View previous topic :: View next topic |
Seperate area for EUG nonsense? |
Yes please |
|
72% |
[ 21 ] |
Go on then! |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
Good idea Tucker |
|
24% |
[ 7 ] |
|
Total Votes : 29 |
|
Author |
Message |
david123 E, Silver
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 1868
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DNAse wrote: |
George Gilbert wrote: |
Billy Boy wrote: |
stanno wrote: |
The reason Plurien posts updates here is presumably because the situation develops on a weekly basis (and gets progressively worse for the former Eastway users). I would have thought that cyclists nationwide would be concerned about what's happening to fellow cyclists at Eastway in the name of the Olympics, and judging by many of the more rational posts here, many are (including some of the the mods). |
I want to follow it, but find it extremely difficult due to huge volume of stuff posted daily. |
I think this is the whole point.
I certainly would be very interested to know what everybody is doing and would love to read about it, get involved and do what I can to help improve the situation......however, I'm completely put off by the constant sniping and misinformation that's posted by the EUG. I'm sure, on this if nothing else, I speak the thoughts of many people here.
As I've said before, and will again (in the vain hope that the EUG will take notice), if they restricted their posts to just new information about what *they* have done (as opposed to rants about what others have not), they might find that more people would be willing to help them.
For starters, how about someone giving a summary (100 words max - treat it as an exercise in sticking to the point!) of the situation so far? My understanding (based soley on the posts that the EUG have made here, but cutting through all the spin) is that:
Facts:
- 1) Eastway was destroyed to make way for the Olympics.
- 2) After the Olympics a new Eastway would replace the old one.
- 3) To cover the *whole* interim period BC made Ramney Marsh available.
- 4) The EUG campaigned for Hog Hill instead, which means this year they now have nothing.
Speculation:
- 5) The ODA believes, partly because Hog Hill will be so good, cycling facilities have improved even without a large "new Eastway".
- 6) Under pressure from third parties (specifically not anything to do with cycling - e.g. goverment, budget limitations, other sports etc), because of point (5), plans for the "new Eastway" have been scaled back.
There's my 100 words - does that give a good summary, or would someone else care to give a more accurate version if I've misunderstood? |
Can we know for sure that if everyone had been in favour of Ramney it would be ready now? |
No doubt someone will be along to rubbish this idea on the basis that everything is under control bar a few glitches,but yours is the observation of the week. _________________ Tony Bell dates my hamster |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stretch armstrong Div 3 Pro
Joined: 14 Apr 2003 Posts: 4350 Location: Doncaster (sleaze capital o the north)
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
david123 wrote: |
DNAse wrote: |
George Gilbert wrote: |
Billy Boy wrote: |
stanno wrote: |
The reason Plurien posts updates here is presumably because the situation develops on a weekly basis (and gets progressively worse for the former Eastway users). I would have thought that cyclists nationwide would be concerned about what's happening to fellow cyclists at Eastway in the name of the Olympics, and judging by many of the more rational posts here, many are (including some of the the mods). |
I want to follow it, but find it extremely difficult due to huge volume of stuff posted daily. |
I think this is the whole point.
I certainly would be very interested to know what everybody is doing and would love to read about it, get involved and do what I can to help improve the situation......however, I'm completely put off by the constant sniping and misinformation that's posted by the EUG. I'm sure, on this if nothing else, I speak the thoughts of many people here.
As I've said before, and will again (in the vain hope that the EUG will take notice), if they restricted their posts to just new information about what *they* have done (as opposed to rants about what others have not), they might find that more people would be willing to help them.
For starters, how about someone giving a summary (100 words max - treat it as an exercise in sticking to the point!) of the situation so far? My understanding (based soley on the posts that the EUG have made here, but cutting through all the spin) is that:
Facts:
- 1) Eastway was destroyed to make way for the Olympics.
- 2) After the Olympics a new Eastway would replace the old one.
- 3) To cover the *whole* interim period BC made Ramney Marsh available.
- 4) The EUG campaigned for Hog Hill instead, which means this year they now have nothing.
Speculation:
- 5) The ODA believes, partly because Hog Hill will be so good, cycling facilities have improved even without a large "new Eastway".
