The post you are reporting:
Various points here to make:
Barry, the Council, whichever one - intended as Local Government - would not "run" the Port, but would ensure that it is a State asset belonging to the local community. The Port would be a part of the administrative territory of the Community, be it Town, or District or even County for that matter.
To make - and keep - the Port a Community asset, whereby the Central Government transfers the Port to the Local Community by way of Local Government, free of charge, is the safest and securest way to achieve success.
However, the Local Gov. would ensure that the people running the Port are appointed according to their skills, and would have a responsibility to ensure that the Port is run continuously according to skilled management.
Under no circumstances would "councilors be running the Port".
And if the DfT decide that DHB can remain as a structure to run the Port, I see no wrong doing in this.
In my representation I proposed that even both Local and Central Gov., ie the DfT, could have a joint say in appointing, or at least approving, the managers of the Port.
This option is the safest in order to assure the Port of Dover becomes and remains a Community asset.
Gary, unfortunately you cannot see that DPPT and DHB are both proposing a massive debt situation for the Port, but if this has by-passed you, then no explaining in the world will ever convince you of this fact.
In either scenario, the Port would have to pay continuously in order to return the invested money to the purchaser (in the DHB case), or the City lender (DPPT proposal).
My proposal is, we do not need to sell our Port to anyone, and that it must remain free of debt. Hence it could be transferred to the local Community as a local asset.
DPPT is not the local community.