do over-run massively.

The problems are stacking up for the City Garden Project and even three years later they are not much closer to being resolved. The patient is looking sickly and the prognosis is not good.

Union Terrace Gardens Update

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information No Responses »

Nov 042011

By Mike Shepherd.

The design competition for the City Garden Project has just finished at the Pier in Belmont Street and the organisers say that about 15,000 have visited to see the six designs on display.

The Friends of Union Terrace Gardens canvassed outside the exhibition for the entire three weeks it lasted.

We managed to speak to many of the public as they came out and we asked them their opinion. Probably between 10 and 20% liked the designs and at least a half felt uncomfortable with them. Many had spoiled the ballots, particularly as the option to keep the existing gardens had not been included.

Of those that voted, option two (the one with the worm-like greenhouse over the middle of the railway) was preferred as it was seen as the least damaging. A couple of architects told us that this was probably the Norman Foster design. Our general impression is that the Aberdeen public were underwhelmed by the designs, more the woe factor than the wow factor.

I’m not sure it was made plain to those taking part that their vote was merely serving to give an indication to a jury who would actually make the final choice, not them. The jury includes Sir Ian Wood. The jury will come to a decision sometime later in the month.

Option two “the worm” is likely to be a forerunner. The bumph describes it as “Protecting the gardens, transforming the setting”. For some, it has a close resemblance to the Millennium option, which largely preserved the gardens but decked over the road and railway. The Millennium option was proposed for a lottery funded project in the late 1990s but was passed over.

However, option two does change the gardens despite appearances to the contrary.

The balustrades are removed on the theatre side with a wide series of steps leading down to a circular amphitheatre below. The famous crest disappears. On the Union Bridge side, the gardens ramp up to street level. It is clear that many of the trees will be removed.

There are early signs that the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens could be asked to compromise on this option given that it appears to be the least destructive. This will be an attempt to muddy the issue with the public.

However, our constitution is clear. A key aim is to “to campaign for the conservation and improvement of Union Terrace Gardens”. Option two does not conserve Union Terrace Gardens and we cannot support it.

Aberdeen City Council’s plan to use TIF for Union Terrace Gardens project will be progressed if public support for the project can be demonstrated.

The Scottish Government issued a press release on Tuesday about TIF funding. They have proposed six pilot projects whereby Scottish Councils will be allowed to borrow money for regeneration projects and capture the business rates generated to pay off the loan (Tax Incremental Financing).

Two have been approved and another in Glasgow is to be approved pending a local council vote.

Aberdeen was hoping to gain one of the three remaining slots but was unsuccessful. However, the Government did announce that “Aberdeen City Council’s plan to use TIF for Union Terrace Gardens project will be progressed if public support for the project can be demonstrated”.

So the Aberdeen submission did not appear to meet acceptance for one of the six cases on business merits, yet is being given preferential treatment if the public like it.

Behind the scenes, Aberdeen Council have been lobbying hard to get an award.

Given that £70M of public money is involved here, it is alarming that the money appears to have been promised on grounds other than objective business criteria.

This decision has overtones of what Americans call pork barrel politics:

“Pork barrel is a derogatory term referring to appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative’s district.” (Wikipedia).

The instance on demonstrating public support would appear to make a public referendum more likely. This is not supported by the City Garden Project team. One of their members told us:

“I don’t think we should have a referendum because the public is not sufficiently informed to make a sensible decision.”

An opinion poll would be their preferred option. The leader of the Council Callum McCaig disagrees. He told me in an email on Wednesday that:

“I’m quite clear that we need to have a referendum on the issue. Even the best opinion poll will come with a margin of error and if the result was close there would always be an element of doubt over the validity of the poll.

“Yes a referendum will not be cheap, but given the scale of the proposed investment, and the indication from the government that a clear demonstration of public support being required before they approve a TIF scheme, it is a price worth paying to have a definitive answer as to whether the public want this project to go ahead.“

The Council are currently investigating the options for running a referendum and a vote on this is due to take place later this month.

What would be the result in a referendum? Scottish Television gave an early indication when they ran a straw poll with over 1,100 taking part. Preserving Union Terrace Gardens was an option along with the six other city square designs. 74% voted to keep the Gardens.

OS No. 56 – Charity Begins At City Council

Aberdeen City, Articles, Creative Writing, Opinion, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Oct 282011

Old Susannah reflects on what’s been going on, who’s got designs on our City, who’s doing what out of the goodness of their heart, and wonders if there’s enough ‘connectivity’ yet. By Suzanne Kelly.

It was another busy week in the Granite City. Have been busy decorating cupcakes with Sweet Lily Adams (it’s a hard life), and trying out new Jo Malone perfumes (I love their Gardenia cologne, and the orange blossom candle is my favourite).

