Council provision of facilities and amenities

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:34

Porty kept ducking starting this thread so I have, as he has fascinating questions which need to be answered.

Porty wrote:Question 1: When reviewing provision of facilities or amenities do you agree that demand or usage of existing resources should be factored in to the decision making process?

To give an extreme example (made up figures). In 1977 Portobello Open Air attracted 10,000 bathers during the season. By 1980 this had dropped to 2000. It was built in 1935. The council have a decision to make regarding allocation of resources.

Question 2: If the Pool had been built in 1895 should they keep it open based on that criteria alone?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:44

1. Do you mean a council facility? I don't know.

There are probably some experts on here who can give you chapter and verse on this. I don't know the answer, but I would have expected a civic amenity to be subjected to a different set of standards and rules than a business.

In order to survive, a business must make money and get punters through the door - but amenities provided by the council are different. Even if they have slots in the doors to put your penny in, you don't necessarily have to pay to use a stand-up urinal in a council bog for example. This must mean that it's a service provided by the council because they think people need to wee.

Sports like golf and bowling must see a surge and then an ebb as players die or move to Spain - but I have no clue what timescale the council use when it comes to deciding when to shut one of these things.

I'd hope, though, that if a decision was made to close somewhere that it wasn't because they had run out of cash or needed the space for something else.

My best guess is that, in terms of usage, they would take this into account but not as strictly as a business would.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 15:50

2. If they could afford to keep it open, I think it sounds lovely. I don't understand what year this thing was built though - 1895 or 1935?

If the question you're asking me is if I believe in asset stripping, the answer is no, because one day you'll run out of assets to strip and will be providing no facilities cos you've sold them all to the housing developers!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 16:00

Dadaist wrote:2. If they could afford to keep it open, I think it sounds lovely. I don't understand what year this thing was built though - 1895 or 1935?!

It was built in 1935 and was an art deco building. It was closed as the usage/cost ratio got way out of tilt. the land wasn't "needed" at that time.

You and the golfers place a high value on how long something has existed and/or the fact that it got there first. Using your longevity and poseession criteria I am trying to establish how old the pool would need to have been to override the economic argument against it remaining open. Is 1895 early enough or would it have to have been say 150 years ago?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 16:10

Please don't lump me in with the golfers. I am not a golfer and I'm not a member of PPAG. As you well know, I signed the PFANS thingy so if anything I've made my mark - it's certainly the only formal communication I'll be having with the council on this matter.

If the golfers had been running a negative campaign I'd criticize them, and if they have, and I have been negligent, I apologise.

I've not seen any golf propaganda but I am wading around in PFANS stuff - partly your fault since you asked me to read that interminable document!

I wasn't around to see the pool - it had gone by the time I got to Porty. If you say it was an Art Deco building - isn't that the sort of thing that gets protected these days?

I know what you mean about economics, but council facilities must surely have other criteria when deciding whether to shut somewhere.

I'm sure seanie could use words like "qualitative" and "quantitative" value but it's not my forte.

But if they couldn't afford to keep it open, and as you say nobody was going, it sounds like it was game over.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 16:17

Dadaist wrote:
I'd hope, though, that if a decision was made to close somewhere that it wasn't because they had run out of cash or needed the space for something else.

Do you hope the real world just goes away?

Dadaist wrote: My best guess is that, in terms of usage, they would take this into account but not as strictly as a business would.

That's a fair assertion and if there is a formula then the emphasis on usage will be more or less priortised dependent on the location and function of the facility in question. So for example, Portobello has a few public toilet faciilities that are dotted around the community. We have already established from the flatulence thread that local excretions are at worst average. However due to the nature of the facilities usgae would have to reduce to a tiny amount of litres per day before the council would consider closing. Usage is not that vital people need to defecate locally.

Contrast that with the Golf Courses at porty and Craigentinny. If there were only one course the usage would have lesser importance. There are two courses one is described as "lovely" and at the other one usage is in decline. Golf and defecation share characteristics but people don't need to golf in the same way that need to poo. They can travel a bit further, as is evidenced by the fact that they already do. In this circumstance "usage" assumes a higher priority as PFANS have pointed out. In the forseeable future a continuing 12% reduction in usage, combined with the proximity of another council course would threaten the existence of PGC, whether or not a new school proposal came along.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 16:25

I'm probably a romantic or an idealist. Sorry.

