homeoneday Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Genunie question - correct me if I am wrong but did I not read that the cost to restore was the same as the cost to pull down, they will have to do one or the other? I know which I think is better way of spending the money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grianane Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Was once, I suspect now with metal prices the pier is more of an asset than ever before - but only if its going to be scrapped - surprised its not finding its way into wilf's yard bit by bit already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Didn't the last survey of the pier find that the iron was in pretty good condition overall? ??????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grianane Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Yes the iron isn't in bad nick - its th wood above it which is the biggest problem although as that rots away the ironwork will become more endangered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Genunie question - correct me if I am wrong but did I not read that the cost to restore was the same as the cost to pull down, they will have to do one or the other? I know which I think is better way of spending the money Its the on-going maintenance and other costs that have to be considered as well though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 These kind of things are crying out to be done, but where is the will? Where are the ideas coming from? The MHK's from Ramsey use it as an inconvenient stepping stone into Government, and the local commissioners are the same old tired faces that have overseen the running down of the town. Like you say yourself really. Douglas seems to have the only LA with ambitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 I thought so ! I.M.O The half a million quid that the D.O.T. has just spent on a landing stage specifically to cater for the few passenger ships that visit Douglas every year, would have been better spent on Ramsey Pier . I would think you could have bought an awful lot of planks and paint for that amount of Money ? It also annoys me that our so called Government are supposed to be supporting the "Look forward to going back " Mantra , as regards tourism , but cannot see that a renovated Ramsey Pier would be an ideal project to support that strategy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Good luck to those wanting a renovated Ramsey Pier, but I, as a Douglas ratepayer, don't want to pay for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Good luck to those wanting a renovated Ramsey Pier, but I, as a Douglas ratepayer, don't want to pay for it I'm with Tuigger on this At the end of this month I have to give another arm & a leg to the VAT. They currently take 12% of my turnover which is more than I will make this year This hard earned cash already supports: a bloated Civil Service, Bruce's mad roundabout building program, MHK's foreign jollys, loads of dossers on the long term sick, various walking abortions and their offspring on the social, repayments for the MEA robbery, our contribution to the UK's disasterous war effort, a pointless runway extension and the fucking horse trams. After all that I don't feel inclined to work my arse off to restore a pier which no-one will use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 But you'd still be paying the same rate of VAT no matter what they spent it on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Good luck to those wanting a renovated Ramsey Pier, but I, as a Douglas ratepayer, don't want to pay for it I'm with Tugger on this At the end of this month I have to give another arm & a leg to the VAT. They currently take 12% of my turnover which is more than I will make this year This hard earned cash already supports: a bloated Civil Service, Bruce's mad roundabout building program, MHK's foreign jollys, loads of dossers on the long term sick, various walking abortions and their offspring on the social, repayments for the MEA robbery, our contribution to the UK's disasterous war effort, a pointless runway extension and the fucking horse trams. After all that I don't feel inclined to work my arse off to restore a pier which no-one will use That is a poignant set of points that puts these government clowns who think they are doing a good job, the circus they run, and the money they waste, completely into perspective IMO. Hats off to you for that. The island does need investment, but it needs it in the right areas. If we could get Ramsey anywhere near on a par with Douglas in terms of prosperity, with new businesses generating and locating there, new associated ammenities driven by demand, everyone would be paying less tax in the end - and be much happier. The government is already wasting enough millions on one waste of space promontory at the airport, without adding this pier to the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossils Posted July 14, 2008 Author Share Posted July 14, 2008 Don't worry! The latest Government "working" party have made a decision not to make a decision. http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Future-of-Q...ains.4284240.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 The post by Steven H at the bottom of that news story is quite enlightening: Much longer than most in the UK and built primarily as a landing standing rather than recreational facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Don't worry! The latest Government "working" party have made a decision not to make a decision. http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Future-of-Q...ains.4284240.jp 'We have made considerable progress. We have a looked at a variety of restoration options and are trying to find enough difference between them to be able to offer a variety of solutions that could potentially receive Tynwald support. The way Phil Gawne chose his words it sounds as if they have paid for a range of options all approximately the same.... and now the poor wee dears cannot make a decision between them. How on earth did they make decisions about the £44 million runway? Will they ask for radically different options for the QB roundabout? An oval roundabout, a circular roundabout, a clockwise roundabout, an anti-clockwise roundabout, a magic roundabout, a clockwork roundabout? Of course it is the summer holiday season so they may have slipped their minds into neutral... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 14, 2008 Share Posted July 14, 2008 Don't worry! The latest Government "working" party have made a decision not to make a decision. http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Future-of-Q...ains.4284240.jp I bet it wouldn't have been such a 'yes' - if the question was: 'will you pay a *£230 bill for the restoration, that will then be sent to your property after completion (*possibly £270 just in case we have the usual project overruns)?' and 'just a reminder, don't forget to pay your bill for the £750 for your contribution to the new runway extension while you've got your cheque book handy!'. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.