Argus NIMBY-slaying

[Buzzer]

This is a far better way of argument that the histerical " This bloke and all NIMBY's are C***s" way some people have been suggesting.

This guy is obviously an articulate chap who doesnt give two hoots about football...fair play to him. Whether he represents the vies of residents of the County is perhaps debatable, but he is right that when you speak to people who are not fans of football or the club specifically, many many people do regard this as something of our own making and another example of rampant urbanisation.

Its good to hear other people's point of view...even if we believe them to be totally wrong!

But...but...but...

The reason why the NIMBYs get slated is not because they've put up cogent, well-articulated arguments.

For 10 years they've lied, they've misconstrued, they've made unsubstantiated claims, they've doctored photos, they've spread malicious rumours, they've deliberately strung out the process, they've stalled, they've been underhand and they've done this with other people's (taxpayers) money.

They have tried to run the club out of existence and for that they are total bastards in my eyes. One or two graceful acknowledgements now and a conciliatory gesture from Norman Baker do not change the last 10 years of vitriol.

I and many, many other Albion fans and Sussex residents hate them for what they've done. They surely can't expect anything else considering.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Sorry Roz, but Ed was most certainly on the old Argus forum for a few days, but lost patience with septic much faster than the rest of us!

(If it wasn't Ed, then it was someone doing a pretty good impression and using his full name to sign in)

Ah yes, I remember now! He was pointed in the direction of the old Argus forum as a result of some preposterous rant on there and given that the elections were looming, made sure he could be identified properly when trying to be a voice of some reason on the topic. Thus not giving any ammunition to the Lewes Lib Dem's Poodle - the Chief Executive of LDC who spends more time than is healthy "monitoring" the activity of NSC and other local forums.

 

[The Large One]

...The problem is that the education can be done anywhere and is not location dependent...

True, but education within a community-based football club's stadium IS location dependent.

 

[The Large One]

As for community, there are thousands of towns, cities, villages etc. that have nothing to do with pro soccer. Real community is the mums, dads and kids who support and play in their local amateur clubs. I have yet to see any argument that will persuade me that the stadium yes decision, which it will be, is anything other than a political decision.

I suspect you have little understanding of the community programmes undertaken by the Albion across the county.

The planning inspectors all saw much merit in Falmer for a stadium site, with the main concern being environmental impact, together with the first inspector(s) preference for Sheepcote Valley, despite not having the evidence to back this up. It's understandable therefore that Prescott gave that opinion little weight and asked for further representations on seven other sites. Prescott ultimately noted these environmental concerns but gave greater weight to the human aspects of the application, together with the mitigating circumstances on the design and transport infrastructure components.

 

[sully]

The revenues can be proven not to exist by precedent, using B&H City Councils's own figures.

I've asked you each time you've made that statement elsewhere to state where the information is located.

I'm still waiting........

Quelle surprise. No answer yet again...........

 

[antifalmer]

Quelle surprise. No answer yet again...........

I never bother to do the digging when the answer to the question is a simple Google search away. When this info was posted on the Argus forum as a web link people still didn't believe it.

St Thomas Aquinas (paraphrase) "For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who do not believe no proof could ever be sufficient".

 

[Easy 10]

St Thomas Aquinas (paraphrase) \"For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who do not believe no proof could ever be sufficient\".

You are Mr White, the LDC Lawyer at the Public Inquiry, and I hereby claim my £5.

 

[Brovion]

I never bother to do the digging when the answer to the question is a simple Google search away. When this info was posted on the Argus forum as a web link people still didn't believe it.

St Thomas Aquinas (paraphrase) "For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who do not believe no proof could ever be sufficient".

Nice quote and I think it applies to both sides. However I don't want to get bogged down in the minor details of the argument so I'll concede all your points. Yes, ok, the stadium will have ZERO economic benefit. Yes, ok, Prescot granting permission was a political decision. Yes, ok, the proposed site is an area of breathtaking beauty on a par with the Scottish Highlands which will be irrevocably destroyed by this monstrous carbuncle.

So what?

