Who made 200 vote out of their homes?
Answers demanded over tower row
I stopped off at an upholsterers’ last week – I thought it was about time I had the buttons on the back of my head replaced.
And to while away the time, I thought I’d read Councillor Phil Saxton’s “blistering defence” of South Ayrshire Council’s decision to demolish the riverside flats.
Well, his department and his officers need no defence – never mind one that induces blisters.
According to everyone I’ve spoken too, both have done exactly what they were told to do.
In fact, I’m told the housing officers have been polite, informative and helpful.
Councillor Saxton says everything has been done “by the book” – and that’s true as well.
The issue here is who wrote “the book” in the first place – and to what end? How South Ayrshire Council chose to interpret the results of the “consultation” and its “three option” approach is murky enough.
But what really needs addressed here is:
1) Who drafted the three options? 2) On whose authority and with what remit?
3) And who gave the “three options” final approval for submission to the Council?
Why was there no Option 5 . . or even Option 6.
Option Five should have been a “staggered” refurbishment of a single block and at time – which is what the tenants tell me would have been their preferred choice. And Option 6 could have been a postponement of any decision until the Station Hotel problem has been resolved.
What kind of town centre would we have if Burns House, Ayr Station Hotel and the Riverside Place flats were all demolished – possibly all at the same time? And, if all three ARE to go – what a great opportunity to carefully plan the Ayr of the future.
It’s a huge, connecting tract of land on both sides of the River Ayr.
Thoughtfully planned, it could accommodate a new station, a new bus station, a new HQ for SAC, amenity housing, private housing and commercial space for shops and offices. But does SAC pause for thought, evaluate the situation and seize a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform and re- invent our great county town? No - it makes a snap decision . . . so ‘ snap’ that in unprecedented haste, it’s put through letter boxes within hours of being made!
One of SAC’s “strategic objectives” is apparently to “increase the profile and reputation of the council”. Well, its reputation is in tatters over this one. The public believe that SAC’s preferred option was always to demolish Riverside Place. But how could that be achieved without public outcry?
Well . . . the tenants VOTING to demolish their OWN homes would be a good start! And funnily enough:“This is what the tenants wanted . . .” has been Phil Saxton’s blanket defence ever since! If Phil Saxton says all of the above isn’t true – that’s fine.
But he’s got a giant task on his hands convincing the public that they’ve all got it wrong. SAC stand accused of giving a flock of turkeys three options – be killed in a) October b) November or c) December.
And no matter which one the bird picks – SAC can announce with absolute conviction that 100% of turkeys voted to be slaughtered for Christmas! I’ve met Phil Saxton and he’s actually a pleasant and intelligent man. I even felt a little sorryfor him. As Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Wellbeing – or Housing Convenor in old money – he’s been able take his higher pay scale but keep a low profile.
But suddenly he’s in the spotlight and, judging by his “blistering defence” – he’s struggling.
We don’t need a “blistering defence,” Phil.
But we do need a blistering explanation of who, how and what made 200 of our most vulnerable townsfolk vote themselves out of their own homes?
The public believe SAC’s preferred opetion was always to demolish Riverside Place