NB: Jo Malone has absolutely nothing to do with Ho Malone, although the idea of Aileen and I having champagne and canapés together of an evening is an enticing prospect.
She is meant to email me back about the financials for the deer cull (we might not have enough money to kill stuff you see– or it could be a bluff).

Once she does write back, I’ll suggest that the two of us go out for drinks and dinner. Watch this space.

I actually went to some shopping malls without being accosted by guards, and I tried to avoid looking at the six design finalists more than was absolutely necessary. It was truly a car crash of an exhibition: I had to force myself to look, and then in horror could not look away again. Whatever the organisers say, not everyone at the show is convinced by the scheme or any of the designs by a long way.

The show has had a profound impact on me as has the TIF application – I think of these things and unavoidably burst out laughing. You have to hand it to these people – the emperor has no clothes on, but thinks it all looks fantastic. If you are free on 1st November, The Moorings is hosting its own alternative design competition – details on Facebook, where the alternatives are far more popular than the official site.

For some reason when I was back at the Academy shopping centre for the first time since my last little visit, my mind turned to the old Benny Hill show.

The other week when the guards were chasing me round the Academy and St Nicks (for taking photos), I could practically hear the Benny Hill theme tune in my head. If you remember, the wealthy, ageing Benny Hill surrounded himself with pretty blondes, and promised everyone that they would be generously remembered in his will. In the end, almost no one inherited a cent.

What on earth made me think of a rich, older man making promises to leave money to lots of people (including blonde actresses) I couldn’t tell you. The mind works in funny ways. I must have got something stuck in my craw.

Obviously it was not as vibrant as being in a shopping mall, but I took my turn on Tullos Hill Monday night (yes, we are keeping a watch on the hill – if you want to get involved, get in touch) and saw a solitary deer on two occasions.

It was obviously vermin, as it was peacefully doing nothing. I am sure this little vegetarian would have eaten thousands of trees of a single evening. A well-meaning man had a dog off a lead – the dog chased said deer away. The man saw nothing wrong with this, saying his (fairly small) dog would not be able to catch the deer. True, but not quite the point though is it?

Please let your dog run free if it will respond when you call it back. If not, well, then don’t. Wild creatures can be petrified in these circumstances. In the past week and a bit we’ve a child badly bitten by a dog, a dog attacking another dog, and a charming man using his dog to attack police. It’s just as well we got rid of dog licensing, isn’t it?

But onwards with a few definitions.

Charitable:

(adjective) generous, unselfish, giving behaviour.

Many of us here at Aberdeen Voice help out our favourite charities and causes when we can. But our efforts are quite second rate when compared to the heroic, unselfish, self-sacrifice practiced by some of the City Council’s officers. Step forward Mr Gerry Brough and Ms Jan Falconer.

These two have been working in part on a voluntary basis to make sure that we get something built in boring old UTG. It is very generous of their employer, Aberdeen City Council to allow them to toil away on the garden project.

It was Jan who spoke to the Torry Community Council about UTG some months ago (Gordon MacIntosh had a dinner to go to instead of seeing Torry), and she promised everything would be spelled out and transparent.

I am convinced she is right – everyone on the City Gardens Project and associated companies has everything perfectly clear. And once the diggers move in, the rest of us will see what’s happening too. Here is a statement from a report, spelling out how she works:-

“I have only recently started in this project and the work I have undertaken other than attending meetings is administrative. My hourly rate exclusive of on-costs is £26. I work an average of 50 hours per week making an average of 200 per 4 weeks I work while I am contracted to 148 hours (37 hrs per week). I regard all other administrative and desk-based tasks as taking place during this 11 additional unpaid weekly hours (52 hours per 4 weeks less 8 hours for a flexi-day leaving 11 hrs per week)–which represents a cost saving of £2288 since working on this project from 2 February 2011. (i.e. 11 hours x 8 weeks @ 26 per hour = £3,120). Outwith this is Community Meetings to which I attended the Torry Community Council Meeting for 3 hours in my own time representing an additional saving of £78. This is my choice as I wish the project to be a success whilst following the Council’s instruction”.

Again, the real philanthropist is Sir Ian Wood, without whose promise of putting something into his will, we would not be where we are today. (Hmm – who’s supplying the office space, light/heat, printers, consumables for all these extra hours? What is the EU working time directive? Just curious.)

