WORRIED airport neighbours are fed up waiting to hear about runway plans.
After almost eight months they are still in the dark about what the Public Services Department proposes to do about the project, which includes repairs to the airstrip and extended ‘run-off areas’. Now they fear being left out of the process altogether and want an urgent meeting for a chance to have their say.
Banker Stephen Fell, who lives near the west end of the runway, said he and a group of neighbours had written to Public Services members reminding them of their pledge to keep islanders informed about the scheme, which forms part of the capital prioritisation debate.
While the PSD plans to hold a meeting with States members when consultants visit at the beginning of July, it has not yet set a date to meet the local community.
Mr Fell said: ‘I wrote to minister Bernard Flouquet because he promised to keep residents updated. That was in November last year, and we don’t feel there has been any consultation going on since.’
Residents want to be involved in the early stages, rather than simply hearing of the outcome, he added.
‘I think consultation is a process of bouncing ideas about before a decision is made, not merely informing people what decision has been taken – we don’t think there has been enough public debate.’
Mr Fell, who has also posted notes about the move through neighbours’ letterboxes, wants to get the message across that there should be a public meeting where the community can express its views.
‘I don’t think they have had the opportunity to say what they think yet.
‘It could affect neighbours in many ways, such as noise pollution and environmentally. It has all been kept at professional level and there has not been any input from the people whose lives will be affected.’
Although keen to avoid unnecessary antagonism, he believes it is an important enough issue to make a stand about.
Airport director Colin Le Ray confirmed yesterday that various options for runway repairs and improvements were being prepared for presentation and a meeting was being planned, although a date and venue had yet to be finalised.
‘We are coming to a point where information is able to be given to the public,’ he said. ‘We hope to arrange a meeting in the near future to discuss options.
‘It is fair to say we would welcome any feedback.’
Article posted on 23rd June, 2009 - 2.30pm
18 Article Comments
Unfortunately your wasting your time and money. We all know that the States of Guernsey don’t consult the general public on anything and when they do, it’s only as a matter of course to show that they’re doing it ‘by the book’! The outcome and decision would have already been made internally.
Hey, who are we, we only live here. We don’t have a democracy on the island, just dictatorship! We don’t have an opinion.
Report abuse
Gsydonkee
|
That is not true, there are frequent presentations to the public on all kinds of subjects, departments regularly turn out in the evenings at different venues to present proposals to the public, the problem is the public don’t turn up to these meetings, well certainly not in large numbers. It is the apathy by the general public that is the problem not the lack of consultation.
Report abuse
Deputy Dave
I suspect Gsydonkee is referring to meaningful consultation and not going through the motions.
If that is correct then I would say he is correct.
I appreciate your response is that presentations are intended to be a two way communiciation process.
if that is right then the States needs to look hard at its comunication processes and recognise the perception of the public on the subject.
Report abuse
The reason for apathy should be of prime consideration for Deputy Jones,on past showings whatever points raised by the great unwashed public have largely been “taken on board” and then largely ignored by their peers resulting in the aforesaid malaise. To say now that all this has now changed since we are in the age of “transparency” I would draw his attention to todays G.P. page4 whereby a classic example is shown by Dep. Hunter Adam on being presented with a 1200 strong petition,surely not apathetic,makes a constructive criticism and says, “Sell something else”,Consultation at its best!!
Report abuse
SJ
So we arrange public meetings where the public can come along and ask questions, make statements examine what is being proposed, give their views on alternatives and produce evidence that the states proposals are either flawed or just plain wrong. How is that going through the motions? The trouble is that the public by and large do not engage with their government, a relatively small number will wait until a decision has been made by the people who they elected and then complain about it afterwards. If you want things changed, then get out there in numbers and lobby for change, don’t sit behind a PC whinging about it.
People power is a significant weapon when dealing with governments but it has to be organized and committed.
Report abuse
Deputy Jones
If people perceive consultation to be going through the motions then that is what it is.
It is for you and your colleagues to take on board the criticisms, concerns and comments of electors.
You clearly believe consultation is meaningful. I’m sure many who went to the Zero 10 consultations would disagree. Because the States think it is meaningful consultation doesn’t mean it is.
I won’t bother with mention of consultation meetings that were arranged at what many saw as inconvenient times, and when debate and questions were limited.
