Brighton i360 construction update.

[symyjym]

How does it return a million a year to tax payers?

Not to the tax payers directly. It goes to the council.

 

[clippedgull]

Information from the council website:

The Brighton i360 will provide a boost to our economy. It will generate more than 440 permanent jobs - 169 jobs at the attraction plus additional jobs from the spin off benefits to other businesses located in the city. Tourism is a major employer, employing nearly 20,000 people in Brighton & Hove. Brighton i360 is expected to attract over 700,000 visitors a year (800,000 in the opening year) from existing tourists to the city, and also to bring 165,000 to 305,000 new visitors to the city who will all spend money in local shops, restaurants, and at the other attractions. Joint ticketing will help ensure that visitors also visit other attractions and the i360 will provide an excellent vantage point up on high to see all the city has to offer. In total it is expected that the i360 will inject between £13 million and £25 million of additional revenue into the local economy annually.

The Brighton i360 will benefit our community by always giving a percentage of ticket sales to be used for community benefit. It will offer discounted entry to local residents. Every child in Brighton & Hove state schools will have the chance to visit the i360 for free. Free tickets will also be gifted each year to local charities and community groups working with disadvantaged groups.

The council will earn over £1 million a year in interest payments for 25 years for the council to invest in vital infrastructure repairs. It will also earn additional income from the under-used Regency Square car park and a 49% share of any additional business rates created by new businesses starting up, or existing businesses expanding as a result of the i360. This is during a time of public spending cuts so this additional revenue is a good way for local authorities to protect other budgets that are needed for urgent front line services.

In short, if we make this investment the city gains millions of pounds and hundreds of jobs. Failing to invest does not simply keep us as we are, instead it is likely to ensure the gradual decline of the seafront, taking future investment, visitors and jobs with it.

Starting the i360 sends a very strong signal that Brighton & Hove is open for business and, like the West Pier in its time, offering cutting-edge attractions for visitors.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yep how do we get a million a year return to the tax payers, because I'm guessing you are talking about ticket sales? But this is a private company build backed by council as guarantors. I'm openminded about about profit generated on the locality of the i360 but would be pleasently suprised if this amounts to a million a year pro rata back into our community!

There are a number of ways the council will recoup some cash

1) a profit on the loan they brokered.
2) a percentage of ticket sales
3) a scoop on excess profits.
4) the business rates they charge for the structure plus another deal for indirect businesses.

http://britishairwaysi360.com/lates...-how-the-scheme-will-boost-the-local-economy/

 

[Doc Lynam]

Information from the council website:

Thanks for that answers some of the questions. Makes me wonder how much the council lend of tax payers money to get an interest rate of a million a year? Here's hoping there's no issues with the repayments. Also isn't Regency Sq an NCP carpark not council owned!? Hopefully it is a success and regenerates the area down their.

 

[Doc Lynam]

There are a number of ways the council will recoup some cash

1) a profit on the loan they brokered.
2) a percentage of ticket sales
3) a scoop on excess profits.
4) the business rates they charge for the structure plus another deal for indirect businesses.

http://britishairwaysi360.com/lates...-how-the-scheme-will-boost-the-local-economy/

Thanks for the clarity, honestly have my doubts about the economics of the project. Also i like it im all for inovaction but it is stricking in the landscape and has chamged the view for as long as it stays up. Still none the wiser as to my first question though 'was there a consutation with the people who live in Brighton.'

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Thanks for that answers some of the questions. Makes me wonder how much the council lend of tax payers money to get an interest rate of a million a year? Here's hoping there's no issues with the repayments. Also isn't Regency Sq an NCP carpark not council owned!? Hopefully it is a success and regenerates the area down their.

1) The council are not charging 1m a year interest.
2) The money is from a loan they brokered from some little used government initiative.
3) From memory if there is trouble with loan repayments the council will take control of the structure.
4) I do recall reading the finer details of the financial and legal arrangements for this business and being impressed how the council had enabled this project with minimal risk to themselves.

 

[MattBackHome]

Makes me wonder how much the council lend of tax payers money to get an interest rate of a million a year?

They didn't lend any tax payers money. They lent money which came directly from a central govt loan.

Your point about Regency Square is valid - the Square and Preston Street have been crying our for something like this for years.

