Tower block fiasco could end coalition
Give tenants a second referendum
For a local authority whose popularity level is now classed as subterranean - and which is now generally considered to be the worst local administration in living memory – South Ayrshire Council still has a fair conceit of itself.
You could draft Abraham Lincoln himself onto this council – and he’d still be a voice in the wilderness. In SAC, we appear to have elected members who believe you actually CAN fool all of the people . . . all of the time! And if one single issue might finally be the beginning of the end of this blundering, blustering coalition of convenience - it could be three blocks of flats and the pensioner power that unites them.
Officially, South Ayrshire Council met on the morning of Thursday June 27 to decide the fate of the Riverside Place “high rise” flats. As is the way these days, the decision had already been made by a cabal in a committee room. The first malodourous hint that Machiavellian moves were afoot was the letter explaining the council’s decision – signed by housing chief Michael Alexander – and hand- delivered to every tenant in Riverside Place . . . that SAME afternoon!
When you consider the normal pace of a council at work . . . this was the speed of light! The second whiff that all was not well was when SAC defended their demolition decision – by claiming it’s what the “majority” of tenants wanted! And that’s clearly not the case. The “consultation” results were deemed to be as follows:
Option 1 - Retain and Refurbish 46% Option 2 – Demolish and Rehouse 38.6% Option 3 – Demolish and rebuild on same site28%.
By any fair assessment, Option 1 was the favourite. But under SAC’s assessment – Option 2 + Option 3 has more votes that Option 1 – so . . . er . . . that means Option 2 wins!
Yes folks, that’s democracy at work! Then we come to the “consultation” itself – another botched council endeavour with final conclusions that lacks clarity, credence or confidence.
One resident told me he was asked “If the flats were demolished and you were re- housed, would you want to move back to Riverside Place? I said that, at my age, moving home was a huge undertaking. If I was happy where I was – I probably wouldn’t want to move back”.
“I now realise that would be listed as support for Option 2. But Option 1 was barely mentioned – and that’s where my support would have gone. And all my neighbours are saying the same thing. They say they were rail- roaded!”
Next up we have Councillor Philip Saxton telling us “We cannot go through this consultation again ... this was a democratic result and it cannot be run again”.
Oh . . . how politics has changed. I can remember the days when Labour councillors came out swinging to defend council house tenants! Perhaps these Coalition Cronies have spent so long bedhopping between the Tories and the Nats, they’ve forgotten what the Labour Party is meant to stand for! Then again, and shamefully, not a single councillor from ANY party showed up at the Auld Kirk public meeting. Maybe they’ve all forgotten what being a councillor is meant to stand for! So well done, Westminster’s Bill Grant. I don’t always agree with our MP – but he’s never let a big local issue go past him.
And another “well done” to tireless community council stalwart Norman McLean. Norman’s another who I sometimes disagree with – and he sometimes disagrees with me!
But, as the old saying goes, I’d rather he was on my side - than the other side. The “High Flats” issue is going to run and run. But first up has to be a second “referendum” of the tenants. What will our SNP led council make of that? Well, their masters in Edinburgh want a second referendum . . . . on everything else! Give the Riverside residents Options 1, 2 and 3 again – without the spin, the subterfuge, the smoke and the mirrors.
Another botched endeavour with final conculsions that lack clarity, credence or confidence