Town centre revamp contractor to be chosen (From Watford Observer)

Cue: Wave of complaints and moaning.

What, like saying something about how much money is being wasted?

It's all been said before but nothing can get through that thick hide of hers, certainly not common sense!

Well i'm looking froward to this improvement. This used to be a lovely part of town and years ago I would take my young boys to the pond area, now its dirty and a ugly part of the high st.

Who was responsible for building Mary's ugly pond area? Labour or Liberals?

MaryWatford wrote:
Well i'm looking froward to this improvement. This used to be a lovely part of town and years ago I would take my young boys to the pond area, now its dirty and a ugly part of the high st.

I agree, but £4.3 million? That is hell of a lot of money to tidy up an area around the pond.

Do we really need a bridge over the pond? Is it really that much effort to walk around it?

I am no expert on pond maintenance, but I would think that some sort of filtration system is needed to keep the water a bit clearer.

Other than that all I can see that is wrong with the top of the high street are the people that visit it on a Friday and Saturday night. Spending £4.3 million will not change that.

MaryWatford wrote:
Well i'm looking froward to this improvement. This used to be a lovely part of town and years ago I would take my young boys to the pond area, now its dirty and a ugly part of the high st.

Have you a view on the chopping of the mature trees because I hope that there is serious protection offered to the replacement saplings or it could be another bridge too far.

MarsLander wrote:
Who was responsible for building Mary's ugly pond area? Labour or Liberals?

The town hall underpass that turned the Pond area of The Parade into a pedestrrianised area was started under Conservative control of Watford Town Hall in the early 1970s - It was the Conservative controlled council that decided to knock down the Cassiobury Park gates as part of the scheme that resulted in the first part of the dual carriageway of Rickmansworth Road. Subsequently with thge loss of control in1974 thesecond part of the plan to dualcarriageway the Ricky Road never materialised.

Thanks

The Rover wrote:

MaryWatford wrote: Well i'm looking froward to this improvement. This used to be a lovely part of town and years ago I would take my young boys to the pond area, now its dirty and a ugly part of the high st.

I agree, but £4.3 million? That is hell of a lot of money to tidy up an area around the pond. Do we really need a bridge over the pond? Is it really that much effort to walk around it? I am no expert on pond maintenance, but I would think that some sort of filtration system is needed to keep the water a bit clearer. Other than that all I can see that is wrong with the top of the high street are the people that visit it on a Friday and Saturday night. Spending £4.3 million will not change that.

The works are all the way up from Clarendon Road to the Town Hall area.

The cost: it's gone out to open, competitiveuk and european wide tender - so that's how much these things cost.

...and it dosn't come from council tax-payers but from 'capital', which legally has to be spent on improving infrastructure/asset
s. I'd suggest half the town centre is just that (it's the same sort of funding that has paid for the two leisure centres, Colosseum re-vamp, and parks and playgrounds upgrades around the town)

Ultimately, though, the money for future capital projects would likely be drawn from multiple sources, including the ongoing council tax receipts. So whilst spending from that 'pot' might be ring-fenced, capital projects themselves are not and can draw on many funding streams.

We all know the arguments.

I just have never heard one that supports some of this money being spent on a bridge over the pond.

Mike, Clarkie, Jeffree, any other councillors, can you make a case for the bridge or would you be happy to remove the bridge from the scheme and spend the money elsewhere, like say Queens Road, which you will be surprised to know is also in Watford, or towards the mass home-building site you refer to as the health campus so that the allotments may be saved for the people of West Watford?

Watford doesn't begin at Clarendon Road and end at the Town Hall, there are many other parts that could have used that money more usefully. Tarting up the view from the Town Hall for Dotty to look upon from her ivory tower office is not sufficient reason to spend this money at this time.

By a staggering coincidence, £4.3 million is exactly the amount of money required to purchase and decontaminate the gas holder site on Lower High Street, restore Frogmore House to an ongoing concern and preserve the Grade II* structure and landscape the area to form a riverside walk. But Waitrose are supposedly paying that in order to build a new superstore there.

There is an old scots saying springs to mind "Ye cannae polish a turd". But I suppose the funds will buy ample gold spray paint to cover it.

Every civic project is going to have its supporters and its critics. In this case the numerous public consultations have shown a clear majority in support, so sorry to all the moaners, it is going to happen whatever you say. Why not give it the benefit of the doubt and see what it's like when it is complete? I think it will be a lot better than you think and a big improvement on what's there now.

...and the town will be £4.3 million worse off, don't forget. It's not a christmas gift, the town will be paying for this makeover.

Two issues really.

Is it necessary for the parade to have a facelift?

If it is necessary, what is required?

A bridge over the pond is, in my opinion, a bridge too far.

If the whole £4.3 million is not needed, then the money that is left over could almost certainly be used to greater benefit elsewhere. As I've said before, there's more to Watford than the Parade and the Town Hall.

The overwhelming majority of people would say yes if someone offered them a plate of curry but if they realised that they had to pay for it it would be a different story. Public consultation is mostly bunkum because they ask loaded questions and restrict the options just like the PCC debacle. You couldn't vote to maintain the status quo, the choice was forced.
You remember that bit in Dr Who when he threatened to bring down the PM with 7 words? Don't you think the mayor looks tired?

I'm tired of the Mayor and her husband Calrkie750, that's for sure!

