"are being evicted from the C&A building"

They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.

Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright.
Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years.

And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.

Who's paying? Who cares! Looks great - exactly what is needed, instead of this part brick/part plaster stuff which springs up everywhere. This is an imaginative design - glazing is far better.

In terms of spending tax payer's money -highly doubt that it is just local gov paying for it. Even if it is, they have a budget - apart from spending it on hospitals, i can't see anything else i would like - walking past a great, fresh new building in that location will be great. Where one new good building is built, encourages others to follow suit. It is people like you (who's paying') who are bringing this city down, and making us live in the dark ages. I am sure you are the one of the people who argues tat the city council lack imagination, drive and vision, and when something good comes along you become a hypocrit. Crawl back under your rock.

Alvin wrote:
Who's paying? Who cares! Looks great - exactly what is needed, instead of this part brick/part plaster stuff which springs up everywhere. This is an imaginative design - glazing is far better. In terms of spending tax payer's money -highly doubt that it is just local gov paying for it. Even if it is, they have a budget - apart from spending it on hospitals, i can't see anything else i would like - walking past a great, fresh new building in that location will be great. Where one new good building is built, encourages others to follow suit. It is people like you (who's paying') who are bringing this city down, and making us live in the dark ages. I am sure you are the one of the people who argues tat the city council lack imagination, drive and vision, and when something good comes along you become a hypocrit. Crawl back under your rock.

Is this a personal view or do the other chipmunks feel the same?

Good banter - ! :-) Clearly, Chipmunks have a good grasp of the UK planning system and local government.

Alvin wrote:
Good banter - ! :-) Clearly, Chipmunks have a good grasp of the UK planning system and local government.

Chipmunks obviously have a better idea than the usual mickey mouse plans for flats and car parking that get put forward.

Got to admit it does look good, it's a shame it's just offices as it will become invisible to people as time passes

Who's paying? wrote:
Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright.
Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years.

And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.

What on earth are you babbling about? Capita is a commercial, profit-making venture. Doesn't matter who owns it, or who it's customers are, it still turns profit. Who's paying for this venture? Capita, with its own profit. Not public money, not our money.

There's always some fool who knee-jerks "Joe Taxpayer suffers again" without bothering with any trivial nonsense such as The Facts

Fred wrote:
"are being evicted from the C&A building" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.

Not really.

Either way they are being moved against their wishes.

One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn't sound quite so bad.

If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn't be best pleased about it.

Would you, Fred?

Steve wrote:

Fred wrote:
\"are being evicted from the C&A building\" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.

Not really.

Either way they are being moved against their wishes.

One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn\'t sound quite so bad.

If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn\'t be best pleased about it.

Would you, Fred?

Nope, it is quite a difference. How do you know, for instance, that this move is against anyone's wishes? Anyone leasing a property is aware that the lease is a finite contract, that may well come to an end, quite legitimately. If you get all surprised and upset when that happens, you failed to understand what "lease" meant. The assumption should always be that it will end at some point. In many cases, it's even desirable that a lease comes to an end. Bet the lease in such a prime central location is a hefty premium for something as niche as an adult bookstore

Further, you can't use the "would you, Fred?" clause here. Commercial bodies are not people, they're somewhat more abstract entities, and can't get "upset". Leases not being renewed is a perfectly valid business risk that should be allowed for

Further, you can't use the "would you, Fred?" clause here. Commercial bodies are not people, they're somewhat more abstract entities, and can't get "upset". Leases not being renewed is a perfectly valid business risk that should be allowed for

I was under the impression that businesses (small ones especially, which I think the sex shop and snooker hall are) were run and staffed by people, who are susceptible to emotions. Use of the "Would you, Fred?" clause looks fine on that basis, or is Fred unable to imagine being a business owner/staff member?

Just the same as Steve can't be certain that these people are unhappy about not being able to renew their leases, you can't be certain that they are perfectly content with the situation.

Either way, Steve's point was that being evicted and not having your leases renewed are tantamount to the same thing - being forced to move. Regardless of whether or not the move is against anyone's wishes, they don't have a choice, do they?

George wrote:

Steve wrote:

Fred wrote: \"are being evicted from the C&A building\" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.

Not really. Either way they are being moved against their wishes. One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn\'t sound quite so bad. If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn\'t be best pleased about it. Would you, Fred?

Nope, it is quite a difference. How do you know, for instance, that this move is against anyone's wishes? Anyone leasing a property is aware that the lease is a finite contract, that may well come to an end, quite legitimately. If you get all surprised and upset when that happens, you failed to understand what "lease" meant. The assumption should always be that it will end at some point. In many cases, it's even desirable that a lease comes to an end. Bet the lease in such a prime central location is a hefty premium for something as niche as an adult bookstore Further, you can't use the "would you, Fred?" clause here. Commercial bodies are not people, they're somewhat more abstract entities, and can't get "upset". Leases not being renewed is a perfectly valid business risk that should be allowed for

If businesses are abstract entities, George, how can they have wishes as you say they do? Or does your pedantry not extend to covering the boring drivel you come out with?

Bambi wrote:

Who's paying? wrote: Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright. Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years. And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.

What on earth are you babbling about? Capita is a commercial, profit-making venture. Doesn't matter who owns it, or who it's customers are, it still turns profit. Who's paying for this venture? Capita, with its own profit. Not public money, not our money. There's always some fool who knee-jerks "Joe Taxpayer suffers again" without bothering with any trivial nonsense such as The Facts

Capita may be a commercial, profit-making venture, but where are they getting those profits from? Tax Payers, that's who.

Steve wrote:

Fred wrote: "are being evicted from the C&A building" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.

Not really. Either way they are being moved against their wishes. One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn't sound quite so bad. If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn't be best pleased about it. Would you, Fred?

Steve,

Don't go into business and ever sign a lease. You will be crying on the day the lease expires.

Good old Crapita...... with a bigger building for them to take over more of the Council staff that are on the lower paid.... and then change their contract of employment and kick them out.... ask Crapita about the moral of the staff they have taken over???

Fred wrote:

Steve wrote:

Fred wrote: "are being evicted from the C&A building" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.

Not really. Either way they are being moved against their wishes. One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn't sound quite so bad. If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn't be best pleased about it. Would you, Fred?

Steve, Don't go into business and ever sign a lease. You will be crying on the day the lease expires.

Well done Fred.

A typically petulant response. You really showed him.

No, really.

Tax Payer wrote:

Bambi wrote:

Who's paying? wrote: Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright. Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years. And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.

What on earth are you babbling about? Capita is a commercial, profit-making venture. Doesn't matter who owns it, or who it's customers are, it still turns profit. Who's paying for this venture? Capita, with its own profit. Not public money, not our money. There's always some fool who knee-jerks "Joe Taxpayer suffers again" without bothering with any trivial nonsense such as The Facts

Capita may be a commercial, profit-making venture, but where are they getting those profits from? Tax Payers, that's who.

So what? Whichever electric company supplies the council is also making a profit from tax. Ditto whoever services their photocopiers. Are you going to whinge if they have the audacity to spend some of their profits? Do you get all wound up when you see a council employee daring to "go large" in KFC on "your" money? Jebus, get a clue will you