Report abuse
SJ
That’s the problem; we do not get a great deal of criticisms, concerns and comments from electors and I would suggest that the States as a whole do listen to the public, this last debate on external borrowing is a classic case in point. Most issues I have found in my short decade in politics are evenly split so there is always the question of which half of the argument do you listen too. Of course there will always be professional critics who will whinge about anything and everything. There is a demand for more and more services, while the majority of the public refuse to accept any increase in taxes which is another cause for disapproval by the population when the latter is suggested. As for Zero 10 the vast majority of those who understood the Zero 10 debate were in support of it and it has been proved to be exactly the right move for Guernsey and protected our vital income, thousands of jobs, mortgages and our economy. Most of the consultation meetings are arranged in the evening and some of the venues I grant you have not been ideal but even when the venue is perfect with plenty of parking and seating the numbers that attend are appallingly low. The public have the numbers of every deputy in the front of the phone book along with our addresses so we are hardly in hiding and yet the number of calls, visits and letters received on controversial topics are relatively small, considering the number of people on Guernsey.
Report abuse
Deputy Dave
So “As for Zero 10 the vast majority of those who understood the Zero 10 debate were in support of it…”
The inference from this seems to be those of you who din’t / don’t support zero 10 are thick.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
I’m glad you can see the benefits of zero-ten. I’m not sure how your confidence relates to the statists, mind. It seems that most of the vested interests are saying “wait and see” followed by “of course it was the right thing to do”.
The race to the bottom is not a race we should be proud of winning. Why side with the multinational corps rather than the public?
As a direct result, Guernsey is facing service cuts, probably affecting the people with the least in life, most. You talk about “it has been proved to be exactly the right move for Guernsey and protected our vital income, thousands of jobs, mortgages and our economy”, but I think that it is a stock response from someone who has to defend their outspoken position, knowing full well that that statement cannot possible be backed up with facts. But then having faith is human.
How many new banking licences were issued in the first year of the change, the year we were supposed to steal a march on our ‘competitors’?
How many multinational banks actually contacted the deputies to state unequivocally that they would base their Guernsey operation elsewhere?
I think “wait and see” is the most sensible approach for an optimist in this case.
Report abuse
SJ
I am saying nothing of the sort the whole Zero 10 issue is a complex issue and what I find extraordinary is that those of you, who keep telling us we got it wrong, fail to recognize that all our competitors in the Crown dependencies came to the same conclusion as we did. All the financial advisors in these jurisdictions clearly got it wrong according to you.
Arnald
It was exactly the right move in terms of keeping our economy alive, what did you have in mind if our finance business had relocated elsewhere? Business in the island has remained buoyant and although we have to think harder about what we spend taxpayer’s money on, we are in significantly better shape than most of Europe right now. Yes we will have to wait and see but there is nothing wrong with being optimistic about the islands future.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
I’m not sure you’re aware of this but the financial world collapsed as a direct result of ‘financial advisors’. £1.3 trillion may be someone else’s problem in your eyes, but our industry is heavily reliant on this crippling debt being created.
Your unproven assertions are therefore nonsensical. Our local economy is completely dependent on the vast parasites ruining societies around the world. As a member of the Policy Council you have never suggested anything other than slavish addiction to the business doublethink.
Yes we need finance here, we’re good at it, but to pander to the idle threats of vested interests makes you a compromised Guernsey politician in the arms of the types unaccountable multinational institutions you rail against in your speeches to the UKIP landed gentries. We are being turned into a branch of Global Finance. Your misguided swipes at things ‘unGuernsey’ makes you a hypocrite.
Sorry, but that’s how you come over.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
Your right. All the financila advisers got it wrong.
Just reflect back to the selling of zero 10 and the assumptions of growth that underpinned it.
Even an economic dope would have had it in mind that one of the 9 to 10 year economic cleaning cycles was due around 2009 2010.
Add to that the crackerjack pyramid type selling indulged by the finance sector and you have a scenario fit to cause despair.
