More Grants (Could They Be Better Used)

[fred c]

At the present time with the Manor Residents Scandal situation & with the Tom Mitchell report to be released shortly, is this the best way for councillors to be seen to be allocating money ?

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/civic-cash-for-wards-1-6043986

This £500 pounds plus the £5000 each councillor already receives can apparently be used as the individual councillors see`s fit.

The total avaiable to all councillors is £181,500 thats an awful lots of money & if you add to that the £346,000 pounds "The Mob" are awarding to subsidise the so called "Bedroom Tax" a grand total of £527,500 pounds of council tax payers money is available this year alone.

I for one wonder if it could be used in a more proactive way.

How many apprentice places for Instance, could that amount of money help to subsidise with some of the towns companies ? It would fund around 20 young people for a 3 year apprenticeship with each earning a reasonable £175 per week........

If the companies themselves funded the wages by 50% ie. £85 per week, the number of young people that would benefit would rise to 40 per year, I can`t help but think that would be more beneficial to the future outlook of young people in Hartlepool than some of the schemes that are floated about.

[grim reaper]

Too damn right, Fred.
The money could be used as you suggest but you know as well as me that this is about gathering votes.
They are not bothered about 16 or 17 year olds being placed on apprenticeships, their eyes are on the 2014 and 2015 elections and they want to keep the voters they already have and those that might be wavering, thanks to their dismal performance to date and the scandal of Wilcox and MRA. 

The money could also have been used to take on apprentices at the council...architects, planning, legal dept., grounds mtce., etc. etc. all require people with qualifications...that money could have assisted.

But hey, this is Hartlepool and the scabs we're talking about. Are you really surprised, Fred? 

[DRiddle]

I just think it's another example of a total lack of joined up thinking.

Currently, the council are facing yet another public backlash for attempting to sell the Ward Jackson Park gate lodge. (See article) http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/opposition-to-lodge-plans-1-6048058

Without getting into the whole issue of the legality of selling off the lodge, as it's debatable the council even own it in a genuine sense, consider this.

If the whispers around the council offices are correct, the price they want for the lodge is a bit less than the £181,500 Fred spoke of earlier that's been divided up between the councillors to do what they like with.

I'd like to bet that the £5,500 quid they've each been given to spend on their ward will largely be frittered away on things people will barely notice have even happened.

New swings for local playgrounds, perhaps a bit of landscaping here or there, maybe a kitchen re-fit for a community centre, things like that. You can't really do a lot with 5 grand, especially using our councils approved contractors.

But..... If they kept the £180,000 in a collective pot, think what they COULD do, given that they already 'own' the Ward Jackson Park gate house.

For example, there's enough land behind the gatehouse, also owned by the council, which is currently used for storage of park related equipment, to extend it, AND provide some outside space and additional parking.

For £180,000 I reckon you could develop the gate lodge and turn it into a pre school nursery.

Local contractors, young tradespeople and the apprentices Fred spoke of earlier, could be heavily involved in the initial development of the site. That'd put money back into the local economy as well as up skilling young people who might otherwise end up unemployed.

Once finished, young people who have came through the child care courses offered by the local FE college would have a facility to gain meaningful work experience. Indeed, done properly, keeping within the rules of the governments education, training and apprenticeship guidelines, the nursery could even be ran in association with the FE college (or Brinkburn or Martyrs) as part of real life training. (As every child care student has to gain several hundred hours of unpaid work placements anyway).

In short, it's very easy to end up with a situation where the town/council retain ownership of the gate house, tradespeople gain meaningful practical experience, as do child care students. The gatehouse, which is currently standing empty and has been for years, becomes a viable business within the councils portfolio. It could even be ran as a social enterprise of sort, in that places could be offered to pre school age children from a range of demographics.

The council would also be able to keep an awful lot of money that they spend on private child care related contracts 'in house', saving money in the long run.

Outside of the school calendar, when most people who send their children to nursery have them at home, the facility could be simply switched to operating as a 'play scheme'/crèche/day care facility for those that need it.

I suppose they could just sell it to whichever property developer has their eye on it though, bank the money, probably quickly waste it, and that'll be that.

Come on Robbie Payne, I know you read this site. There's one for you fella... you can have that one on me. 

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Sounds like a viable proposition, and one which could have a positive effect on many people's lives; rather more creative than frittering away a comparatively small pot of money on bits and pieces!

[DRiddle]

I certainly think so. Done correctly, once finished, the council could simply rent the lease on the nursery to a private company for a annual figure WAAAYYY into the high five figure mark. They could potentially ensure the house brings in an income for the WHOLE TOWN of for life, rather than a short term chunk of cash as a one off.