TRT wrote:
The overwhelming majority of people would say yes if someone offered them a plate of curry but if they realised that they had to pay for it it would be a different story. Public consultation is mostly bunkum because they ask loaded questions and restrict the options just like the PCC debacle. You couldn't vote to maintain the status quo, the choice was forced.
You remember that bit in Dr Who when he threatened to bring down the PM with 7 words? Don't you think the mayor looks tired?

Ah but Harriet Jones subsequently redeemed herself...........

That was offered more as an example of the power of suggestion. If you point out that the Parade is looking old and tired with so many closed shops, then of course people will say they want something done about it. If you conduct a survey which says "Which part of Watford would benefit most from an investment of £4m for new lighting, pavements, trees etc" you'll get a different answer from if you ask "Would the pond benefit from an investment of £4m" and I bet you'd get a different answer if you asked the first question stood on the parade, on St Albans Road, behind Market St, on Durban Road, at 2 Bridges, at the Dome, in Leavesden, etc etc.

Yes of course you are correct. I get frustrated by what seems obvious to me with regards the way 'questions' are framed.

My response was somewhat 'tongue in cheek' - probably my way of relieving my frustration.

Oh and I'll indulge myself in a pedantic moment - it was actually six words. ;-)

Keeping to the Dr Who theme for a moment more...

Cybermen,

strange creatures. They used to be normal people but they have had their will suppressed and their subdued and obedient brains are now only barely capable of thinking. They submit completely to the will of the overall cyber-controller and do her bidding without question.

Their role is apparently to take over Earth and convert everyone into cybermen - obedient drones who do everything exactly as they are told and work for a "common good", unencumbered by free will or freedom.

Bearing in mind the description above, is it possible to draw any other Dr Who-related parallels with our councillors in Watford?

Mike Watford wrote:

The Rover wrote:

MaryWatford wrote: Well i'm looking froward to this improvement. This used to be a lovely part of town and years ago I would take my young boys to the pond area, now its dirty and a ugly part of the high st.

I agree, but £4.3 million? That is hell of a lot of money to tidy up an area around the pond. Do we really need a bridge over the pond? Is it really that much effort to walk around it? I am no expert on pond maintenance, but I would think that some sort of filtration system is needed to keep the water a bit clearer. Other than that all I can see that is wrong with the top of the high street are the people that visit it on a Friday and Saturday night. Spending £4.3 million will not change that.

The works are all the way up from Clarendon Road to the Town Hall area.

The cost: it's gone out to open, competitiveuk and european wide tender - so that's how much these things cost.

...and it dosn't come from council tax-payers but from 'capital', which legally has to be spent on improving infrastructure/asset

s. I'd suggest half the town centre is just that (it's the same sort of funding that has paid for the two leisure centres, Colosseum re-vamp, and parks and playgrounds upgrades around the town)

So the money comes from "capital" and not from "tax payers"?

So where exactly does this "capital" money come from? Does it come from Central Government? If it does where did they get it from? Taxpayers maybe?!

Regardless of where the money comes from all taxpayers are ultimately paying for it. Whether the money comes from one pot or another, it is still finding that somewhere along the line has come from people paying taxes.

It is a gross waste do money that could have been better spent elsewhere, or not spent at all.

The Rover wrote:

Mike Watford wrote:

The Rover wrote:

MaryWatford wrote: Well i'm looking froward to this improvement. This used to be a lovely part of town and years ago I would take my young boys to the pond area, now its dirty and a ugly part of the high st.

I agree, but £4.3 million? That is hell of a lot of money to tidy up an area around the pond. Do we really need a bridge over the pond? Is it really that much effort to walk around it? I am no expert on pond maintenance, but I would think that some sort of filtration system is needed to keep the water a bit clearer. Other than that all I can see that is wrong with the top of the high street are the people that visit it on a Friday and Saturday night. Spending £4.3 million will not change that.

The works are all the way up from Clarendon Road to the Town Hall area.

The cost: it's gone out to open, competitiveuk and european wide tender - so that's how much these things cost.

...and it dosn't come from council tax-payers but from 'capital', which legally has to be spent on improving infrastructure/asset


s. I'd suggest half the town centre is just that (it's the same sort of funding that has paid for the two leisure centres, Colosseum re-vamp, and parks and playgrounds upgrades around the town)

So the money comes from "capital" and not from "tax payers"?

So where exactly does this "capital" money come from? Does it come from Central Government? If it does where did they get it from? Taxpayers maybe?!

Regardless of where the money comes from all taxpayers are ultimately paying for it. Whether the money comes from one pot or another, it is still finding that somewhere along the line has come from people paying taxes.

It is a gross waste do money that could have been better spent elsewhere, or not spent at all.

By all accounts this money is the money the council collect from builders.

Bribery? Extortion? Not quite.

No, the council have some other term for it, "Section something or other money", so it is "free money" and where better to spend it that tarting up the view from Dotty's Office at the town hall?

Now the money is committed and about to be spent, you're not suggesting that there's another part of Watford that needs sprucing up are you? How on earth could our council have overlooked that? - answers on a postcard to your Liberal Councillor....

Section 106 for community development related to private building developments. The capital fund also comes from monies released through sale of capital assets, i.e. the family silver like the old Waterfield site which is now Century retail and which paid for the last high street make over, the site of Watford Springs... that kind of thing.

TRT wrote:
Section 106 for community development related to private building developments. The capital fund also comes from monies released through sale of capital assets, i.e. the family silver like the old Waterfield site which is now Century retail and which paid for the last high street make over, the site of Watford Springs... that kind of thing.

...all of Watfords' allotments that are on prime building land....