Quote: Inflatable_Armadillo "Well, your glass is clearly empty mate, and that is your call, but mine and the members of the Trust remain half-full.
Also, please don't put words in my mouth, that is your opinion but it is not mine, so don't try and force it on me for speaking my truth!
To clarify - I have just said that council may have acted unlawfully or ultra-varis and I did not blame them for 'everything' at all. All is told you was facts and my opinion and nothing more. Yorkcourt will I am sure have claimed to acted in best interests of its shareholder and investors, as such, they appear to have not acted unlawfully in any way and we are still talking to them. You might have an issue with them, but our own issue is trying to find a resolution and therefore while we have publicly said what we asked for, they have rejected it and offered an alternative deal which we don't currently think is good enough or as promised. That is what we are continuing to talk about and will do so for as long as it takes.
You are right, Newcold would not have been sufficient to trigger the build, but equally it was almost 2/3rd's, why do you think the council should have chosen not to enforce the S106 and let the developer off? The next development probably would have made up that shortfall and we would have no need to be debating on this forum? Irrespective of what people did of did not know, and the claim is that it was not clear, otherwise action would have been taken, then if WMDC acted unlawfully then it still changes nothing, they either did or did not!
As for Newmarket, well we have said and continue to say that we would listen to suitable proposals to redevelop Bell Vue and still will! However, no one ever promised or committed to redeveloping Belle Vue, they did to Newmarket, so if you give up on Newmarket then you get nothing and your wishes will all come true!'"
To your credit you have been glass half full all the way through, although so far it has been a tad misguided and it hasn't actually got us anywhere yet. So i might just add a pinch of salt to it for now if that is ok with you until i see a floodlight lit up there.
And yes it does come accross as you are blaming the council for everything whether you mean it or not. You mentioned YC not acting unlawfully and hinted that is what i thought, well i never said they did? In your original post you talk about the moral side and the council being in the wrong and of course they are. But just as guilty of this, if not more so, are the developer who to an outsider looking in seem to have done all they can to circumvent the rules. They don't do that first then the council don't get the chance to stuff up. Yet they seem strangley absolved of any public criticism? Why, are we frightened they may take their bat and ball home? That i feel is going to happen with them anyway so i think it is time to tell them a few home truths as softly softly isn't working. If you are confident in what you say and you have them legally by the short n curlies then what is to lose, it might just shock them into action. All depends whether there are the funds to follow through with the legal talk. Lambasting the council is fine, they have dropped a big one. But lets not just be firing the guns at them, there are others at fault as well who seem to be getting off scot free.