If the council keep 'selling off the family silver', they have to be aware that ultimately, once all the assets are gone, they're in even bigger trouble than they are now.

I'd also argue strongly that selling off what is essentially a HOUSE, in arguably the nicest part of our town, should NOT happen bang smack in the middle of the biggest property slump for a generation.

But then I would have thought that were obvious... 

[ARC86]

Great idea Fred,  but with more redundancies sure too come who will be left to learn the young guys their trades.. the council should be pushing for more apprenticeships regardless of the current situation. They should also be banging on the national Labour Party door calling for re-instatement of the block grant.

Only thing i would say about your sound proposal David is how many people in town use Ward Jackson Park.. the small pots of money actually go a long way helping small projects in the voluntary and charity sector which is pretty much on its knees in these "big society" times. I appreciate the gate house is close to many peoples hearts, but why extend a park that 90% of the town do not use? Surely the money is best spent in each ward even if it does make only a small difference

[DRiddle]

Arc, i'm not saying EXTEND the park, the land and building are already part of the park. My idea is merely to utilise it properly, rather than simply sell it off.

I'm not sure where I stand yet regarding the '£5,000 a year for each ward' thing. I'd like to see some information and figures as to where the money has gone and what it was spent on by each respective councillor so far.

In theory it sounds a straight forward system. A decent local councillor should know if there's a playground on their patch that needs re surfacing or whatever. But...

Given a lot of them seem unable to get the 'big financial decisions' right, I have no more confidence in a lot of them to get the relatively small ones right.

Also, and this is where I admit I am very suspicious (and perhaps I will put my tin foil hat on Shane), i'm concerned a little about the £5,000 per ward allocations.

That decision came at a time when there was reportedly a lot of noise made by the sheep in council (the mute ones ironically) about raising councillors basic allowances to around 10-11k.

That was never going to be allowed to happen in the current climate, but the money was found to give each and every councillor basically full control of how to spend 5k.

Do you trust SOME of the current crop with 100% confidence to ensure that money is spent appropriately?

Given that it appears that one or more of them may be caught up in suspected fraud which could run into hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds, would you give SOME of them free reign to do what they like with 5 thousand quid?

[marky]

There must be an issue here when something has been 'gifted' to the people of Hartlepool because I'm sure that it wasn't the intention of the original donor for the building to be looked upon as a simple asset to be disposed of for cash by the local authority. Only in the most dire of circumstances maybe but we have seen several instances lately of when the council finds itself with unexpected underspends it can't resist finding something to spend it on rather than using it to address it's predicted spending deficit.

Is it not also equally likely that any money raised by selling this property will find its way into another vote securing scheme? 

[rabbit]

In a related matter, it does seem a little strange that the original capital of £427,000 pound from the Civic Lottery (which ended some 31 years ago) is still untouched.. I assume that townfolk provided this money through purchase of lottery tickets.

I am not sure that if the Secretary of State approved the Council to use it, that the latter would quite know how  best to use it.

So perhaps it is better to leave it in a bank account.for now.

[grim reaper]

Why not return it to its original role...that of the abode of a park keeper? 
Firstly, you are creating employment. 
The park keeper can be used for the security of the site and for general mtce. and litter-picking.

He/she can pay a reduced rent rate for having to 'live above the shop'.
This should then keep down the gratuitous vandalism, illegal drinking, graffiti etc.

Ward Jackson Park can then be, once again, a 'jewel in the crown'. 

But no, the greedy buggers smell easy money to squander, so it will be sold (to a crony?  ).

[DRiddle]

To be honest Grim, I'd discuss and consider virtually anything that goes beyond the councils 3 usual 'ideas' which are basically;

(1) Knock it down and re-build it.
(2) Sell it.
(3) Buy it, although without necessarily knowing what to do with it.

[ARC86]

Surely the 5k is audited correctly.. the foggy furze councillors have backed a few innovative ideas put forward by the young people in the area.. i think the system works and is far better than sticking 5k on a councillors allowances

[DRiddle]

I'm certainly not suggesting it's added onto their allowance. As I say, they should publish what they've done with it. Let people know exactly where its gone and what on.

[craig finton]

I agree. We lost something in the mad rush to centralise everything. The old 'park-keeper' system produced a sense of ownership and, by the time the provided accomodation was taken into account, it was relatively cheap and money well spent.

[stokoe]

I agree with a lot of the ideas,but one thing bothers me yrs ago if you were doing anything
Wrong and you would see the parky you would scarper,now they would kick seven bells of
sh**e out of him if you approached them.