- 6) Under pressure from third parties (specifically not anything to do with cycling - e.g. goverment, budget limitations, other sports etc), because of point (5), plans for the "new Eastway" have been scaled back.
There's my 100 words - does that give a good summary, or would someone else care to give a more accurate version if I've misunderstood? |
Can we know for sure that if everyone had been in favour of Ramney it would be ready now? |
No doubt someone will be along to rubbish this idea on the basis that everything is under control bar a few glitches,but yours is the observation of the week. |
If I remember correctly wasn't there a significant issue surrounding the decontamination of the site ? Let alone putting any tarmac down. _________________ lector benevole absit invidia
Putting the dross back in Clay Cross (RT) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
George Gilbert Div 3 Pro
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4159 Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DNAse wrote: |
Can we know for sure that if everyone had been in favour of Ramney it would be ready now? |
That's the impression I've got from the various posts that have been made on here, but in detail; I've no idea - which is kind of my point. There is so much spin and drivel posted by the EUG about the "Eastway issue" that it's difficult to know what's going on. If those people who do know what is going on could post a short, precise summary, it would be very helpful. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Plurien E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Posts: 1966
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Facts:
- 1) -correct, with planning conditions attaching won by EUG
- 2) - correct, in every respect and more
- 3) - totally incorrect, but it's very interesting you think it was BC when they only went along with it (How many other people would think that if the NGB approves, it must be OK and in fact it might have been their idea... What does that imply for BCs present actions over the Velopark?)
- 4) - EUG campaigned for a proper replacement that would be within reasonable distance, with measures for those who have to stay local.
You are completely incorrect about the 'without anything for a year', since the agreement made between LDA and EUG (no reference to BC) stated Feb 2007 as the target, with a clause inserted by EUG that LDA would have to provide an interim facility if this were not possible - hence The Royals which was handed to BC on a plate by EUG.
Speculation:
- 5) Wrong - ODA has been told certain things by BC and is now very reluctant to give back the land it has earmarked for building and open space to support that built development.
- 6) see above - Is this is an ODA and BC thing to reduce the size of the provision in return for each party receiving something extra in the development? We have been trying to find out, but it is such a touchy subject for the NGB that it seems unable to explain why it won't just represent the needs of users by first consulting properly with them. Mind you, this might now be difficult as some have such entrenched positions...
Conclusion: GG may be concise, but not really covering the wider key issues that presently confront users:-
- abject lack of consultation and engagement with community most affected by plans
- total disregard for 'Sustainable communities' PPGs and PPS1 guidelines in planning practise
- inability of stakeholder community to engage directly in consulation with developer owing to another body passing itself off as the representative of that community
- 'dynamic' between users and NGB as a result of its activities beyond remit
- inability of NGB to accept that EUG has won so much when it had given prior opinion that facilities could be given up.
Of course if you resolve the history, you might come to understand the present so there's not a lot of difference. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gary K Div 1 Pro
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 Posts: 7115 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland, in Sunny Australia!!!
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Then get yourself a website and do us all a favour by posting concisely and constructively on it.
I think just about everyone has said they are in your corner, but you "post" us out of it with the anti BC and general negative tones of each post.
Take the advice that has been dished out a few times - post your facts and K.I.S.S. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dockeca Div 2 Pro
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 Posts: 4741 Location: halfway up the South Downs - or halfway down the South Ups!
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with gary, what is needed is a website on which EUG (still don't know who are the members or indeed if it is actually a constituted body, or an informal group, in which case who is speaking for who?), can place their press releases, open a forum for discussion, etc. No doubt someone would post a link from the other sites, so that it could all be considered as a body of information, not scattered comment and various attacks on BC, anyone who disagrees, etc.
the campaign has momentum, and a proper website setting out the EUG case would bring much better ppublic credibility than the present activity. _________________ Doc
"Any views expressed are entirely my own and not representative of any organisation of which I may or may not be a member. Unless I say otherwise."
"A Libertarian Crackpot" H.Peel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
George Gilbert Div 3 Pro
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4159 Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Plurien wrote: |
Speculation:
- 5) Wrong - ODA has been told certain things by BC and is now very reluctant to give back the land it has earmarked for building and open space to support that built development.
