Celt Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I think whilst lot's off folk have said who should or who shouldn't have to pay, I think the all round opinion is that the Tax Payer is getting sick and tired off paying for other peoples fuck ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 well with 50% to 60% of people voting, it makes me think people don't really care what the government do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 So we end up with a tale of greedy developers, dumb planners, inefficient surveyors, thick house-purchasers and well-fleeced tax payers. [YAWNS] So... is there anything new happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Gribbon Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 deleted Why not use the delete option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Gribbon Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I don't have the delete option - sorry for the irritation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I don't have the delete option - sorry for the irritation. after you've posted something, in the bottom right hand corner of the post there are four options: x delete; + edit; +quote; " reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Gribbon Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I feel rather dreadful going off thread somewhat but not as bad as starting a new thread just to make a point that isn't really that important but I feel I really do need to get my statement across Edited to say: Anyway, whilst I am here, I was originally going to make a point but feel it would be best left for a couple of weeks and so decided to delete it. I wonder if Santa will give me a Delete Facility for Christmas, promise not to abuse it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copycat Posted December 13, 2006 Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 on the morning MR news it was said the Sulby flood prevention scheme cost £1.2million/say 20 houses= I am betting that's more than the govt has or will ever spend on your house!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 seems a lot of money for a wall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 The central issue is that these houses should never have been built. Most local people know the bullshit that flew around at the time. There remains quite a lot of land available in Sulby for development so why pass planning to build an estate on a flood plain? In this case it seems that - as usual - its the good old tax payer who puts his hands in his pockets. Another prime example: A few years ago we had an estate near us turned down twice, but the developers went to appeal and won. It was thrown out the second time because the existing services could not support the increased sewerage etc. At appeal they got planning despite this being proven - three years later the taxpaying mugs stumped up for the roads around the entrance of the estate to be dug up and new sewerage pipes to be put in because of complaints. In the meantime the developer has f**ed off with a few million in his ass pocket. I think we are getting used to calling these sort of incidents "Manx muddles" because you can never work out where the line between total f**king incompetence and overt dodgy practice is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fibula Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Right here goes. The Mill Race estate was built on a flood plain as we all know. The permission was granted by the then Minister of planning former ramsey MHK Terry Groves, what is it with Ramsey MHK's and building sites The property's were then built and sold through a certain estate agents. I was also told that a certain MHK was a silent partner off the company that built the houses. This is what i was told from a certain sulby rate payer. make of it what you will Isn't this chap looking for a pace on the Legislative Council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 The Sulby Millrace estate was built on the mill race that once provided water for the waterwheel at Glen Kella Mill. What about the new coastal defences in Michael for the new estate? Not much being done for the adjacent land. When you drain wetlands, alter river courses and concrete over green fields you are asking for floods. That is becoming obvious everytime we get heavy rain, even in places that didn't used to be underwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Ah, yes. But nowadays you have a ready-made get-out clause for things like that. It's called 'global warming.' "Honest, Guv...there's no way we could have predicted people ignoring the obvious signs. If only they'd stopped putting so much crap into the atmosphere these houses would have been fine. No, really!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Well money makes the world go round and greases the wheels of progress. Look at what they have planned for Ramsey's flood plain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.