The majority of LOCAL people (who hold an opinion) are in favour. The city's three MPs are in favour (which supports my first statement as they would oppose the stadium if they thought there were votes in it). The city council are in favour (the Planning Committe voted 12-1 in favor of the plans). This has gone far beyond a mere planning battle and is now a battle about the nature of British democracy. The planning tail should not be able to wag the community dog.

 

[antifalmer]

Nice quote and I think it applies to both sides. However I don't want to get bogged down in the minor details of the argument so I'll concede all your points. Yes, ok, the stadium will have ZERO economic benefit. Yes, ok, Prescot granting permission was a political decision. Yes, ok, the proposed site is an area of breathtaking beauty on a par with the Scottish Highlands which will be irrevocably destroyed by this monstrous carbuncle.

So what?

The majority of LOCAL people (who hold an opinion) are in favour. The city's three MPs are in favour (which supports my first statement as they would oppose the stadium if they thought there were votes in it). The city council are in favour (the Planning Committe voted 12-1 in favor of the plans). This has gone far beyond a mere planning battle and is now a battle about the nature of British democracy. The planning tail should not be able to wag the community dog.

You cannot claim that local people are in favour of the stadium. If you are referring to the so-called referendum, 65% of a 38% turn out voted for Falmer. Over 60% failed to express a view one way or another. If you think about it, nearly, if not all, rules, regulations and laws are intended to protect one group of people or individuals from those who would abuse them. Using your argument, it is logical to assume that all our MP's should side with the majority and ban immigration, bring back capital and corporal punishement, and so on. But they don't. Nor do they make any difference to the NHS, education or anything else that really matters. MP's are opportunists first and foremeost it appears, which is why the public believes politics has little credibility.

Planning battles appear to be won by people with either money, influence or both. And in high profile cases, it's all about politics, especially when the Secretary Of State appears to have arbitrary powers that can ignore everything that has gone on in a public enquiry.

Any developer can now lay claim to building on greenbelt as long as a few minimum wage jobs are in there. They will have a precedent to claim that the jobs are in the national interest, even though the main purpose of the development isn't.

 

[B.W.]

You cannot claim that local people are in favour of the stadium. If you are referring to the so-called referendum, 65% of a 38% turn out voted for Falmer. Over 60% failed to express a view one way or another. If you think about it, nearly, if not all, rules, regulations and laws are intended to protect one group of people or individuals from those who would abuse them. Using your argument, it is logical to assume that all our MP's should side with the majority and ban immigration, bring back capital and corporal punishement, and so on. But they don't. Nor do they make any difference to the NHS, education or anything else that really matters. MP's are opportunists first and foremeost it appears, which is why the public believes politics has little credibility.

Planning battles appear to be won by people with either money, influence or both. And in high profile cases, it's all about politics, especially when the Secretary Of State appears to have arbitrary powers that can ignore everything that has gone on in a public enquiry.

Any developer can now lay claim to building on greenbelt as long as a few minimum wage jobs are in there. They will have a precedent to claim that the jobs are in the national interest, even though the main purpose of the development isn't.

Firstly, the referendum is the one best indicator of public opinion on this matter... what evidence do you have to suggest that the people that didn't vote would be 'anti-Falmer' (to coin a phrase)... answer = none...

I will ignore your anti-politician rant...

Prescott AGREED with the recommendation of the last public enquiry... what evidence do you have that Hazel will just ignore the evidence and recommendations of the various public enquiries... answer = none...

The judgement of national interest is just that, a judgement... sorry if you cannot accept that the correct judgement was and (hopefully) will be made...

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Nice argument.

But be honest, you're more worried about house prices, and the prospect of one, two or even more working class people coming to your village. *horror*

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Any developer can now lay claim to building on greenbelt as long as a few minimum wage jobs are in there. They will have a precedent to claim that the jobs are in the national interest, even though the main purpose of the development isn't.

Are you not ignoring the fact that part of the site is/will be a brownfield site.

I don't remember the uproar when this site appeared in the local plan. I really do not see it setting a dangerous precedent at all, but that is just my opinion.

Ps Are you willing to address Mr 10's point above?