Mr Brough has occasionally become a wee bit heated when discussing the whole situation, and has written to some local opponents of the new gardens that they are just jealous of Ian. Here is an example of Gerry’s unselfish nature, hidden behind the sometimes less-than-genteel facade:-

“My hourly rate, excluding on-costs, is £46. However, I work an average of 55 hours per week. Therefore, I would regard all other administrative and desk-based tasks relating to the City garden project as taking place during the 17.5 additional unpaid weekly hours that I work for the council – which represents a cost saving of £20,125 since 6 October 2010 (i.e. 17.5 hours x 25 weeks @ £46 per hour = . £20,125). Indeed, it would be possible to claim that all City Garden work is effectively more than made up for by this additional no-cost time input. Consequently, it can be argued that any input to the City Garden Project is effectively on a voluntary basis, at no cost to the council”.

Bargain! Only £46 per hour, and he’s willing to work extra at that rate! I am impressed! In fact, the amazing report that these quotes come from can be found at:

City Garden Project, Aberdeen City Council Project Monitoring Group Meeting, 26 April 2001(sic)

…. it has some real gems – like the fact they see no legal problems with getting the land and only 10 Freedom of Information Requests had to be dealt with. You will be amazed as you read this; please be my guest.

While you and I could never hope to equal these giants of giving, who expect nothing in return for their efforts (not even a private sector job or promotion of some kind I am sure), I will take a moment to say that many local charities for people and animals need your help now. Check out Voluntary Services, Contact the Elderly, Willows, New Arc just for starters.

They are all in need of money, goods and if you’ve none of those to spare, they need your time. Obviously you won’t get a carpark named after you, but you might wind up chatting to great people on a Contact the Elderly event, help out with animals, or do one of a hundred other things worth doing. If you can, then please do get in touch.

Neutrality:

(adjective) impartiality, indifference,

Aberdeen City will not – so some claim – spend a single penny on anything to do with the City Garden Project. Its officers might be volunteering their time and sitting on boards, companies and committees about changing our dreary Union Terrace Gardens from something Victorian to something 1950s – but it won’t cost us.

The people in Aberdeen who brought us the BiD funding are completely neutral and indifferent to whether or not the City Gardens Project borrows 70 million (probably a wee bit more – say 100 million) through TIF Funding.

This is proved by the BiD people sending out a very smart draft letter for businesses to send. Here are some extracts from the text that an Aberdeen City employee is sending to local businesses (text in blue is mine):

“I have been asked by ACSEF (to) highlight [sic] that additional support is also required from local businesses to ensure that Aberdeen City can access TIF funding”.

Well, that’s neutral enough for me.

“We would be grateful if you could consider writing to Barry White, Chief Executive, Scottish Futures Trust, 11-15 Thistle Street, Edinburgh EH2 1DF in support of Aberdeen City Council’s TIF (Tax Incremental Financing) submission”

Aberdeen City is only asking businesses to write to the Scottish Futures people; it’s not biased at all.

“The TIF being proposed by Aberdeen City Council would unlock up to £80 million to deliver a range of city centre improvements as part of the city centre masterplan. At the heart of the city centre regeneration is the City Garden Project, which has already secured a commitment of £55 million of private sector investment with a further £15 million planned.”

Nothing wrong with a little unlocking, I say. Who can argue with this factual paragraph? Yes, sounds quite impartial to me.

“TIF is an invaluable and innovative tool for stimulating greater investment and regeneration, achieving major city centre transformation, and retaining and attracting existing and new business investment. It is therefore vital for Aberdeen to be selected as one of Scotland’s six remaining TIF pilot projects”

Yes, they are saying TIF is great and it is vital for Aberdeen to get TIF, but I’m sure they really are as neutral as they first claimed.

“We hope that you will demonstrate your support for the Aberdeen TIF submission by making it clear that the Scottish Government needs to demonstrate its support for Aberdeen City and Shire by investing in the regeneration of Aberdeen city centre which, unlike Scotland’s other major cities, has received little or no public infrastructure investment over the last fifty years.”

Yes, it is only fair that Aberdeen gets its own tram fiasco by having a big infrastructure project. I do seem to remember that Audit Scotland thought things were so messed up here that we weren’t supposed to do anything big for a while. But you can’t fault the City’s claim of neutrality just because they are asking businesses to beg for TIF.

Some of you out there might be starting to doubt whether or not the Aberdeen City BiD people are neutral when it comes to the City Garden Project getting TIF funding. This excerpt from a letter from a Bid Bod should end any doubt:

“Aberdeen BID is entirely neutral with regard to the City Garden project …”

So yes, Aberdeen City Council and its BiD people are neutral, they are just keeping businesses in the loop, and giving them a letter of support to sign so we can borrow somewhere between 70 million and 100 million (depends who you ask, really) for your great-grandchildren to pay off for building Teletubbyland. Neutrality to match the volunteer work, you might think.

It might sound like it’s asking for help from businesses getting TIF, but they have said they are impartial so that’s that.

