isaidthat

So basically a Lib Dem guy gets a petition to get something done, goes to a meeting at the council and asks for it to be done, Some Labour councilliors are at the meeting and run out get a leaflet done and post it saying that have asked for it!! Is that right?? So now Labour in Sheffield have stooped to doing nothing and then doing this.. if that is the case the names of the Labour people on that leaflet need to be made public and we should never vote for them again:rant:

Max Question answered , he still is and after what they have just done with council tax 1.95% I would imagine he might be there until the General Election.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/letters/Support-for-city--at.4381810.jp Well sums it up really I think!!

This is direct from the report 17. It is further proposed that a lease for the Workshop Units is granted on a peppercorn rent for a term of 25 years. This will create an intermediate leasehold interest which will mean that PMC will become the immediate landlord of the tenants of the Units. A Management agreement will be drawn up under which the City Council will continue to manage the Units on behalf of PMC, which will also set out how the net profit will be paid to PMC. It is proposed that the current licences are terminated and that new tenancy agreements between PMC and the licensees will be entered into. It would appear from this the Tenants will see no difference and that the council will manage the units for the PMC and take a management fee. That way the tenants get continuity of their units been managed and looked after the same way. I assume the lease is so that the profit element goes to the PMC and gets them off grant aid. Also for us council tax payers it seems a reasonable idea as well Again direct from the report FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 24. The disposal will generate an annual rental to the City Council from year 6 of the lease (the amount to be determined at the five year review point of the lease). Until that point this proposal is cost neutral to the Council ie the costs and income forgone are covered by existing budgets. In the first 5 year period of the lease it is also anticipated that the City Council’s asset will be improved and works to the value of at least £75,000 will have been implemented at the premises. Also direct from the report 19. These proposals have been developed in the spirit of supporting PMC’s wish to be financially independent of the City Council. To this end there will be a tapering off of grant aid as follows. PMC will receive: · 2008-9 grant aid of £34,116 and £20,000 (current estimate) from Unit income · 2009-10 grant aid of £17,000 and £20,000 from Unit income · 2010-11 income from the Units alone So again a move that moves the PMC off an annual "handout" Finally again from the report Given the legal complexities around the restaurant and workshop units, it is proposed that PMC be granted an immediate 25-year lease for the three buildings that they currently occupy for community use. The lease will have a break clause exercisable by PMC / the Council / PMC or the Council at 5 years at which point the sustainability of PMC will be reviewed and the rent level for the subsequent 5 year period set. There will be a further rent review every five years thereafter. So a break clause after every 5 years again to protect the tax payer. The more you read the report the more you see how clever it is it protects the tenants, it gets value for the tax payer and gets the PMC off an annual grant and it says to the PMC you have 5 years to prove yourselves, by giving them a lease and an income from the units.

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/cabinet/agendas-2008/agenda-6th-august-2008/former-woodbourn-road-school Having now read the report it seems not to just be about writing off a debt going back to 1991!!! The council very cleverly are letting them have the lease to the bulidings so they no longer year on year get £34,000 from the council. In another 3 years this stops and they get income from workshops on the site. Rather a clever way of then having £34,000 for other groups in the city. Also making them stand on their own two feet. It also looks like at year 5 the council has a break clause in case it isn't working. Rather an inovate way to stopping groups been reliant on council handouts. Now they have the leases they can raise money elsewhere not from tax payers and the write off means they have a clear set of books to do it. This shows clever thinking by the council to make sure that the "handout" culture stops Also from the report FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 24. The disposal will generate an annual rental to the City Council from year 6 of the lease (the amount to be determined at the five year review point of the lease). Until that point this proposal is cost neutral to the Council ie the costs and income forgone are covered by existing budgets. In the first 5 year period of the lease it is also anticipated that the City Council’s asset will be improved and works to the value of at least £75,000 will have been implemented at the premises. So it seems that from year 6 onwards the council also gets income froma rent which it hasn't got so again another clever way of getting money back for te tax payer. Also the building which the council owns still, it is only leasing in the first 5 years getting improved and maintained free of cost in the first 5 years too Whist the headline may seem like "they" get away with it the more I think this shows a real business like approach to dealing with taxpyers money from the new council.

Well look at the council website £200,000 for street sign repairs £50,000 for tree planing £60,000 for grafitti removal £150,000 to clean up rivers Free green sacks for recycling garden waste A free Book token to all children starting school in spetember St Lukes sorted plus more seems they are doing quite a bit to me

http://www.libdems.org.uk/media/documents/policies/Make%20it%20Happen.pdf I think you will find the document is about national Government policy of abolsihing vehicle tax and pertol tax and then only charging for using busy roads. So I assume unless the Labour Government changes to this then Scriven is right to Say the Lib Dems say No to a congestion charge in Sheffield. Looks like Labour are trying to make mischief just like they have done over St Lukes this week!!!

Well this is in the Star today http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Vote-collection-police-probe-call.4029380.jp

How do you know have you been part of this case?? Your post is another example of Sheffield Labour - "don't tell us what has happen - we know what has happened - and you are wrong"

Really nice of them to say that but actions speak much louder than words. back in june when they had the chance to support the Lib Dems call to stop it did the Green vote that way NO.. they sided with Labour and have allowed this to continue. The Greens had the chance and th power to stop it in June they didn't and now look where we are. It is alright for them to put grand words on their website but we Sheffielders are not daft we know that actions speak louder than words. It would appear to me only one party in Sheffield takes our parks and green spaces to be important as a matter of principle - The Lib Dems - they didn't need to wait 8 months to see what way the wind was blowing and made a statement of what they belived in and then voted for it. I have no time for the Greens in Sheffield after this, they have been found out. I am glad that we can now all see what Greens mean in the council. little difference really to the lot we have in now

I have asked the Lib Dems this is what was said I copy and post the response Thankyou for taking the time to email me on this important matter. I am afraid that you have been mislead by the local Labour Party who are trying to mislead people in their election leaflets. I can confirm the Liberal Democrats have no plans to change the weekly bin collection. In fact we have never said anything other than we will keep the weekly collection. The only change we are making on collection of rubbish is to improve and extend kerbside recycling to include either glass or cans. We are the only party to go into the election with this a costed policy. All the other parties voted aginst this when we put this to council just 2 months ago. Once again many thanks for taking the time to email me on this issue and I hope that my answer gives you a clear indication of the Liberals Democrats policy on this issue. Best wishes Cllr Paul Scriven Leader, Sheffield Liberal Democrats.

Also didn't the same Tory Cllr Smith vote against the Lib Dems call at councilo to STOP the building on Graves Park?

Oh so now offical Tory policy in Sheffield - No to good community schools. Right well that lets us know where the Tories stand on local schools

Have checked and they BOTH voted for the change on the 18th March. http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2008-03-18&number=125&display=allvotes

This from the star today, so I checked and they did vote for it on the 18th March. Now I am more angry http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2008-03-18&number=125&display=allvotes