I came over all cross and grumpy when I read on the local Guardian website about how Sutton Council's going to spend £250,000 on Sutton High Street so I commented.
gametes69
/ Website
(4.5.07 11:16)
so what would u suggest?
Spending the money on other small town centres means the effects of that money will get dissipated. It will make the locals who shop locally have a nicer environment but it wont increase trade and so it wont improve revenue for the local council. people will criticise the council for frittering the money on such numerous small projects and show no return on that investment. In the books, the money will be gone and nothing concrete to show for it. Also, the Council will never get any recognition for improving the local centres but be blamed for bad budgetting when peoples rates have to go up to pay for it. Will U complain if the rates go up?, so the council will never approve such a large sum to be spent on the local shopping centres all over the borough in the first place. It will thus never happen.
Whereas spend it on sutton high street to improve it, make it more pleasant,more shoppers go there, more traders come in paying more rates, increase turnover of all the shops there, and so bring in more revenue for council, etc etc. I am only showing u the other side of the arguement, not that i m that concerned about it, haha. as i dont even know where sutton is. But lets take this as a matter for an impartial debate. Having heard me out, and seen the other side of the coin as it were, have i convinced u that it is a good investment in improving sutton centre?
Some traders in the outlying areas round sutton, have a bigger cause to complain, as sutton will steal their business by drawing their customers away. Whatever the council do, someone will lose out.
Brinkster
/ Website
(4.5.07 11:29)
Hi there. I understand the various arguments (and in most cases I *am* the other side of the argument) but what I don't understand is why it has to be an either/or situation. It seems to be that they're going to spend all the money in one place without making any investment anywhere else. I wouldn't mind them spending the money on Sutton High Street if the local areas still got at least some money but the way it seems to work around here is that Sutton High Street gets all of the available cash and nobody else gets any (unless you want CCTV).
I'm happy to debate the points, I just wish the council were.
gametes69
/ Website
(4.5.07 14:40)
From what little i know of economics,usually money is reason, or lack of it. that is why it has to be an either/or. that seems one obvious reason. another is there is no surefire returns (or if there is, it is small) on investing in scattered local shopping areas. These areas by their very nature, are small beer, and just cannot attract the numbers required. Money follows the areas which can promise big returns on the initial outlay and sutton high street looks like it can deliver those returns. Its one of the things about capitalism ( if there is no money in it for someone, no one is interested) that is something some of us lament about capitalism, but without capitalism where are u going to find the money to fund these improvements? so many places get run down from lack of funds, and that drives away business and people and then it begins the spiraldown wards to a dead place. we can grumble about things being so commercial these days, but without it lots of places will be dead.Is there another way of doing business? i wonder!! how about making all the inhabitants of a village or town be given shares and they are the owners of it. then u can have each town a business by itself. Do we want that? we shall have england inc, scotland inc, wales inc, haha. London plc. sutton plc, worchester park plc. Or would u rather have worchester park co-op?
