Union Terrace Gardens Vote

[maverick sheep]

And when you thought it was full steam ahead

 

or in other words...

 

 

Labour accused of 'sour grapes' over claims Aberdeen Union Gardens ballot involved 'electoral fraud'

 

 

CALLS have been made for statutory guidelines to be implemented after claims of insecure voting and "electoral fraud" in a city gardens ballot.

 

Labour local government spokeswoman Sarah Boyack said last week's referendum on the redevelopment of Aberdeen's Union Terrace Gardens has "national implications" due to its "absence of fair campaign spending rules" and the voting methods used.

 

The SNP accused her of bringing an inappropriate "sour grapes motion" to Holyrood because the 52% Yes vote did not reflect Labour's opposition to the plan.

 

However, Ms Boyack said the Aberdeen referendum must be considered "in the context of the biggest vote that the people of Scotland are due to make" on independence.

 

She said: "We need to make sure that the rules on referenda are fair, transparent and consistent, so it goes to the heart of this Parliament.

 

She added: "This referendum was held without agreement of all the parties in the council, and there were no effective controls over spending in the campaign, and we have profound concerns about the manner in which the proposals were communicated and the conduct of the referendum."

 

Ms Boyack said there is "no statutory framework for a local referendum".

 

She continued: "I believe that there are sufficient concerns about the robustness of the process conducted in Aberdeen that some thought should now be given by all parties as to how agreement can be reached on local referenda to establish clear principles that should be followed in all cases."

 

She added: "Online and telephone voting were permitted, and those produced a different outcome from the postal ballot.

 

"They were not secure, and anyone opening an envelope containing the voter's ballot paper could obtain the unique identifying number which was all that was need to record a vote.

 

"In a city with hundreds of tenement blocks, and thousands of students in residences, the potential for electoral fraud was clear and police were called in to investigate on more than one occasion, although apparently without anyone charged so far."

 

SNP MSP Mark McDonald asked if Ms Boyack had "any evidence whatsoever that the vote was not secure or solid", as opposed to "idle speculation and scaremongering".

 

Ms Boyack said: "All I need to report to you is that complaints have been made. That surely is enough, and that's why we need an investigation."

 

Infrastructure Secretary Alex Neil said Ms Boyack's motion was "one to be moved in the Aberdeen Council chambers rather than the Scottish Parliament".

 

He added: "I don't think the Labour Party's record on referendums is one to be proud of because, unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember the 1979 (devolution) referendum when it was the Labour Party and Labour MSPs that proposed the 40% rule that denied the Scottish people the assembly they voted for by majority at that time.

 

"And it's the Labour Party, along with their Tory bedfellows, that are now trying to undermine the referendum on independence by various means in the run up to 2014.

 

"This is a sour grapes motion by the Labour Party because they lost the referendum in Aberdeen."

 

The gardens project came about after an offer of £50 million from local businessman Sir Ian Wood.

 

SNP, Tory and Lib Dem north-east MSPs lined up to criticise Labour in parliament.

 

Conservative Nanette Milne branded the party "despicable" for its approach, warning it against overturning the referendum result if elected to run the city council in May.

 

"I'm sorry to say that Labour's motion today appears to have little to do with the future of Aberdeen and everything to do with the future - if there is one - for Labour on Aberdeen City Council," she said.

 

"Their attempt to win council election votes from those who voted against the city garden project is despicable and could well backfire on them."

 

Labour, she said, has "behaved like spoilt brats" since losing the council, and now is unable to come to terms with opposition.

 

The party has opposed local plans including a third crossing over the River Don, the refurbishment of new council HQ Marischal College and now the gardens, she said.

 

Ms Milne added: "Now they're trying to block a once in a lifetime opportunity to regenerate the entire city centre, not just Union Terrace Gardens.

 

"They've rejected the wonderful philanthropic gesture of Sir Ian Wood - a true son of the city."

 

SNP MSP Maureen Watt said the controversial garden plan may help encourage long-term investment.