- 6) see above - Is this is an ODA and BC thing to reduce the size of the provision in return for each party receiving something extra in the development? We have been trying to find out, but it is such a touchy subject for the NGB that it seems unable to explain why it won't just represent the needs of users by first consulting properly with them. Mind you, this might now be difficult as some have such entrenched positions... |
OK; now we're getting somewhere, although I think your comments are directed towards the wrong time period.
The key questions now are "who was the *first* person / body who suggested shrinking the Eastway land, and why?".
I don't give a monkeys as to who said what to whom after that point - that's after the important bit has happened (and therefore, arguing about it won't help you get back to the original plans - which is, after all, the sole aim of the EUG according to your mission statement, and therefore spending time doing anything else would detract from that).
Do you know the answer to the above questions (or if not, what are the EUGs plans for finding them out?).
Last edited by George Gilbert on Tue May 08, 2007 7:58 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Killer C E, Silver
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 982
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I refer to the original post ... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KJ T de F Winner
Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 26400
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Killer C wrote: |
I refer to the original post ... |
I think if VR can cope with multiple threads on how to put a Suffolk Punch into Legro's loft a few about the loss of a facility are not to arduous. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Billy Boy T de F Winner
Joined: 11 Aug 2003 Posts: 30726 Location: Not Aylesbury
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
KJ wrote: |
Killer C wrote: |
I refer to the original post ... |
I think if VR can cope with multiple threads on how to put a Suffolk Punch into Legro's loft a few about the loss of a facility are not to arduous. |
I think arduous is the right word... _________________ "Well done, you are 100% absolutely without a shadow of a doubt spot-bollock-on correct." - Tucker
"Eating is not for wimps" - coal miner
"most of us don't have your brilliance." - John McC |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Plurien E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Posts: 1966
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
GG - We do give a lot of monkeys about who said what to back-up the developer in its wish to reduce the velopark down to the paltry size it is now intended to be.
We also care that a negotiation about how the fiasco can be mitigated appears to accept the base idea of its reduction. (see comment about which organisation sourced Rammey Marsh)
Of course the developer wants to give a lot less land; it needs to see payback for its contractor with whom it as a $10bn contract with get-out extending to 2019. Those pesky cyclists are out of the way, now what shall we say to get our plans across, and to whom shall we say it?
If it could only find a body in cycling that would allow it to take that land. It knows the users won't give it up, so who to call....?
- This directly relates to meetings in September and October 2006 which you will note is before Eastway closed.
So you see, there is a lot of point in following on about the process which ensued to devalue London's Olympic legacy as far as Eastway users are concerned.
To test the hypothesis: What would be the implications if it was found that BC knew about the reduction and commented favourably or 'agnostically' upon it?
What have been the outcomes since BC decided not to oppose the developer's plans?
Why has BC not taken the policy decision to put the users' needs higher amongst those other demands which come from the ODA in relation to the cycle disciplines?
Why is BC so reluctant to meet with EUG to discuss this issue?
Why did BC get itself into such a state at the board meeting where the EUG resolutions and the views of its largest region to the legacy plans were discussed?
Why does BC accept that the circuit now has to cross and re-cross the A12, when the only point of that ever appearing in any plan had to do with the velodrome being to the N of the A12 and the park to its S?
Where is BC's policy to shout out for mountainbike competition facilities back on the site? (and no, we don't think that 'occasional events in the wider park' is adequate provision for that)
This isn't a simple case of 'if you're not fir us, you're against us' is it? BC has a number of demands from different parties, but it has to come up with a solution which meets the needs of all parties. If the 34ha velopark plan existed before and was 'at the heart of London's bid', there has to be a strong case for sticking with the plan as it is so much in BC's interest.
- What has caused BC to allow this plan to be dropped? Either it was involved in the discussions, or it wasn't. Which is the best of these twins of evil?
Given the fact of so many unanswered questions, do you think it is reasonable for users to be wanting answers in order to know how best to move things towards a satisfactory outcome? - Do you have any answers? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KJ T de F Winner
Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 26400
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cut the rhetoric. We've heard it all before ad nauseum.
