silver surfer Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 This is very good news http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/god-save-whitby-village-green-from-the-supreme-court-9463538.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 The photo used in the article is of a considerably more pleasant village green some distance away from the field in question apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) “I’m really very sad. People said we were Nimbys but we are not. We just didn’t want to lose this vital piece of green land,” she said. “It was somewhere to go. You brought your kids out there. You had bonfires on bonfire night – you could roast your potatoes in the embers. It used to be packed in the summer. People would have barbecues. Now children are all on computers,” she added. Heaven forbid the Supreme Court comes between the NIMBY and their sacred dog pooping grounds Sounds a public nuisance with all these bonfires and noisy children though. Edited May 31, 2014 by aSecureTenant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corruption Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Surely fields where horses are would be a better place to build then a field where kids play and adults walk. I they became fair game the we could build our way out of this mess right away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I'm sorry, but for me this is a bit of a pyrrhic victory. Build 105 council homes (for local people with ties to the area) with no right to buy by all means, but 105 'affordable homes'? FFS!!! We. All know what that means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) I'm sorry, but for me this is a bit of a pyrrhic victory. Build 105 council homes (for local people with ties to the area) with no right to buy by all means, but 105 'affordable homes'? FFS!!! We. All know what that means. Quite. I despair at the concept of the 'affordable home' - it means subsidised by the taxpayer or the other buyers on the new estate. The problem of the bubble and the new bubble is not going to be addressed through the current set up of clueless politicians and legions of hangers on. If 2007 is the norm - the new floor, then we really are in trouble as a nation - we clearly have the wrong people in charge. Edited May 31, 2014 by tinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.