 

She added: "Given that the local Labour Party tried to make it a party political issue, and I've no doubt are basing their local election campaign on it, they are now in panic mode.

 

"Holding a referendum was the right thing to do. Friends of Union Terrace Gardens supported a referendum. They supported the question asked.

 

"Now we see the Labour Party questioning the whole validity of the referendum."

 

Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald confirmed his party would not back the gardens plan if elected to run the city.

 

He said: "This was the third time public opinion was canvassed, but the first time this project had achieved any kind of majority.

 

"Far from showing strong support, it confirmed what we knew from the previous consultation and from every opinion poll carried out by the local press: that public opinion is divided in the city.

 

"Therefore, the buck stops with those elected to take decisions in the council."

 

Mr Macdonald said he would be happy if the final decision is "based in part" on the referendum result.

 

He added: "I believe a Labour-led council would not seek consent to borrow for this scheme, as it stands. The weakness of the business case is fundamental, as is the lack of any proposal for meeting future revenue costs."

 

Lib Dem MSP Alison McInnes said the debate has been "bitter", and accused Labour of "fuelling negativity".

 

She added: "There is a duty on the city council to work to determine whether the funding package for the scheme really stacks up.

 

"They must be forensic in their analysis and include the kind of costs that Sarah Boyack mentioned."

 

Referring to the refurbished Marischal College, she added: "That's just the start of the renaissance in our city.

 

"The Labour Party can play their part in that, or continue to be negative.

 

"If they choose the latter, they will become utterly irrelevant in the city."

[maverick sheep]

Doubts raised over funding for Aberdeen’s City Garden Project

MSP’s warning over Tax Increment Funding

 

By David Ewen chief reporter

 

Published: 03/04/201

 

FEARS were raised today that a plan to create a new park in the heart of Aberdeen faced the axe.

 

Aberdeen City Council wants a new tax scheme to raise £90 million to rejuvenate the city centre, including using £70m to raise Union Terrace Gardens to street level.

 

Tax Increment Funding (TIF) would be used to repay the cash, which Aberdeen City Council would be allowed to borrow if the government approved the business case.

 

However, Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald warned the Aberdeen scheme might have to be dropped because there are now seven TIF projects approved or in the pipeline.

 

 

[Kowalski]

Doubts raised by somebody who didn't want it in the first place?

[glasgow sheep]

City Gardens Project adverts investigated" (P&J today, but not online)

 

The Advertising Standards Authority are investigating radio ads and a local newspaper advert both promoting the City Garden Project. The allegations are that false statements were made.

 

An ASA spokeswoman said "there were grounds for investigation in both cases."

[mizer]

Northsound reporting the project is to be scrapped

[Tyrant]

:lolabove: :lolabove: :lolabove: :lolabove: :lolabove: :lolabove:

 

I just want to know why. Oh aye.. because for some reason to cooncil couldn't magic £90m from it's anus! Thanks for your "gesture", Sir Ian. Now fuck off eh.

[baggy89]

:lolabove: :lolabove: :lolabove: :lolabove: :lolabove: :lolabove:

 

I just want to know why. Oh aye.. because for some reason to cooncil couldn't magic £90m from it's anus! Thanks for your "gesture", Sir Ian. Now fuck off eh.

 

Surely a fitba team competing in the Champions League would generate a lot of European tourism  into the city, far more than concreting over a park would.

 

Where's the £25 million for that?

 

 

[glasgow sheep]

Northsound reporting the project is to be scrapped

 

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

Quite funny and frankly Wood has made a bit of a cunt of it.

[Tyrant]

Surely a fitba team competing in the Champions League would generate a lot of European tourism  into the city, far more than concreting over a park would.

 

Where's the £25 million for that?

 

Indeed. 

[amp]

Change - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

 

I never use the gardens persoanlly, or KnoW anyone that does. But we must NOT change them into something that will look better and be used!

[glasgow sheep]

Change - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

 

I never use the gardens persoanlly, or KnoW anyone that does. But we must NOT change them into something that will look better worse and be used! cost a fortune

 

fixed

[Kowalski]

Quite funny and frankly Wood has made a bit of a cunt of it.