Answer GG'Ss question.
'The key questions now are "who was the *first* person / body who suggested shrinking the Eastway land, and why?". ' |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ingatestonian Cat 1 Groupie
Joined: 16 Feb 2007 Posts: 133
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
KJ wrote: |
Cut the rhetoric. We've heard it all before ad nauseum.
Answer GG'Ss question.
'The key questions now are "who was the *first* person / body who suggested shrinking the Eastway land, and why?". ' |
If it wasn't the EUG who first suggested it, how would they know?
Perhaps you should email the ODA and ask them? I'm sure everyone would love to know the answer to that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Plurien E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Posts: 1966
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
How the hell are we supposed to know?
It could be the ODA, local government, the contractors intending to bid - anyone who can see more commercial value being realised from the development.
How very odd for the ODA/LDA not to include land values in its costings and accounts for the Games.
The point when it comes to cycle sport and legacy for Eastway is that there was a 34ha plan with all the disciplines and now there is 7ha with only one nationally-important facility. In the context of this forum, the NGB did not reject the plan outright and has sought mitigation directly against the wishes of the users and the intent of the planning conditions.
- What were BCs possible reasons for doing this and when did it first know of the changes?
- This is not a rhetorical question, as we want very real answers please. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KJ T de F Winner
Joined: 18 May 2005 Posts: 26400
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ingatestonian wrote: |
KJ wrote: |
Cut the rhetoric. We've heard it all before ad nauseum.
Answer GG'Ss question.
'The key questions now are "who was the *first* person / body who suggested shrinking the Eastway land, and why?". ' |
If it wasn't the EUG who first suggested it, how would they know?
Perhaps you should email the ODA and ask them? I'm sure everyone would love to know the answer to that. |
As the pressure group involved surely the EUG should have all the information . I'm suprised that Plurien hasn't already mailed the ODA on a number of occasions to elicit the information he requires. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ingatestonian Cat 1 Groupie
Joined: 16 Feb 2007 Posts: 133
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
KJ wrote: |
As the pressure group involved surely the EUG should have all the information . I'm suprised that Plurien hasn't already mailed the ODA on a number of occasions to elicit the information he requires. |
I didn't realise the Michael had magical powers, Karen. You're getting silly now - how can they find this out if they weren't there? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Plurien E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Posts: 1966
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
KJ - Are you the pressure group on the pressure group then? !-)
You're able to make a Freedom of Information application at any time. Please go ahead, and like many other people do, if you find out anything that could be of use in making the case for a proper legacy please let me know. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
George Gilbert Div 3 Pro
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4159 Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Plurien wrote: |
How the hell are we supposed to know? |
Don't you think you should?
The reason I asked the question is because knowing the answer is absolutely critical to the whole issue. Reading all these posts by the EUG is like listening to King Canute and his advisors arguing about which one of them has told the sea what and when about how it should move, and berating the British Coastline (see what've done there ) about being complicit with the tide in conspiring against them to reduce the shoreline.
It's all utterly irrelevant to achieving the stated aim (increasing the amount of land - for both analogies!). What you need to do is understand *why* the situation came about in the first place. Only once you've done that can you get on with working out how to change it.
Until you do, you can bicker on about who said what to who until you're blue in the face but it won't make the slightest bit of difference towards actually achieving your goal and only serves to make you look ignorant of what's actually going on.
So, I'll repeat the other question from my previous post: [If you don't know the answers], what are the EUGs plans for finding them out? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Plurien E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Posts: 1966
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why not ask of the ODA for yourself George?
Just how knowing the kernel of information you seek would affect the debate we're in now is really not clear. The main influence holding back the users' case from being made is the very real support being lent by BC to the developer for its plans. The plans were adjusted for whatever reason, but the subsequent support received from the developer's chosen partner in cycling disciplines has done the real damage because it allowed to idea to go forwards into a real plan as published on 6 Feb.
So for that reason, it's more important for us to get the answer to the question already asked;-
Please can BC let us know when it first learned of the plans to scale back the velopark? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ingatestonian Cat 1 Groupie
Joined: 16 Feb 2007 Posts: 133
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have to disagree George. How and why this came about is largely irrelevant. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|