Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - you are of course correct in this but we have to be careful of ensuring people realise the nature of the investment that will help purchase the Port.
It will not be an equity investment which confers ownership to the investors. It will be by the issue of bonds, which are confidently predicted to be 'investment grade', i.e. low risk (conferring a commensurate low interest to pay). This form of investment is not an equity stake so the Port will be fully in the ownership of the PPT members.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
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.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Let's go back to the reason!!! for the privatisation application.
If the Port of Dover is to expand it needs large chunks of capital investment [Terminal 2 proposals].
It could not borrow the sums necessary to do the major expansion because the current status of DHB means borrowings count as public debt [which the former govt. would not allow].
Alex. your current approach for DHB to remain in its current status denies the ability to raise the large capital sums necessary [whether needed now or when the economy revives].
Something has to change,whatever the solution.
It is to Dover's advantage for the Port to expand, it is also to Dover's advantage for non operational land to be transferred from DHB for development.
The traffic will come whatever market situation prevails, that needs addressing otherwise Dover comes to a standstill.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
my understanding is that the proposed people's port would be selling off or leasing out non operational land/buildings if they succeed in gaining control.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, an essential part of my representation is the public Port Toll, somewhat equivalent to a road toll, a part of which would go to the local Councils. This would be totally separate from the DHB revenue.
In my representation, I stated that a percentage of this public Port revenue (Toll) would be kept by the Council(s) to invest in the Port if necessary, such as for a T2, the reason being, the Port would be a local asset once transferred - free of charge - to local Community ownership.
Let's hope the Government does not go ahead with their recent road toll proposal, as this would firstly only bring in peanuts, and secondly they'd all go to the State Treasury.
If they accept my proposal of a Port Toll, equivalent to a road toll, a part of this revenue would go to local Gov., and only a part to the Central Treasury.
This would put the Local Community in a position to finance the Port for future development, as well as having plenty of revenue for local regeneration in general.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Why can't the Trust status be amended to allow the necessary finance to be raised? if indeed there is a need for it.
Audere est facere.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#20
Gary you can. The referendum was restricted by legislation. Membership is restricted by the geography of Dover District Council's remit so as to remain local but also to engage as wide a population segment as we can within that locality. As a resident of Deal you are fully entitled to become a member.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
going round in Alexes
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Alex the local govt. responsible for transport is KCC, therefore monies accrued can be applied across Kent [not local enough].
Martin that sounds simple but then there is no community benefit.
Watty
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Neil. Thanks
Paul.
That could also be changed.
Prevent privatisation, allow the trust to borrow, grow and benefit our communities.
It might not be the prefered option for some but it could be done.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
indeed everything is possible Gary, but who is pulling the strings?
Gary I am sure you understood that community benefits means ££££ directly going to community with whatever scheme is adopted.
Watty
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
The longer it goes on the better,for the likes of myself who wish it to stay a Royal Port in the safe hands of a up dated Royal Charter.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Paul.
Thats all I care about, I am learning patience but it does not come easy to me.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
re; 31
paul
i believe that the community port would only give a one off payment to the community whilst the peoples port dosh would be annual.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Paul as Gary says that could be put in the amendment, it cannot be that difficult to overcome surely.
Audere est facere.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, I know full well that KCC is responsible for roads, and don't know how many times I've stated that a part of the Port Toll would go to KCC, a part to DDC, and a part of DTC, and a part to the Treasury.
I've also been in contact with KCC on this in early 2011, as they too have applied to Gov. for a Port toll at Dover.
DPPT don't seem to realise that port traffic transits on roads that need constant repair and overview, including traffic jams and all bits and pieces, and this needs financing. The Port is not just of interest to Dover, but to the County too, and, as said, KCC are also asking the Government to allow a Port Toll to cover - at least in part - the County's expenses on roads.
I've mentioned all this before on the Forum, many times, Paul, but I'm not sure if the idea is clear that the expenses connected to Port maintenance, Port development and road repairs (including new sections of road) are something that go way beyond what DPPT propose, who seem to believe that they can even regenerate Dover and Deal while they're about it, without any need of a Port Toll!
Even the Government has since brought up the news that Britain needs road tolls.
My vision, as of Feb. 2010 in the first representation, is the only realistic and comprehensive one, and later developments, such as the request by KCC for a Port Toll, and the Government's acceptance that we do need a road toll (of which I have claimed from the start is the equivalent to a Port Toll), have proved me right.
By flinging in a "bit of knowledge", Paul, explaining something you assume I didn't already know, but which in fact is part of my representation (regards KCC and roads), you can't detract from the facts, that my representation has proposed something that later both KCC and the Government have accepted as a necessity.
Of-course, if we don't have a Port Toll in all British ports, then the money for local Council budgets that would derive from such a Toll, and for the maintenance of roads, and for further development of port infrastructure, would all have to come from elsewhere, from other taxes, or by borrowing money that must be later repaid with the interest.
It's just a matter of this reality of economic facts sinking in, and if you think it over, what I have proposed from day 1 in Feb. 2010 to the DfT DOES make sense. In fact, the more money you make on Port Tolls, the LESS money you need to get from other taxes and loans to pay for expenses and budgets.
If you don't have a Port Toll, Gov. (or KCC etc.) will have to get that money from elsewhere...
And if you don't use some of the Port Toll for local regeneration, then who will ever give the money for local regeneration?
Neither DPPT nor DHB would, because they'd be only giving a one-off pittance followed by annual "dividends" paramount to peanuts, while never, ever being able to repay the money they borrowed (DPPT plan) or received from a purchaser (DHB plan).
No private purchaser would invest money without the intention of getting it back with a profit, and no City lender would lend money without asking for it back with interest. DPPT only has membership equivalent to 1% of Dover's District population, because clearly most people have seen through it all!
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Alex your last sentence is a manipulated assumption. The fact is that DPPT has only 1% of Dover Districts population because the other 99% haven't joined yet and believe me they will!
Vic -what is the difference between a people's port and a royal one?
Never give up...
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I think I'll go and watch Groundhog Day again. It's not quite as predictable as this thread.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Peter-I like the bit were our hero punches the insurance salesman in the mouth!
Never give up...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul S, KCC in Maidstone are responsible for Kent's roads minus the motorways and trunk roads, so they do have considerable planning and budget to look at. Not all vehicles simply transit on motorways, and even heavy vehicles go on to smaller roads to deliver their goods or to collect a consignment. Cars also leave the motorway at some point and transit along smaller roads.
N'est-ce pas!
So KCC does have a valid case there, and they are responsible for transport anyway.
Part of what KCC told me regards their request for a vehicle landing charge at Dover is that their proposals are part of a package of measures identified in 'Growth Without Gridlock'. It's KCC's 20 year integrated transport strategy for Kent.
Having liaised with Maidestone, I am able to give this information, otherwise many people wouldn't be aware of all this, as DPPT won't tell them the many implications connected to a Port and to road transport. It's not all so simple as buying the Port, regenerating Dover and Deal and leaving the roads and gridlock to KCC.
As said, my representations are comprehensive and take everything into account that regards a Port, and they are realsitic, most of all.