Royal Mail – Not For Sale!

 Articles, Community, Information, Opinion  Comments Off on Royal Mail – Not For Sale!
Feb 182011
 

Members of the Communication Workers Union will be holding a demonstration outside the St Nicholas Centre on Saturday February 26th to raise awareness of proposals put forward by the Government to privatise Royal Mail. Voice’s Stephen Davy-Osborne reports.

The proposal, set out earlier this year, sees the link between Royal Mail and the Post Office Ltd severed as Royal Mail becomes a privatised company, while the Post Office remains in public ownership under a partnership similar to that of the John Lewis Group.  These proposals have caused a great deal of concern to those employed by both organisations.

Once privatised, there would be no guarantee of Royal Mail making use of the Post Office network; which is already facing 900 closures up and down the country.   Once a vital amenity for any village, town or city; the Post Office has faced increased competition from other companies offering similar services resulting in decline in footfall, and therefore closures.

Alan Robertson, Secretary of the Grampian & Shetland branch of the CWU, is hopeful that further closures and subsequent job losses can be avoided:

“The future of the Post Office Ltd does not have to be gloomy.  If the Government stuck to its election promise of putting a fully-blown bank within the Post Office, then it would help secure its future. Last year alone 150 Post Offices shut down.  If privatised and not given banking services, then Post Offices will simply wither on the vine and the people who suffer the most will be the elderly, those in remote areas, and the most vulnerable in society.”

people think either it will never happen or it’s a ‘done deal’ – neither of which is true

Demonstrations and marches have been taking place up and down the country over the last few months, with many more yet to come.  Just last month following  the announcement of the proposed changes, the CWU marched on the constituencies of both David Cameron and Minister for Postal Affairs, Ed Davey, to highlight that privatisation is not in the best interests of Royal Mail or its users.

Members of the Grampian & Shetland branch of the CWU will also be journeying down to London at the end of March to join a march against cuts being organised by the TUC.

Royal Mail has attracted a lot of media attention over the past couple of years, with reports of inefficiencies and huge job losses on the horizon as it sought to compete in a modern market.  Despite the bad press, Mr Robertson is confident that things were starting to look up for Royal Mail:

“The long-term problems we have had are already being addressed.   Last April our membership ratified a three-year deal that accounts for things like the decline in mail, new machinery and ways of working.  This will lead to a significant drop in headcount for our members, but it has been done on a proper basis that will see a more efficient Royal Mail at the end of the three years.”

However, all of these agreed changes, which saw heavy campaigning from the unions to secure a fair outcome for all, could be put in jeopardy by privatisation.

The demonstration outside the St Nicholas Centre will therefore try and raise public awareness and let people know what the results of privatisation would mean to them.

“I believe that most people think either it will never happen or it’s a ‘done deal’ – neither of which is true.” adds Mr Robertson.

For further information and to show your support for one of the nation’s most vital public services, head along to the CWU’s demonstration outside Marks and Spencer, St Nicholas Centre between 11:00 and 13:00 on Saturday February 26th.

Dec 182010
 

By Bob Smith.

Gless an concrete aroon the spire
Raising hackles an causin ire
Thae designs fer The Triple Kirks
Aa drawn up by stupid birks

I can only think some philistine
Drim’t iss plans wid be fine
Nae thocht for fit wis roon aboot
A bonnie skyline gien the boot

Gless boxes seem a the rage
Architects nae langer sage
Foo muckle spent ti dream o iss
Some I think  are takin the piss

Aneuch’s aneuch I hear fowk cry
Will plans be passed on the sly?
Stewartie Milne ye maan be jokin
At thae designs fowk are boakin

We are telt they’ll aa fit
Wi Widdies plans fit are shit
Ti build ower the  bonnie UTG
Please fae idiots lit us be free

If ye think ma creeticism ower the score
Jist  myn fit’s geen  on afore
St Nicholas Hoose an Union Square
It’s time ti shout nae mair! nae mair!

©Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie”2010

Nov 122010
 

By Mike Miller.

When the City Square Project was originally considered by Aberdeen City Full Council on 19th May 2010 little was known about Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) and indeed, at that time,  it was not even a legal mechanism for funding regenerative projects. The origins of TIF are in the United States where it has been a mechanism for funding regenerative project for the past 50 years or so.

