On 23 Mar 2009 at 3:04pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
Interesting to see that whilst Lewes had not the highest Council Tax increase in percentage, it's the most expensive for a Band D property out of all Non Metropolitan Districts. Only some parts of London top it. It makes me wonder whether the calculation of the amount of Council Tax is inverse proportional to the Councils competence?
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5810664.ece
On 23 Mar 2009 at 3:30pm Spongebob wrote:
Someone's got to pay for all the councillors jollies to France and germany
On 23 Mar 2009 at 3:42pm Outsider wrote:
It's expensive in Lewes because of the formula which is used to calculate what the government grant is for the area. The less money from the government grant the more council tax from your pocket. Oddly, most authorities in the labour strongholds get a better grant distribution result, wonder why that is. If you look back Lewes always gets one of the lowest grants handed out.
On 23 Mar 2009 at 3:48pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
How come then that the council can afford to give away certain plots of land for free to housing developers (so I was told). Shouldn't that have been sold and gone into our honeypot considering you and me are the owners? I'm very tempted to display some of them on a spit for embezzlement.
On 23 Mar 2009 at 3:57pm Toque wrote:
And house prices in Lewes have fallen by 22%
www.tinyurl.com/c9l84s
On 23 Mar 2009 at 8:28pm The Tooth Fairy wrote:
According to that they've fallen since September 2009! Maybe they know something we don't.
On 23 Mar 2009 at 9:16pm Long Distance Whelk Fisherman wrote:
Something fishy going on here!
On 23 Mar 2009 at 9:57pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
You have a point Outsider, but the formula you refer to affects all the share counties and benefits the metropolitan areas.
Lewes often, if not always, has the highest council tax in East Sussex. Why is this, if not because the district council is expensive compared to others?
On 24 Mar 2009 at 6:38pm Spongefox wrote:
So Intrepid, which land are you are refering to that you were reliably told about?
How many "jollies" have Councillors been on to Europe and what are their costs? You must know because you are so well informed. I assume that you are against all twin town and civic functions.
On 24 Mar 2009 at 6:43pm Spongebob wrote:
Come on Roly Mo, you can do better than that.
And YES, i am TOTALLY against ALL town hall and civic functions and jollies especially when there are folk who are out of work and finding it hard to pay the EXTORTIONATE poll tax in this town.
On 24 Mar 2009 at 6:49pm Spongefox wrote:
The poll tax stopped decades ago. The best system is a local income tax so that those who are out of work do not pay.
However fair point provided it does not diminish civic pride and events for 'normal' people, ie community events.
On 24 Mar 2009 at 7:14pm Spongebob wrote:
Let's face it spongefox (Roly mo), no one except the chosen few benifit from civic functions. The mayor is nothing but a figurehead who wallows in freebies and jollies to places that "normal" folk have neither heard of nor care about.
Not sure what "community events" any "normal person" really gives two stuffs about
On 24 Mar 2009 at 7:24pm Spongefox wrote:
Your views and experience. However, when you have looked at the annual diary in full, then comment.
On 24 Mar 2009 at 7:31pm Spongebob wrote:
So please enlighten us about this "annual (read anal) diary" What delights is this going to bring to is "normal" people and most importantly, who cares ?
On 24 Mar 2009 at 7:36pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
Spongefox, spineless creature, do you have to use me in symbiosis with Spongebob? All that Spongebob and I have in common is that we use the same sewer system. Now, the land left of Wallwers Lane and behind the Library. The once which looked once very beautiful. How much did the developer pay? Please correct my ignorant view. You seem to be informed.
On 24 Mar 2009 at 7:38pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
And in addition, I think those functions and community hall events are very important and wish St Anne's Hall will survive. Twin Towns are also a great idea and are fully supported by me as long as the relationship is kept alive.
On 24 Mar 2009 at 9:32pm Roly Mo wrote:
Hang on a minute Spongebob, I haven't said anything? Did you dream it?