One tiny part of this impartial letter requires a little more study:

I draw your attention to what might be a typo (or a Freudian slip) in this letter which I found amusing (underlining is mine)

“ACSEF is a public private sector partnership that seeks to grow the economy and enhance its quality of life through a joined-up approach. With the private sector standing shoulder to shoulder with the private sector, ACSEF has facilitated, influenced and delivered a variety of major projects that are helping the region and Scotland to meet its growth targets”

Is the private sector going to stand shoulder to shoulder with itself – or is that exactly what the creation of ACSEF with taxpayer money has created and what we should be grateful for? Answers on a form letter, please.

Just to show that I too understand neutrality, here is a link to a letter you can send to Barry White.

Tell him you don’t want a giant worm or a monolith that will cost someone, somewhere down the line tens of millions – if not one hundred million pounds. Tell Barry the designs are awful, and the city needs to attract people with excellent schools, great medical facilities, safe, clean streets, and support services for those who need them.

No one is going to live in our city because it has more parking, more offices or a few giant concrete ramps where once 400 year-old trees once stood. Use this letter as it is; customise it, or send your own to : Barry.White@scottishfuturestrust.org.uk

Next week:

The mystery of the uncomprehending Chief Executive, and the Case of the Missing Postcards in which Valerie Watts only receives 35 of the hundreds of anti-cull postcards created – over 60 of which were hand delivered by Old Susannah to a security guard who commented ‘loads came in’ that week – and the week before. Where are the missing postcards? Did deer eat them? Answers on a postcard please – or get one of the remaining postcards and send it to the City – pop into Lush for your card – and some very nice ‘candy cane’ soap.

Why Union Terrace Gardens Really Matters

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Oct 132011

Mike Shepherd, Chairman of the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens, puts the case for keeping Union Terrace Gardens.

Union Terrace Gardens are a vital part of Aberdeen’s heritage.

The city centre park was planned by Alexander Marshall Mackenzie, the architect who also designed the Art Gallery, St Marks and the frontage of Marischal College.

If Union Terrace Gardens feel as if they belong in the city, it is because there is a harmony between the park and the surrounding buildings, several of which were designed by Marshall Mackenzie.

There is a sense of architectural authenticity. This authenticity would be lost if a six-acre modern square is built, which would be surrounded by Victorian granite buildings. The singer Annie Lennox has described this possibility as an act of civic vandalism.

Aberdeen’s heritage matters.

The beautiful granite buildings give us a sense of place and belonging. We identify with our heritage, and Aberdonians are proud of their beautiful city. The replacement of the old with the new, artlessly done, erodes the unique feel of Aberdeen, and starts to make our city look like everywhere else.

The Gardens are beautiful and spectacular.

The Gardens provide shelter below street level under the hustle and bustle of the city centre. The shelter is enhanced by the 78 mature trees in the Gardens, all of which will be chopped down if a modern city square is to be built according to the technical feasibility study.

An Aberdeen Council document states the following:

Union Terrace Gardens has many qualities to be exploited and enhanced including:

– Topography which provides a unique and dramatic setting for the surrounding historic townscape and bridges, and an essential component of the identity of the City Centre

– The character of buildings to the rear of Belmont Street

– The setting for His Majesty’s Theatre, St Mark’s and the Central Library, Denburn Viaduct and Union Bridge

– Green space and mature trees

– One of the last locations where the historic relationship of Union Street to the old city can be appreciated

(Source: Aberdeen City Council, “Aberdeen City Centre – Developing a Vision for the Future“, May 2010).

The development of Union Terrace Gardens is not a done deal.

There are many obstacles in the way of the so-called City Garden Project, such that it is unlikely to happen. The project depends on the Council borrowing £70M to fund the project through Tax Incremental Financing. The council, who are £562M in debt, cannot afford to take any more risks on borrowing.

There is no public consensus for the project: indeed a consultation held two years ago rejected the scheme. The politicians are hoping to address these concerns by holding a referendum, which will inevitably support the retention of the existing Gardens.

There is a much better alternative to building a modern and intrusive city square in the middle of the Granite City.

The Friends of Union Terrace Gardens group are committed to the sympathetic restoration of our city centre park. We intend to act in a similar capacity to the Friends of Duthie Park; Duthie park will benefit from the funds attracted by the Friends and will be restored to its former glory. Likewise, the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens intend to return Union Terrace Gardens to a fully-functioning park again.

It wouldn’t take much.

Our park needs some tender loving care, new toilets, a play pen, improved access. We have organised social events in the Gardens and we are instrumental in making Union Terrace Gardens a fun place to visit. It is a park that is a key part of Aberdeen’s heritage, the green heart of the Granite City.

We are a community group dedicated to the future of Union Terrace Gardens.

– Join us, help us in our aims; find out more from our website www.friendsofutg.co.uk

Newer Entries