"Sort it out yourselves" (PPAG win legal appeal)

[Betty Windsor]

Those of us of a more cynical nature, believed that using the name "Portobello Park" instead of, and not as well as "the Golfie", meant that many people in the area did not engage in the "democratic consultation" because they thought it was somewhere else.
I understand that, normally when these types of consultations go on that the common name for the place is made clear to people.
Maybe because CEC were attempting to "landgrab" this didn't happen.

[Epykat]

[Epykat]

[rmolehusband]

[AndyK]

[Epykat]

[Porty]

[Epykat]

[rmolehusband]

[rmolehusband]

[Franck]

.

[Epykat]

[Bob Jefferson]

The last 50 or so posts on this topic have been vaguely amusing at times but largely irrelevant. Feel free to continue if you are having fun but I"m sure most of you must have more constructive things to do with your lives. Ask your partner if in doubt.

I feel sickened, to be honest, by the insincerity of PPAG's offer to 'work together' to find a solution. The only reason that they are still interested in the matter is because they know the park remains 'under threat' and they know that we will leave no stone unturned in finding a solution that will enable us to get the school that our children deserve.

[Scoop]

[Porty]

Epykat- you've just had a rant about comparison between you and I, the problem is you and almost everyone else, from the First Minister all the way down to P3. You are at odds and your only justification is you worked in the school. You know better than the hundreds of others who have also worked there. it is a trumped up believe in your own importance, you behave like you think you are superior.

On our side of the debate, we believe we have the best worst option, which has become known as Plan A. None of us instinctively wish to build on the park but we accept there is no Plan B, we believe ther'es no plan B based on the information uncovered in the last six years or so. That's why we are working hard to deliver Plan A, we are confident we will delliver. So please stop asking me or everyone else to come up with a Plan B it is a pure distraction.

[Porty]

[Epykat]

[Epykat]

[Epykat]

[seashell]

This is a joke post, right?????

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[rathbone]

Thank God for that. I am sick to the back teeth of your holier than thou attitude. Wangi may have said something in private, but I’ve had enough of skirting around the issue. Over the last few months I have lost all respect for you Stephen. The way you treat people on this site is a disgrace. Any comment which doesn’t match your point of view is savaged and the people who make it are attacked. You belittle them, you humiliate them, and you dismiss them with what at times is breathtaking arrogance. It doesn’t help your cause and it certainly doesn’t help you.

[Makaveli]

[quote="Epykat"]oh and maybe some people who are inciting their kids to write things like #parkavenuescum on social networking sites which is really not doing anybody any favours in the charm offensive war.=quote]

Which social networking site is that on Epykat?

[Epykat]

[Makaveli]

Strange as I did a google search on the hashtag above and found nothing.

[Epykat]

[wangi]

Some kids used it on Twitter, point is what exactly?

[Epykat]

[wangi]

That's nonsense.

[Porty]

[commander114]

I have to say I prefer the strip along the edge of Baileyfield Road rather than the railway yards. A building on the strip of land along Baileyfield Road that I suggested would then slightly curve to follow the railway course but stop short of the pond.

If the front of any building, ie the surface facing the pond, is kept behind the front facades of the existing terrace of buildings in Hamilton Terrace and remains parallel with Baileyfield Road until curving round very slightly where the railway crosses over the road finally ending short of the pond then you're looking at something like 14000 square metres being available at street level without intruding greatly on the pond and its surroundings. This stays clear of the existing houses. That's approximately 1.40 hectares available for buildings.

A great deal of space would become available on the old site. Most of the existing buildings could be transferred even if the height is constrained. There's a net gain in green space as a result as playing fields are created. The biggest single green area required would be something like 10800 square metres for a football pitch and the site allows this but with the site vacated there would be more than like three times that area available for a football pitch, a pool and parking and other facilities.

In comparison the present tower occupies something like 1200 square metres or 0.12 Hectares. What do all of the present buildings occupy, tower included - 5000 square metres maybe? What do you think the present site extends to - 20000 square metres / 2 hectares ?

You would then have a total of 34000 square metres or 3.4 hectares to work with. You'd be increasing the amount of local green space with playing fields and planting. Is that not enough space to work with ? The present site is obviously available for school use. Is there any reason the strip along Baileyfield Road couldn't be used as well?

[commander114]