 

[clippedgull]

Thanks for that answers some of the questions. Makes me wonder how much the council lend of tax payers money to get an interest rate of a million a year? Here's hoping there's no issues with the repayments. Also isn't Regency Sq an NCP carpark not council owned!? Hopefully it is a success and regenerates the area down their.

Regency Square car park is council owned.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Information from the council website:

Interesting the council claim that the Regency Square car park is under used - there's always been queues for it when I've tried to use it.

3) From memory if there is trouble with loan repayments the council will take control of the structure.
.

AND the local taxpayer picks up the loan repayments.

I'm not against the i360 in principle - clever bit of engineering, but it should NEVER have been backed using taxpayers money. For that reason I won't be riding it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Thanks for the clarity, honestly have my doubts about the economics of the project. Also i like it im all for inovaction but it is stricking in the landscape and has chamged the view for as long as it stays up. Still none the wiser as to my first question though 'was there a consutation with the people who live in Brighton.'

All major city planning of this nature has public consultation.

One thing I'll add, there have been some stunning photos, taken from out to sea, of this structure and the coastline pinging about on the press. I can't put into words how nice it feels when someone says "hey, you're from Brighton aren't you? That I360 looks amazing"

 

[symyjym]

Thanks for that answers some of the questions. Makes me wonder how much the council lend of tax payers money to get an interest rate of a million a year? Here's hoping there's no issues with the repayments. Also isn't Regency Sq an NCP carpark not council owned!? Hopefully it is a success and regenerates the area down their.

It's not local tax payer’s money they are using, it was a government loan. The local tax payer is just the guarantor. I think they need to sell about 3 million rides to pay it off and the loan, I think is over 15- 20 years.

At worst I think it should break even, but at the very worst, if no one uses it at all, it will cost us something like an extra £20 per year on our council tax for 10 years. About 3p a day.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

They didn't lend any tax payers money. They lent money which came directly from a central govt loan.

Errr .... where do you think the government got that money ? From the magic money tree at the bottom of Downing Street ?

The loan is also guaranteed by the local taxpayer.

 

[clippedgull]

[tweet]760612942400348160[/tweet] Nice photo!

 

[Doc Lynam]

All major city planning of this nature has public consultation.

One thing I'll add, there have been some stunning photos, taken from out to sea, of this structure and the coastline pinging about on the press. I can't put into words how nice it feels when someone says "hey, you're from Brighton aren't you? That I360 looks amazing"

Fair enough i was always impressed when people said Brighton was friendly and creative with a good vibe about the place. That was more then enough for me. But i will say im excited to see how they light it up at night and hopefully it becomes a centre piece for the city at night.

 

[Doc Lynam]

[tweet]760612942400348160[/tweet] Nice photo!

And yeah that does look amazing!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Interesting the council claim that the Regency Square car park is under used - there's always been queues for it when I've tried to use it.



AND the local taxpayer picks up the loan repayments.

I'm not against the i360 in principle - clever bit of engineering, but it should NEVER have been backed using taxpayers money. For that reason I won't be riding it.

The Public Works Board, where the loan came from, is little more than a government owned bank for dishing out cash for projects like this. I therefore guess your issue is with the tax payer risk and exposure to the loan? There was always going to be risk with this project even if it was fully funded by the private sector. I personally think the council have struck a very good balance between risk, return and control/ownership of this project. The council needs to be bold and do stuff like this otherwise the city will stagnate.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But i will say im excited to see how they light it up at night.

In blue and white next May hopefully!

 

[MattBackHome]

Errr .... where do you think the government got that money ? From the magic money tree at the bottom of Downing Street ?

The loan is also guaranteed by the local taxpayer.

Alright calm down snarkypants.

It's money that has already been paid, that were it not being used here would be allocated to projects elsewhere. The level of risk on the (second) loan is extremely small.

 

[symyjym]

Edit

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I therefore guess your issue is with the tax payer risk and exposure to the loan?

Correct. Taxpayer money is there to provide essential services - not to lend to private enterprise when private lenders refuse to lend.

Private backers weren't forthcoming which suggests the business plan is questionable. For starters the number of riders seems hugely over optimistic.

As I've said, I'm not against it for NIMBY reasons - it looks pretty good ( I can see it from my house in Hangleton ) and I'll watch the fireworks on Thursday from home. My issue is the use of taxpayers money - if the council backed this financially why didn't they build the Amex and make a cool million a year that the stadium company makes from the football club ? Where does investing public money into private enterprise end or become unacceptable ?