Sunday, October 12, 2014

Pleasurama how about an open process Cllr Everett

Pleasurama the name given to the vacant site on Ramsgate front which has plagued pages of local media since the dawn of time, is back in the news, this weeks gazette has a good half page devoted to the subject, on the table is an offer of cash from Cardy? Construction who have worked with SPF ventures who've failed to complete their original deal.

Elsewhere on the gazettes letter page,  labour's councillor Rick Everett appears riled up, since councillor Ian Driver and Bob Bayford raised the issue of not being given an opportunity to study confidential legal advice on this matter.

Now I'm not sure what qualification  or experience Cllr Everett has if any in matters of finance or business, but surely since this matter has gone on for so long couldn't the council simple put the property out to open tender, then we can satisfy ourselves that a proper market price is paid and if Cardy  have a competitive offer, then they can proceed.

In Thanet we are sick of confidential deals, we live in a democracy can "officers" and councillors show a bit of respect.


  1. Not as simple as you think Tony, take a look at the Pleasurama press release on the TDC web site where the council claim "“I must stress that because of the existing agreement, signed in 2006 and 2009, we are not currently able to market the site and that we are legally bound to take all reasonable steps to get the agreed scheme built out."

    Looks like it could be a legal mine field that could cost the council the millions that the developer has already spent on the site and have nothing to show for it. That's why cllr Driver and co want to see the legal documents rather than just take the opinion of the council.
    You may ask why TDC get into these loss making situations?
    Even finding an organisation to run Dreamland is proving to be a bit of a stumbling block and TDC have yet to agree the compensation they have to pay the owners.

    1. What could be more reasonable than waiting since 2005 but I understand your point, council officers aren't business people which is why they should not do business in secret and when we're this far into shit it's a pity can't sue officers back into the real world or at least see they don't get to walk away to draw a fat pension