Jump to content

Ramsey Boundary Extension?


Non-Believer

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Banker said:

There should definitely be one all island rate or as a maximum 4 local authorities. The money saved would be astronomical in clerks & various administrative salaries 

Not with this government! They would create even more, 'necessary', posts.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seen and been listening to the MR take on this too. Apparently Ramsey's "full" and needs more space to expand.

Surely no shortage of brownfield and demolition sites needing occupying yet though?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Non-Believer said:

Just seen and been listening to the MR take on this too. Apparently Ramsey's "full" and needs more space to expand.

Surely no shortage of brownfield and demolition sites needing occupying yet though?

Nothing must come between Dandara's desecration of our green belts!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Just seen and been listening to the MR take on this too. Apparently Ramsey's "full" and needs more space to expand.

Surely no shortage of brownfield and demolition sites needing occupying yet though?

Exactly, but much easier to build on green field sites, and the government insist on making the building on brown field sites very difficult. Just look at the quay development or the proposed housing for the shipyard area.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

Exactly, but much easier to build on green field sites, and the government insist on making the building on brown field sites very difficult. Just look at the quay development or the proposed housing for the shipyard area.

Exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

Exactly, but much easier to build on green field sites, and the government insist on making the building on brown field sites very difficult. Just look at the quay development or the proposed housing for the shipyard area.

To be fair the housing at the shipyard is highly debatable about suitability to develop there.

The issue on the quayside was MNH wasn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOI are objecting to the proposed housing development at the former Caine's Yard off Shipyard Rd on the grounds of access, they have a point. The road is single track down to the shipyard industrial area and is often further restricted by parked cars. There needs to be better road access to that proposed site. Given the DOI's stance, Ramsey Comms have decided not to comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People that argue for an all-Island rate are usually the same people that live in the high rate areas. As someone who does not, I am not a great supporter of the idea. It might be appropriate to have an all-Island rate if we have the same access to services. I have a refuse collection once a fortnight, no street lighting, no nearby amenities that I utilise and I am quite happy paying a rural rate to receive comparatively little in return. Local authorities should not be acting like MT who, for example, charge the same broadband rate island wide whilst delivering an inferior service to those in rural areas. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

To be fair the housing at the shipyard is highly debatable about suitability to develop there.

The issue on the quayside was MNH wasn't it?

You are correct, but it serves to illustrate the point that brown field sites are a pain and therefore less profitable for the developers to get done, which is why they prefer greenfield sites. There needs to be more flexibility by all depts and quangos to enable brownfield developments, including tax breaks where necessary, otherwise the towns centres become hollowed out, whilst the surrounds turn into Dandaraville aka Peel.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, joebean said:

People that argue for an all-Island rate are usually the same people that live in the high rate areas. As someone who does not, I am not a great supporter of the idea. It might be appropriate to have an all-Island rate if we have the same access to services. I have a refuse collection once a fortnight, no street lighting, no nearby amenities that I utilise and I am quite happy paying a rural rate to receive comparatively little in return. Local authorities should not be acting like MT who, for example, charge the same broadband rate island wide whilst delivering an inferior service to those in rural areas. 

I too am in a low rare area with similar services to what you describe, and although I do not want to pay increased rates, I can see the inequities with the current system and do not object to an all island rate system. We are a small island and feel that my family personally benefit from most of the towns services to justify that stance. MT, now that is another matter. I would happily take a 50% discount to compensate for the shocking service I recieve in the sticks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you are compulsory purchasing and flattening large areas that isn't working on any king of scale.  So new sizeable developments are always going to be on the out skirts of town.  In the Ramsey example there is nowhere to build any kind of volume of house perhaps aside of the money losing golf course.

Clifton Park has now been developed.  The old Gas site the same.  I would say there are very few options in Ramsey and it seems that Lezayre is the most likely place.  I dislike Dandara as much as the next person but I dont think a few more new houses etc in Ramsey is a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Out of the blue said:

I too am in a low rare area with similar services to what you describe, and although I do not want to pay increased rates, I can see the inequities with the current system and do not object to an all island rate system. We are a small island and feel that my family personally benefit from most of the towns services to justify that stance. MT, now that is another matter. I would happily take a 50% discount to compensate for the shocking service I recieve in the sticks.

The inequalities in the paid rate are linked to the services provided and used. You pay more to receive more. I hardly ever go to Douglas, unless it is absolutely necessary and then it is only to buy something in their shops. I tend to shop in Ramsey, but don’t use any Ramsey amenities. What is it that I am paying for, or is it that I should, like any form of taxation, be happy to subsidise other people? That would be ok if Rates were linked to income, but they are not. Rates, essentially are a payment made for services you receive. The current system seems to do that more fairly than an all-Island rate. Perhaps there is an argument for more point of use charging. That would eliminate the where you live factor and replace it with what you use. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the age old argument. One man's amenities are another man's excesses and profligacy.

However, that second man's argument is strengthened when there are ever rising rates bills with little signs of effort being made to constrain costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...