Indeed so widespread is its use that the the term ‘regeneration’ is virtually interchangeable with that of TIF.

Its widespread use in the States has led to somewhat strange situations with regeneration centring on a single shed in a field in order for one state to lure WalMart in at the expense of another! This is one of the flaws associated with TIF; potentially all it does is move business from one area in need of regeneration to another as incentives, by way of paid for infrastructure, lure commercial companies across State boundaries.

So is it suitable for the funding proposition that is the ‘regeneration’ of Aberdeen City centre? Well the first question is; does the city centre require regeneration? Sir Ian Wood obviously believes that it does and has proposed to gift the City some £50 million to support the claim. He describes the city centre as ‘second-rate’. The regeneration proposed is very specific – it must be a city square (well actually now a city garden since the public rejected the square concept in the deeply flawed consultation process earlier this year that was driven by ACSEF) with walk on access from all four sides. This will require the engineering of a raised platform thus obliterating the Denburn Valley and destroy the existing city garden in the process. But then you know all this. The key is that the City Square is essentially a civic project and, this is important, will not generate in its own right enough commercial ‘revenue’ to repay any TIF loan (because that is what TIF is – a loan that has to be repaid ) required to fund the infrastructure build.

So how will the TIF borrowing be re-paid? Well the original proposition was that a variety of sites dotted around the city would suddenly become attractive to developers, as a result of the City Square, and the business rates so generated would be used, in part, to repay the TIF. The other element that would contribute would come from the increased business rates generated in areas adjacent to the City Square. Now business rates can only go up because  any given business is more profitable as a result of the regenerative project.  All sounds good. Apart from its not good at all.

even with the Edinburgh proposals there are risks, more so with a stagnant economy because TIF relies heavily on business taking up the cudgels to build

Firstly the proposal that you can use business rates from properties that have no connection whatsoever with the City Square (for example the Oakbank school site, an original candidate for TIF loan repayment) is nonsense. This author has had conversations with TIF experts at the British Property Federation (whose job, amongst other things, is to promote the use of TIF where appropriate) who indicate quite clearly that you cannot repay TIF in this way.

Interestingly someone at the City Council must have picked up on this too because in the report to the City Council Finance Committee of September 28th it seems to have disappeared as a TIF repayment proposal.

This leaves the mechanism of the increased rates from adjacent businesses. Such TIF repayment is known as loose-coupling.  In TIF terms loose-coupling is highly risky. This is because the linkage between TIF funded project and the surrounding rates increases is far from guaranteed. It is worth stressing this as all other TIF proposals in Scotland  are closely-coupled. Close coupling is far less risky because the TIF funded infrastructure is directly linked to the development with which it is associated. Here’s an example. In Edinburgh infrastructure (roads, a pier, a marina, etc) are to be built in order to attract in developers to the brown field Leith waterfront to build (note that additional build is happening) some 2,800 homes and 900,000 commercial square footage of new properties that result specifically because of the TIF funded infrastructure.

Hopefully the difference between loose-coupling and close-coupling is clear and  the greater viability of what is proposed in Edinburgh self evident. There is (unless you hate development of any kind) nothing wrong with TIF when it is correctly and sensibly applied. Even so everything is not clear cut. John Handley, a regeneration expert, writing in the Scotsman newspaper earlier this year quite clearly indicates that even with the Edinburgh proposals there are risks, more so with a stagnant economy because TIF relies heavily on business taking up the cudgels to build; more uncertain at a time when money is scarce and the need for new office space dubious.

Loose coupling has its place too, where there is blight in an area (i.e. the area is so undesirable and decrepit people have moved out and so have businesses and no one will touch development in its present state as it is completely non-viable), then TIF infrastructure can act to pump-prime an area so that business and residents return and start paying rates and council tax that then repays the loan – but there are still risks. For Aberdeen it makes no sense as no one would describe the centre of Aberdeen as ‘blighted’. There are some empty shop spaces but this is largely normal ‘churn’ and to some extent might actually indicate the over-representation of retail space in the city –  is there more capacity than there are shops to fill the available space?

At the Finance committee of 28 September 2010 a paper was presented that sought to indicate that TIF could still be applied to a variety of projects within the city irrespective of whether the City Square project were to proceed.

