A new wonder of the world to be built in London

padington

If there is a fancy donation box for the Gardener at both ends, I'll drop my job and do it tomorrow, those donation boxes are going to do well, believe me.

If I can have a VIP late night party for corperates every Saturday night and keep the profits, and I'll even Fr*gging paint the thing now and again.

It's a cash cow, probably could sell it for twice as much straight away and keep its public use in the day time as a listed building.

Have some vision people.

IveSeenTheLight

GlynD wrote: »

My comment doesn't indicate they have spare capacity. They'll just reschedule the maintenance rota is all.

Of course it does.
They either : -

1. have spare capacity to maintain the bridge, thus are over paying at the moment
2. reduce themaintenance elsewhere to "reschedule" maintenance to these gardens, again indicating they are spending too much on the current parks
3. need additional maintenance support

AndyGuil

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Presumably they must have spare capacity if they are to take on this work.

We must be wasting money on them now.

Paid for from London council tax. Having seen the parks there, they do a good job.

GlynD

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Of course it does.
They either : -

1. have spare capacity to maintain the bridge, thus are over paying at the moment
2. reduce themaintenance elsewhere to "reschedule" maintenance to these gardens, again indicating they are spending too much on the current parks
3. need additional maintenance support

So they need to take on two new gardeners. So what?

IveSeenTheLight

GlynD wrote: »

So they need to take on two new gardeners. So what?

It may be more than just 2 gardeners per year.
what about the plants costs?
What if the public don;t come up with the £150 million donations, who will subsidise.

I merely asked if this was the best way to utilise public donations or if it could go to better use elsewhere

GlynD

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It may be more than just 2 gardeners per year.
what about the plants costs?
What if the public don;t come up with the £150 million donations, who will subsidise.

I merely asked if this was the best way to utilise public donations or if it could go to better use elsewhere

Don't you think the public will vote with their feet (pockets)?

IveSeenTheLight

GlynD wrote: »

Don't you think the public will vote with their feet (pockets)?

If you could invest £150 million (and ongoing costs) in anything where would you invest it?

I'd consider that a better use of funds would be towards victims of child abuse or how about how many Youth Opportunity schemes could this fund.

GlynD

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If you could invest £150 million (and ongoing costs) in anything where would you invest it?

I'd consider that a better use of funds would be towards victims of child abuse or how about how many Youth Opportunity schemes could this fund.

You're as entitled to your opinion as I am. Personally I think it's great idea.

Nor does it stop the public donating to good causes. I say let the public speak. If the bridge isn't wanted then funds won't be forthcoming for it. Much like the half-built Nelson Monument in Edinburgh.

IveSeenTheLight

GlynD wrote: »

You're as entitled to your opinion as I am. Personally I think it's great idea.

Nor does it stop the public donating to good causes. I say let the public speak. If the bridge isn't wanted then funds won't be forthcoming for it. Much like the half-built Nelson Monument in Edinburgh.

Totally agree with you, we all have our own opinions and each entitled to them.

I'd guess if the public are able to fund such an enterprise through donations, then there is opportunity for the government to claw more funds through tax's for government spending / further austerity cuts / deficit clawback.

GlynD

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Totally agree with you, we all have our own opinions and each entitled to them.

I'd guess if the public are able to fund such an enterprise through donations, then there is opportunity for the government to claw more funds through tax's for government spending / further austerity cuts / deficit clawback.

Why would you think that? You're inferring that because the public might give generously to a project they should be subject to more tax? That's a bit bizarre isn't it, especially in poppy week?