On 24 Mar 2009 at 10:03pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I'm not convinced about local income tax. All the people who get away with paying very little tax because they have clever accountants and put their wives and every other family member "on the payroll" would get away with it again and the PAYE wage slaves would get hammered (finacnially) to make up for it.
At least with a property based tax you can't really hide the fact that you live in a chuffing great house.
On 24 Mar 2009 at 11:44pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Size is not everything
On 25 Mar 2009 at 11:22am THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
Enlighten me. I'm waiting.
On 25 Mar 2009 at 3:40pm Spongefox wrote:
Still waiting: 'So Intrepid, which land are you are refering to that you were reliably told about?@
On 25 Mar 2009 at 4:26pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
■On 24/03/2009 THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
Spongefox, spineless creature, do you have to use me in symbiosis with Spongebob? All that Spongebob and I have in common is that we use the same sewer system. Now, the land left of Wallwers Lane and behind the Library. The once which looked once very beautiful. How much did the developer pay? Please correct my ignorant view. You seem to be informed.
On 26 Mar 2009 at 8:55am Spongefox wrote:
Thanks Foxy, the Lewes House site.
On 26 Mar 2009 at 9:21am Outsider wrote:
The Lewes House site was sold. Don't rewrite history, the site behind the library was never beautiful. It was a tarmac car park and not long before that was LDC portakabins for their planning department.
The Walwer's Lane bit was the site given away to a housing association for social housing, which is supposed to be rented to council tenants. Associations get loans to build housing, unlike councils, but can't get loans to buy sites.
On 26 Mar 2009 at 6:04pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
I don't have it in front of me but what I recall from looking at the Planning Application, only a certain percentage is social housing? Am I right or am I wrong Outsider?
On 26 Mar 2009 at 7:13pm Lewes Whispers wrote:
Rumour has it that the district council gave the site away free of charge to the developers as long as they got 40% social housing on the land. After residents got wind of the loss of such an amenity (land valued at a couple of million being given away) it is thought that the district council then fudged their books to show that they sold the land for a bargain price (£100K?)
Either way the tax payers of the district were shafted.
On 26 Mar 2009 at 7:47pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
Well a clear, or not so clear, case of fraud and embezzlement. Shouldn't this be investigated and the responsibles brought to justice? We must have roughly 10,000 households. Let's assume the site would have been sold for 2,000,000 this would reduce every council taxpayers bill by £16.66 A MONTH!
On 26 Mar 2009 at 9:47pm Outsider wrote:
Try an FOI to the Council. I'm pretty sure the 40% housing is to be built on the Walwers lane site, which was given to the housing association to build.
The Lewes House site was sold, at market value to a private developer whose name I can't remember. But, when local authorities sell they have to take the highest bidder and the valuation is checked out by an independent agency, the District Valuer, notjhing to do with LDC, but a branch of the revenue. You can't fudge any council's books they're gone over by auditors appointed by the Audit Commission, every year.
On 26 Mar 2009 at 11:08pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Going on the sale of the Baxter's site, the area concerned is/was probabaly worth double £2m
On 27 Mar 2009 at 10:25am Nigel wrote:
Why don't the conspiracy theorists on here grow a pair and actually follow up their various charges against the council with legal action.... Could it be because they've made it up?
On 27 Mar 2009 at 7:18pm Lewes Whispers wrote:
Outsider and Nigel, how wrong you are.
Even a FOI request to our corrupt council would not provide the information requested.
Ombudsman complaint? Forget it as the (allegedy) impartial Ombudsman is funded by local government. That's hardly unbiased!!!!!
On 27 Mar 2009 at 7:31pm Rozzer wrote:
Lewes Whispers wrote: 'Ombudsman complaint? Forget it as the (allegedy) impartial Ombudsman is funded by local government. That's hardly unbiased!!!!!'
You couldn't be more wrong, as many local authorities would tell you. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is also publicly financed but see the hammering she's been giving the government. You shouldn't be discouraging people from complaining with this sort of daft story.