The frailty of the TIF business case for the Aberdeen City projects has recently been alluded to in an article in Holyrood Magazine

There was some debate regarding the proposals as well there should have been as there are some fundamental flaws in what is being proposed. One potential scheme was for construction of infrastructure by way of a “high quality pedestrian route” with absolutely no indication of how the construction costs of this facility might be repaid; does building a pavement lead to increased business activity in an already prosperous city?

Worryingly for the citizens of Aberdeen, the Council, at a time when swinging budget cuts are to the fore, are seeking to borrow some £200m using TIF. The belief being that they can do so at zero risk to the Council. One presumes that they will seek a commercial sector 3rd party to under-write the borrowing, perhaps by way of a Special Purpose Vehicle, to which assets,including Union Terrace Gardens will be transferred. One cannot help but feel that the proposals are speculative at best and at worst could leave half completed construction projects scattered across Aberdeen – that’ll help the City’s image no end.

The frailty of the TIF business case for the Aberdeen City projects has recently been alluded to in an article in Holyrood Magazine. In the article, The TIF Factor in the 15 October issue, the City Council’s Project Director for Economic and Business Development indicates the risks associated with what is being proposed; the basis of which is that because of the City Square/Garden project, people will suddenly be more inclined to linger in the city centre and spend more (even more!) money. Such a model is dubious at the best of times but with a recession under-way and massive cuts still to come to the pubic sector, this could well be completely the wrong time to attempt such a tenuous approach.

As the Council scuttles around trying to jump onto the TIF bandwagon, bemused citizens are left to look on wondering just what could be achieved with Sir Ian Wood’s generous offer that would genuinely help the city without huge debts being incurred. Union Terrace Gardens could be improved and better access facilitated. St Nicholas House could be demolished and a new city square enabled by the closure of Broad Street; the Wallace Tower could be returned from the oblivion of Seaton Park and the upper deck of the St Nicholas Centre (a precursor of the City Square?) re-invigorated with connection to the new St Nicholas civic space.

This ‘second- rate ‘ blight if cleaned up and  removed could give Aberdeen a city centre a face-lift without re-course to the potentially financially crippling projects that the TIF proposals seek to enable. It would also mean that the much loved Union Terrace Gardens need not be lost by insensitive development thus placating the majority who voted in favour of their retention all those months ago.

Mike Miller November 2010

Nov 052010
 

By Alex Mitchell.

There is widespread concern about the dingy and run-down state of Aberdeen’s principal thoroughfare of Union Street which runs all the way from Holburn Junction to the Castlegate and the town end of King Street. This is manifest in the number of empty shops and in the distinctly low-rent character of many of such shops as there are.

It seems the more odd that this situation has developed during some thirty years of oil-boom prosperity, low unemployment and substantially-increased population.

If one thinks back to the Union Street of the nineteen fifties and sixties, the following comes to mind: Union Street was jam-packed with shoppers along its entire length every Saturday, as was also St Nicholas Street/George Street. People dressed up to go ‘doon the toon’, and you met everyone you knew in Union Street. In that sense, Aberdeen really was a village. The open-air markets in the Green and Castlegate were very much going concerns. Buses went all the way from Hazlehead to the Sea Beach and back again, via Queen’s Cross, Union Street and the Castlegate, which served as the city’s main bus interchange, where you nipped off one bus and on to another.

As a result, far more people had reason to go to the Castlegate than nowadays. Union Street and St Nicholas Street/George Street were full of interesting, up-market shops: grocer Andrew Collie & Co. Ltd. at the corner of Union Street and Bon Accord Street; Watt & Grant’s department store; McMillan’s toy shop, under the Trinity Hall; Woolworth’s, backing on to the Green; Falconer’s, Isaac Benzie’s, the Equitable, the handsome and elegant old Northern Co-op building in Loch Street; the Rubber Shop.

So what happened? Much of the population moved out of down-town tenements and into the new housing estates and suburban residential developments, ever-further from the city centre. Car ownership became the norm, and car-borne customers prefer shops they can park next to. Supermarkets became superstores and greatly extended their range of merchandise, destroying one specialist retailer after another. Butchers, bakers, fishmongers, hardware and electrical stores, shoe-shops and, most recently, pharmacists, bookshops and record shops have all been subsumed into superstores.