Closure due to it being a bit rubbish or unpopular is something I have no problem with, really. If it was time for it to shut then shut it - if the campaign to save it built up enough momentum then great, it would have saved itself and rightly so.

What I have a big problem with, and have tried to detail in "Schools" is usage of selected facts by groups with an agenda.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 16:33

Dadaist wrote: But if they couldn't afford to keep it open, and as you say nobody was going, it sounds like it was game over.

Sounds like you are accepting that longevity is not enough on its own. (It would have been an interesting one these days withtha art deco factor. Maybe they saw that coming and got rid of it before it was too late, But as I am a council droid I can't say that

)

No offence or disrespect by your use of the word "afford" it is a bit clumsy. They could obvioulsy afford to keep it open at the expense of say education. It came down to the allocation of resources and priorites. It was a leisure faciilty that took up a large space and was poorly used. They didn't need the land but it was closed any way.

The similarities with the GC are stark. Its bigger, probably used less than the pool was and the land is needed. PFANS are right to expose the flaw.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 17:20

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote: But if they couldn't afford to keep it open, and as you say nobody was going, it sounds like it was game over.
Sounds like you are accepting that longevity is not enough on its own. (It would have been an interesting one these days withtha art deco factor. Maybe they saw that coming and got rid of it before it was too late, But as I am a council droid I can't say that )

No offence or disrespect by your use of the word "afford" it is a bit clumsy. They could obvioulsy afford to keep it open at the expense of say education. It came down to the allocation of resources and priorites. It was a leisure faciilty that took up a large space and was poorly used. They didn't need the land but it was closed any way.

The similarities with the GC are stark. Its bigger, probably used less than the pool was and the land is needed. PFANS are right to expose the flaw.

It doesn't read like they are exposing flaws - I would say that was something an investigative journalist would do. PFANS have exploited certain facts to suit an agenda in an act of negative campaigning.

You're right about the similarities between the pool and the GC though - if it were the pool under scrutiny, we'd be awash with PFANS anti-pool statistics, and you and PoP would be writing in to the EN every day slagging it off for not having a junior section, or there being other pools or something.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 17:40

Dadaist wrote:[

You're right about the similarities between the pool and the GC though - if it were the pool under scrutiny, we'd be awash with PFANS anti-pool statistics, and you and PoP would be writing in to the EN every day slagging it off for not having a junior section, or there being other pools or something.

Nah, dont think i have written anything about the golf course usage in the EN. Yet again you are blaming a golfers argument on PFANS. It was not common knowledge that PGC did not have a junior section. The golfers divulged this on live radio bu were simultaneously claiiming a lot os use by young people.

Its almost as stupid as the PPAG petition which out of all the blunders has got to be the worst and that includes the figgate park faux pax

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 17:47

Well, PoP's letter is on my list of low points of this whole campaign, I'm sorry to say. It smacked of opportunism and negative campaigning.

I don't deny the Figgate boo boo is a 1st order gaffe. I just never expected the likes of seanie to be involved in writing a piece of propaganda.

As I've said to you, I've tried to be as honest as I can in terms of what the consultation doc says. I got a different impression after reading it than you.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 17:52

Dadaist wrote:Well, PoP's letter is on my list of low points of this whole campaign, I'm sorry to say. It smacked of opportunism and negative campaigning.....

I have not been someone's low point since my divorce!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 17:53

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Well, PoP's letter is on my list of low points of this whole campaign, I'm sorry to say. It smacked of opportunism and negative campaigning.....
I have not been someone's low point since my divorce!

Hey, in general you're the dude. I just think you hit a bu_mmer on that one, man.

Can you believe bumm3r is on the profanity list? What?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 21:53

Can the mods please move this thread into the schools debate?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:37

Porty wrote:Can the mods please move this thread into the schools debate?

Hey. Don't I get statutory consultation before this bit of virtual land is swallowed up by the new school?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:39

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:Can the mods please move this thread into the schools debate?
Hey. Don't I get statutory consultation before this bit of virtual land is swallowed up by the new school?

Its a done deal.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 22:53

Fair enough. As long as my bung is sweet. Must get a piece of that lovely pie.