 

In what way?

 

 

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

He wanted some sort of legacy for Aberdeen, from him, but an already totally rooked council is to come up with millions of pounds to make it happen? 

[Kowalski]

The funding wasn't coming from the council through, it was effectively a loan paid back through business rates or something.  They weren't ploughing £90M in, unless something's changed.  Granted, there's been a hell of a lot of pish written (from both sides) about this whole debacle.

 

I would have liked to have seen something decent happen, but didn't think the "winning" design was the best.

 

I don't believe that Labour have a mandate to bin it, given that the majority voted to take it to the next stage, which may or may not have lead to it being built but it should be going to the next stage IMHO.

 

Union Street is a street of closed shops and bookies, we could do with something decent in Union Terrace Gardens.

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

I would have liked to have seen something decent happen, but didn't think the "winning" design was the best.

 

I don't believe that Labour have a mandate to bin it, given that the majority voted to take it to the next stage, which may or may not have lead to it being built but it should be going to the next stage IMHO.

 

Union Street is a street of closed shops and bookies, we could do with something decent in Union Terrace Gardens.

 

Agree with you Kow but whatever way it's painted, there was extra money needed from elsewhere. I thought all of the options looked pretty hellish though and Union St is not what it was because all of the shops have fucked off to the "malls".

 

Is it the case that doing nothing is no longer an option? Certainly seems like it to an outsider, just seemed a bit off Wood putting up dough and the expectation that the rest would be made up in whatever fashion.

 

[Superstar Tradesman]

Aberdeen.

 

The End.

[tom_widdows]

50million would build the original art centre/ cafe design and leave 35million in change for some decent landscaping, lighting, perhaps a new bridge or 2 to Belmont street, and maybe even chuck whats left over at the Castlegate

 

 

[Madbadteacher]

That's way too sensible an idea

 

[Superstar Tradesman]

Nevermind, the Olympics start soon enough.

 

You'll be able to see where all your tax pennies have been spent in various other parts of the country.

[maverick sheep]

No compromise from Ian Wood, i.e. there will be a massive funding gap to be filled by TIF OR no money from him. So the cunt that some people refused to accept was clearly a cunt, turns out to be acting like a total cunt and that probably means he is, in fact, a cunt.

 

Sir Ian Wood 'will not support' a City Gardens compromise

 

Businessman Sir Ian Wood has written to Aberdeen City Council's leader saying he would not support a compromise design for Union Terrace Gardens.

 

A vote will take place at the council next week which will determine the future of the City Gardens Project.

 

Sir Ian had pledged £50m of his own money towards the scheme.

 

In the letter, he said a compromise plan including the winning Granite Web design and the present gardens was "not feasible".

 

Sir Ian also said if the vote goes against the project he will have no choice but to withdraw his financial offer.

 

Last week business leaders from Aberdeen sent a letter to councillors expressing their backing for the City Garden Project.

 

A full meeting of the council on 22 August will discuss the proposals to transform Union Terrace Gardens.

 

The administration's senior coalition partners, Labour, have said they want to scrap the scheme.

 

In a referendum earlier this year, people were asked if they wanted to retain the gardens or back the City Garden Project redevelopment.

 

More than 86,000 votes were cast online, by post and by phone during the referendum. There were 45,301 votes in favour of the project, with 41,175 people opposed to the plans.

 

Tax Incremental Financing would see the £92m loan being paid back by increased income from business rates.

 

If it goes ahead, the project could be finished by 2017.

[Superstar Tradesman]

He's a cunt for not putting £50m into something he doesn't think is "not feasible"?

 

Righteo.

[Tyrant]

He's a cunt for being a cunt.

[dave_min]

He's a cunt for being a cunt.

 

Agreed.

[BrownyBrown]

I liked this bit:

 

If it goes ahead, the project could be finished by 2017.

 

LAWL. I think this one could even rival the fucking tedious AWPR saga.

 

It will be enough to keep Aberdeen Journals going anyway...