The obvious way for the city-centre to fight back was to build down-town malls like the St Nicholas and Bon Accord shopping centres

Superstores and their car-parks require huge expanses of land and prefer edge-of-town locations where large sites are available and cheap and accessible for both customers and delivery lorries. DIY sheds like B&Q, furniture and carpet stores and ‘big box’ retailers like Curry’s similarly prefer edge-of-town retail parks.

Edge-of-town retail complexes, such as that at Garthdee, may be banal, unhistorical and characterless, but they are also convenient as to access, offer easy and free parking, and are generally clean, safe and relatively easy to secure against break-ins and vandalism. The obvious way for the city-centre to fight back was to build down-town malls like the St Nicholas and Bon Accord shopping centres. These offer the kind of accommodation retailers want, and are relatively secure overnight, but they may tend to abstract business and custom from the High Street. The case is unproven. Without the down-town malls, the major retailers might have moved out of the city centre altogether.   Or they might not.

If, however, the supply of retail premises outruns the demand, it follows that the less attractive premises and locations will become hard-to-let, the rent obtainable falls, lower-status tenants have to be accepted; ultimately, premises may become unlettable on any terms. This is what seems to have happened in the west end of Union Street, and not only there.

We are assured that Aberdeen is not oversupplied with shops, but there have been significant increases in the down-town stock of retail premises in recent years, e.g., the Academy in Belmont Street and the Galleria in Bon Accord Street, neither of which were quick to fill up with tenants. The proposed Bon Accord Quarter will substantially increase the capacity of the present St Nicholas and Bon Accord malls and the Union Square development at Guild Street comprises some sixty new retail premises.

What else happened? Down-town, the general decline in church attendance after the First World War, combined with the exodus of population from the city centre, rendered many churches redundant. Similarly, whatever else we may say about the banks, they did put up some very handsome and impressive buildings. But, by the 1990s, the Bank of Scotland had abandoned its splendid and purpose-built 1801 premises at the corner of Castle Street and Marischal Street, as did the Clydesdale Bank its 1842 Archibald Simpson premises at the corner of Castle Street and King Street.

What was once the centre of business activity in Aberdeen was so no longer.   Aberdeen Journals moved from Broad Street out to Lang Stracht. Aberdeen University withdrew from Marischal College and the Student Union (and Bisset’s Academic Bookshop) closed down. The Robert Gordon University moved out to Garthdee.

There never was a time when things stood still. Old trades and occupations become obsolete, redundant or move elsewhere, often when displaced by newer, more profitable activities in the Darwinian contest for the use of economic resources, land, labour, capital etc. There are no fishing boats in Aberdeen harbour now because they have been replaced by oil-industry vessels. Planning applications for change-of-use are the normal and desirable state of affairs. But neighbourhoods and communities go into a decline when long-established firms and industries fade out and fail to be replaced by new enterprises and activities, or are replaced by activities which are in some way damaging or undesirable.

bars, nightclubs, etc., are a youth-orientated business, and the relevant age-group is shrinking as families move out of the city

The increased number of vacant retail premises in Union Street results from the fact that fewer tenants are moving in than are moving out; there is a net exodus of retailers.   The sad truth is that Union Street is not nowadays that good an environment in which to try to run a shop.

Old buildings and ground-floor premises are difficult to make secure against break-ins and vandalism. Delivery access for lorries is difficult. Shop staff and customers are harassed by drunks, beggars and drug abusers. Shop doorways, windows and their surroundings are often in a filthy state at the start of each day’s business. It is difficult to find and retain staff who will put up with this. It is not surprising if retailers follow their customers and withdraw to the relatively clean, safe and secure environment of the down-town malls and edge-of-town retail parks.

Aberdeen has generally been a better-run city than most. But the situation described arises from the non-delivery, or inadequate performance, of very specific council and governmental responsibilities, e.g., to maintain law and order, to enforce the law, e.g., against drinking in public places, to deal with anti-social and criminal behaviour, to collect the rubbish and clean the streets and pavements. Putting down the odd tub of begonias is not enough.

As banks, churches and big stores have withdrawn from Union St, so mega-pubs and bars, nightclubs and fast-food providers have moved in. To an extent, the new arrivals have been welcome, occupying old buildings which would otherwise have remained empty and neglected. In addition, some of this may be regarded as legitimate change-of-use, in response to changing tastes and lifestyles.