Report abuse
Arnald
I don’t see anything un- Guernsey about supporting thousands of jobs and our ability to function as a community with the income we have. These Financial advisors were not bankers; they were tax professionals and accountants, advisors who know about this islands economy and what it will need to do to survive. It has always been about acting in a responsible, calculated and accountable manner, its about NOT putting at risk the lives of our people, their mortgages, their jobs indeed their whole future and lives of their children, with all the dread of recession, bankruptcy and repossession if we get it wrong, do you think that is easy? These were not idle threats as you put it, this was about commercial reality and business will relocate if it has to. Unemployment is bleak dark and ugly for those who experience it and we did not have the luxury of taking a punt on this, we have to maintain this economy, its public services the islands infrastructure and do it all on a little less than 340 million pounds per year, without raising taxes or upsetting the population and affecting those less well off in our community. We may have become too dependant on the Finance industry We have little option other than to continue to support those who drive this economy and if we had a blank sheet of paper, none of us would start from here but what is your alternative? unless you know of a group of secret growers who are about to revive tomato exports to the levels of the 70’s and 80’s, or perhaps a cunning plan that will bring back the huge numbers of tourists we also enjoyed in those years generating millions of pounds. Then I suggest we all take a reality check. This is not a game or slavish addiction, it’s about a fight for survival, in an increasingly hostile world where we were fortunate enough to find a lucrative industry to replace those that for whatever reasons have disappeared or gone into serious decline. I think we should be grateful that we can even consider upgrading our infrastructure and our sevices, look around the world there is precious little upgrading happening elswhere.
Report abuse
SJ
I didn’t read you predicting the global downturn at the time of Zero 10, all economies rely on growth and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that when this global recession eases Guernsey’s economy will grow. I am surprised Stephen that given your expertise on several matters you are not in the same league as George Sorros a very rich man indeed because of his ability to predict financial markets, hindsight is one thing, to get rich the trick is to know it before it happens. Lastly I don’t see the people around me in despair, I see lots of people in well paid jobs living lives that many in other countries could only dream of, free of government debt in an island which I believe has a very bright future, despite the fact that there are some difficult times ahead.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
So your criteria for political satisfaction are:
a) Maintain the level of unsustainable growth this island has experienced in the last decade even though the external environment all points to a slow recovery and major changes to various key aspects of the finance industry.
b) Keep a flat tax system that deprives the poorest most and allows the wealthiest to improve their lot disproportionately to the rate of social advancement.
c) View the outside world with contempt because they dare question our practices, and openly preach an ideological hatred based on a few people with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
d) Relying on luck to ‘find’ another source of job creation rather than proposing alternatives and driving through brave policies based on the probabilities of future reductions of resources.
Really, should I be GRATEFUL that we are considering a waste system that will encourage us to use yet more resources and kill babies to boot? GRATEFUL for the yearly sewage discharges on a bay full of marine life? GRATEFUL for the uneducated adults coming out of the education system that the politicians seem to think is working wonderfully for the island?
Guernsey the island has been turned into a playing piece for big business. The public’s fortunes are at the whim of global ‘tax competition’. It is neither independent nor unique. I will be grateful when our politicians understand this and start to invest in the future, not hark back to the rotten past of an industry that does not factor-in humanity in its convoluted games. We may enjoy another financial cycle, but ten years down the line will we be paying for this arrogance?
Report abuse
Deputy Jones
You would have read about my concerns about a proposed fiscal system (Zero 10) that was based on the most optimistic growth and inflation projections.
You would also have read about my concerns if any of these targets were not achieved, and you would have read that these concerns were hightened at a time when economies would be at the low level of the trade cycle.
Using the most optmistic projections to base fiscal policy is bordering on reckless. When used in conjuction with an anticipated down turn in the economy that is completely reckless.
We can then add to this dire state of affairs the double whammy of the problems at the time of Northern Rock which many of us brought up in the old fashioned banking era of making sure reserves cover obligations, felt would happen sooner rather than later.
This innate belief may have contribited to the fact that many of us didn’t see until mid 2008 was the catastrophic consequences of the irresponsible speculation and fall out of the credit swaps.
To sum up, even if the credit crunch mark 1 and 2 had not happened there was sufficient “normal” economic concerns to make the Zero 10 proposals optimistic to the extent of being foolish.
Report abuse
Arnald
If you say so.
Report abuse
Dave Jones
No, you said so in your posts.
Report abuse