The post you are reporting:
Alexander, I'm sorry, but you are stating as fact things which are simply incorrect.
1) DPPT has not claimed to be the actual community. It claims, and is perfectly correct in claiming, due to its widespread and diverse membership, that it is representative of the community. The whole point is that DPPT is not a public body, but is a private charity that is representative of the communities of Dover District and accountable to them. A public body would not be able to have full access to the capital markets in order to raise money to invest in the future of the port.
2) The Parish poll made no mention of DPPT, but DPPT supported the question posed 100%. Ownership by the community could mean a number of things, the parish poll was not specific, just one of which could be a body or charity that is representative of the community. Parliament will eventually decide how to square this so that the port can be free of public sector borrowing restrictions so that it can raise funds needed for major infrastructure developments in the future whilst remaining fully accountable to the community of which it is a member.
3) If Parliament decide that the DPPT is a body sufficiently representative of the community to be the beneficiary of a financial, or non-financial, transaction resulting in the transfer of the port to its ownership, then any debt raised will not be 'public' debt.
4) Your statements on the debt and what will be left over after serving it are totally incorrect. You have absolutely no idea about the rate incurred and so any independent spreadsheet that you have created for yourself is going to be incorrect, probably by a very significant margin, as it is clear you do not know very much about infrastructure debt orgination.
5) I do not believe that DPPT has made any undertakings that cannot be realised. I am a Christian, a Dovorian and a businessman, not a politician, and DPPT is supported by some very significant business people who have become members and also make sure that nothing has been promised that cannot be delivered.
6) The comparison to a mortgage is a simplification which has been used so that you might just stand a chance of understanding how monies lent will not lead to the lender calling the shots but will leave the community in charge.
7) You always ignore that Dover Town Council, Dover District Council, Kent County Council and The Nation will always have ex-oficio representation on the board. How you can possibly make many of the statements that you have made about no community representation and local government involvement with this information being clear and in the public domain is beyond belief and just shows that you really haven't taken in all the information that is available.
8) As I have said before on several occasions to you, the DPPT business plan has been built from publicly available information about the port and its revenues, P/L account, etc., information from its major stakeholders and customers and research into trade flows, changing market requirements, etc. has been checked by accountants, legal advisors, bankers and ports specialists and stress tested and the 'most pessimistic' scenario delivers £50m in immediate seed funding for regeneration with, annually, thereafter just short of £1m for the first 5 years with this amount rising thereafter. How high it might rise thereafter is subject to too many variables at this time. Also, as funding is subject to due diligence, some of the annual numbers are still subject to adjustment until due diligence has been completed.
9) Regeneration is always carried out in partnership with others, local authorities, private entrepeneurs, plcs, other charities, educational establishments and government, both national and pan-European. Seed funding attracts other funding from partner agencies. Seed funding grows and provides commercial returns when properly invested in a mixture of revenue and not for profit regeneration projects. The £50m provided for regeneration seed funding at the outset will not remain as small as £50m for long, it is an endowment that will generate a revenue stream for more regeneration projects, which in turn will generate revenue for more.
10) The Regeneration arm of the DPPT (currently with working name Regenco) is a separate company 100% owned by DPPT but with its own board and expert management. It starts with £50m as mentioned above and is tasked with delivering the regeneration agenda decided on by the community and growing/recycling the regeneration fund.
11) In short, the regeneration of Dover and the surrounding area is carried out largely independently of port revenues from an inital seed fund. The ongoing income from port revenue surplus, whilst not inconsequential, is not essential to the continued effectiveness of the regeneration vehicle.