Similarly, there is a place for pubs, bars and nightclubs; but perhaps for fewer of them, and of a different character. The bars, nightclubs, etc., are a youth-orientated business, and the relevant age-group is shrinking as families move out of the city in search of better-value housing and more stable and higher-achieving schools.

In the meantime, the issue is one of whether the alcohol industry can peacefully co-exist with other economic sectors, retailers etc., and with the resident population of the city centre. All the evidence is that a neighbourhood which loses its settled, long-term resident population is doomed, finished, over. So if the interests of the local resident population and the alcohol industry are in conflict, then the former must take precedence.   It may be that the drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. sectors will be cut down to size only as and when people get bored with and/or turn against this kind of activity, much as they mostly have in relation to tobacco.

Similarly, a locality and micro-economy which has long been in decline, such as the Castlegate, can be revived only by rebuilding its resident population and base of custom and trade from the ground up. The buildings at the west end of Union Street (originally Union Place), used to be private houses; people did their shopping in the street markets or in Archibald Simpson’s New Market of 1842, Aberdeen’s first enclosed shopping mall.

One of the more positive developments in recent years is the conversion of the upper floors of these old buildings, often long out-of-use, into modern residential accommodation.

It is a pity that the long-proposed Bon Accord Quarter was put on hold, possibly whilst the proprietors of the two down-town malls assessed the impact of the Union Square development, south of Guild Street.

This writer was broadly in support of the outline scheme for the Bon-Accord Quarter, because it would have secured the desirable objectives of removing St Nicholas House and bringing Marischal College back into an appropriate usage; also because it confirmed and consolidated the traditional retail heart of Aberdeen as the premier shopping destination in the North-East, the natural and obvious location for up-market and quality retailers like Marks & Spencer, John Lewis, Debenham’s, Next etc., which serve to pull shoppers and visitors into the city centre to the benefit of all the other retailers and service-providers.

Contributed by Alex Mitchell.

Sep 032010
 

By Dave Guthrie.

On a quiet Saturday evening a couple of weekends ago a celebration took place in Union Terrace Gardens.
As evening fell, small groups of people began arriving with picnic blankets, candles, lanterns and glow lamps to take part in ‘Unplugged in the Park’, a low-key event loosely organised by Friends of UTG.

Amidst a sea of shimmering lights the audience were treated to storytelling, poetry, some amateur dramatics ( rather wittily entitled ‘Trees Not Wood!’ ), some fine music and African drumming.

The first lantern-balloon, released perhaps too soon, rose slowly in the still night air and there was some apprehension as it hovered close to the trees and HMT but there was a collective sigh of relief – and a few cheers – as it caught the breeze and seemed to head decisively in the direction of St Nicholas House.

Later launchings were trouble free.

A couple of bobbies strolled through the Gardens, no doubt grateful for a few minute’s respite from the street-level intensity of a city-centre Saturday night, as everyone enjoyed the entertainment and the spectacle.

Perhaps the only sour note rose from the two under-maintained port-a-loos standing in for the Grade ‘B’ listed Victorian facilities which have been allowed to fall into a sad state of disrepair.

The weather was kind, with the showers not arriving until most of the crowd had quietly dispersed and the clean-up operation was well under way.

Once again, the Gardens had provided an oasis of calm in the city centre which people could enjoy fully with the minimum of fuss.

Aug 272010
 

Alex Mitchell continues his historical account of the Old Burghs of Aberdeen, and of macabre practices and dangerous times.

From the end of the 16th century until 1776 there was a gibbet on Gallows Hill, which overlooked the Links and, from the early 20th century, the Pittodrie Stadium, hence its later description as ‘Miser’s Hillie’ – it afforded a free view of the football matches. Continue reading »

Jun 242010
 

First of all let me be clear. I don’t want to be a local councillor. I think it’s probably a very thankless task, and the rewards, except for the youthful aspiring party hack-career politicians for whom minimum wage fries-shuffling in fast food outlets is the alternative, aren’t great. I’d hate the tedium of standing orders, the drudgery of committee work discussing the dog doo-doo problem in Dyce and would sicken pretty quickly of the public ridicule invited by increasingly-cynical ageing Benjamins the Donkey like me.

I’m still a voter though, and like many others, feel that we’ve been short-changed more than once by those who want our votes but seem to ignore us on key issues – and you know what they are.

Continue reading »