The post you are reporting:
Chris.
You know full well that my words there are exactly what one imagines a few people who are councillors are always trying to tell us when they claim cash spent in private shops will bring economic whatever boom or prosperity.
Private cash spent in shops is NEVER distributed to the town residents.
I have never claimed that it should be. You know this full well, as I deem you to be an intelligent person.
Hence, it is impossible to understand how mass urbanisation of Dover's Green Areas, Whitfield, Western Heights, by private families, will bring economic advantage to Dover's existing residents.
As stated in the past, it not only does NOT do this, it means taking away our green areas, taking away our job opportunities, over-crowding our town and suburbs with settlers.
Also, my argument has been, and remains, that free market regulation allows people to choose of their own free will if they wish to move to Dover, or open a shop here, and there are many hundreds of empty houses in our town.
DDC state imposed settlements and DDC state imposed shopping projects to attract new residents and shoppers in mass to Dover are more in line with communism, and seem to override the free market and free choice system.
These DDC schemes could cause the loss of business to shops in areas near Dover as a consequence. It could lead to a complaint by shop owners elsewhere against DDC for interfering in free market regulation.
So much to the "footfall" projects of DDC to attract all East Kent's shoppers to Dover.
The same applies to the war monument. Trying to attract all Britain to Dover to a one-off war memorial is the same as closing down all existing war memorials, and certainly implies congesting Dover with more traffic. The more cash you would receive from such a memorial, the more cars would have to come hooping and steaming through congested and polluted Dover.
To build hundreds of houses to boot on the Western Heights, only adds to the sheer ubelievability (perhaps this word does not exist) of claiming to "preserve" a - rather limited- Heritage area.
In the past, I've stated on the Forum that DDC should apply their administration and their proposals to Dover District's residents, as is BY LAW their duty, and stop trying to do a service for people who do not live here but who they believe should come over and settle here. This latter, sacrificing Dover town and District and our interests - in a sheer undemocratic fashion (see Whitfield, Sholden) - to the benefit of people who do not live here but who they want to settle down here, is NOT their duty.
You are making me repeat myself many times on the same thread, by turning the sense of my words to the precise opposite meaning. Of-course your followers will now join in and say how I repeat myself to their boredom. Well done!
Finally, the proposal of a monument of sorts to either sailors from centuries past who are FORGOTTEN and celebrated nowhere, or to the inhabitants of Western Heights who all died of the Plague in the 14th century, is a decent proposal, it is not an attempt to diminish the memory of fallen soldiers, airmen and seamen of the two World Wars. Such a monument, as I contemplate it, would have spiritual value, would need be object first of public consultation, and could not be contemplated as a means of cashing in money.
But I see that when you find a different view to an undemocratic decision of DDC, you will try to twist the words around. I see that you insist on this argument, despite my previous post.
Would it be possible for you not to continue to do so, at least now that I have clarified my points the umpteenth time?