 

[Yorkie]

You cannot claim that local people are in favour of the stadium. If you are referring to the so-called referendum, 65% of a 38% turn out voted for Falmer. Over 60% failed to express a view one way or another. If you think about it, nearly, if not all, rules, regulations and laws are intended to protect one group of people or individuals from those who would abuse them.

Who do you think has been abusing the rules, regulations and laws? Everything the club has done to get planning permission has been done openly and by the book unlike LDC.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

You cannot claim that local people are in favour of the stadium.

I am afraid we can. There was a referendum. Those that chose to exercise their democratic rights did so. Just because it did not produce the answer you wanted you try to argue against it.

 

[antifalmer]

Are you not ignoring the fact that part of the site is/will be a brownfield site.

I don't remember the uproar when this site appeared in the local plan. I really do not see it setting a dangerous precedent at all, but that is just my opinion.

Ps Are you willing to address Mr 10's point above?

I'm not Mr White, I don't live in Falmer. We could quite easily argue that voting in any election makes no difference to anything. Therefore the anti-Falmer people didn't vote because regardless of the outcome it will be built one way or another. As has almost been proved. We can say for certain that the majority did not vote in favour of the stadium because they stayed away from the poll.

 

[Yorkie]

I am afraid we can. There was a referendum. Those that chose to exercise their democratic rights did so. Just because it did not produce the answer you wanted you try to argue against it.

I believe it had a bigger turnout than the local elections?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I believe it had a bigger turnout than the local elections?

The local election that AntiFalmer claims shows the people are against the stadium, as the Lib Dems were voted in.

Hmmm, he can't have it both ways - can he?

 

[Yorkie]

The local election that AntiFalmer claims shows the people are against the stadium, as the Lib Dems were voted in.

Hmmm, he can't have it both ways - can he?

I was referring to the Brighton elections but, yes, you make a good point.

 

[Brovion]

You cannot claim that local people are in favour of the stadium. If you are referring to the so-called referendum, 65% of a 38% turn out voted for Falmer. Over 60% failed to express a view one way or another. If you think about it, nearly, if not all, rules, regulations and laws are intended to protect one group of people or individuals from those who would abuse them. Using your argument, it is logical to assume that all our MP's should side with the majority and ban immigration, bring back capital and corporal punishement, and so on. But they don't. Nor do they make any difference to the NHS, education or anything else that really matters. MP's are opportunists first and foremeost it appears, which is why the public believes politics has little credibility.

Planning battles appear to be won by people with either money, influence or both. And in high profile cases, it's all about politics, especially when the Secretary Of State appears to have arbitrary powers that can ignore everything that has gone on in a public enquiry.

Any developer can now lay claim to building on greenbelt as long as a few minimum wage jobs are in there. They will have a precedent to claim that the jobs are in the national interest, even though the main purpose of the development isn't.

I DO claim local people are in favour for the reasons I stated - I'll even ignore the referendum as it was a small turnout. But like I said the majority of people who HAVE AN OPINION are in favour. And yes, I do think politicians should listen to the people with regard to things like capital punishement. Even though I'm personally opposed I don't like the whole intellectual snobbery of the Great and the Good telling us what to do - but that's another argument.

With regard to planning battles it's been FIVE YEARS since this plan was called in. This delay plus others has apparently caused a re-think about the whole planning process and changes are (apparently) in the pipleline to 'presume in favour of development'. In other words changing the rules so that not every 2-bob NIMBY can hold up development. I welcome this. We need houses, industrial estates, shops, sewage farms etc far more than we need monocultural, chemically-smeared industrial agricultural units (aka 'fields in the South Downs') . I look forward to seeing more this ecologically-blighted landscape disappearing under environmentally-friendly concrete.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

We could quite easily argue that voting in any election makes no difference to anything. Therefore the anti-Falmer people didn't vote because regardless of the outcome it will be built one way or another. As has almost been proved. We can say for certain that the majority did not vote in favour of the stadium because they stayed away from the poll.

You seem to be struggling with this democracy thingemy when it does not produce the result you want.