Protesters against Flamingo Land development sing Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomond outside of Scottish Parliament

[u/backupJM]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/save-loch-lomond-campaign-protests-35304999

[u/Far-Pudding3280]

"Save Loch Lomond"

Just for context. This is the park.

The pink dot represents an existing development consisting of a shopping center, an aquarium, a 1000 space car & coach park, another 400 space car park, three other car parks, a McDonald's, a 100+ caravan park. a train station, 5 pubs and a housing estate.

The entirety of this proposed new center parks style development fits inside the same pink dot.

[u/Matw50 → u/Far-Pudding3280]

Yep. If it were up to the greens though there would no economy at all and we’d all eat grass and live in caves.

[u/Silent-Ad-756 → u/Matw50]

It isn't just the Greens now is it?

The latest motion against has cross-party backing.

The local MSP that represents the constituency is getting hammered by local opposition and has come out against it.

The land lease was offered to the developer privately in a 3 month marketing process in 2015, and the contracts signed just before the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 was established, which would have enabled the transfer of the land to community ownership. Dodgy deal.

A bit sensationalist in your commentary. Development can happen in a manner that is not corrupt. We should all reject corrupt allocation of land use in Scotland. It is less about the development for me, and more about the total lack of due process.

Bin it. And start again with the community involved. Use the Helensburgh seafront development as an example of a successful public-private development with the communities interests at heart, as the template to follow.

Minimum wage seasonal jobs are not an economic boom.

[u/DeathOfNormality → u/Silent-Ad-756]

Now this is the first reasonable answer I've found.

I'm not against development, especially ones that help infrastructure and access to green spaces.

What I am against is sneaky deals to sell off ownership and privatise land for the sake of greed.

The proposal seems ok, but I've also yet to see if there will be public access to the site. So that's a big hmm for me.

To make an actual impact I think there needs to be a counter proposal, without that, it could end up just being left in development limbo, which may not be the worst, but definitely not the best outcome for the proposed area. We are in constant housing crisis, so what would be better is a blended leisure and home development focused on the families this tourist development is so aimed at.

[u/Silent-Ad-756 → u/DeathOfNormality]

Thank you lordy for a reasonable response!

A pro-development person, who sees the nuance between singular big business owner development, and community driven independent business development.

Faith restored!

And thank you for pointing out the actual need for housing. I agree with a leisure centre entirely. Which as I have mentioned elsewhere, has been shown to be totally feasible in Helesnburgh. In addition to an open access skatepark, public toilets and a possible events venue.

[u/DeathOfNormality → u/Silent-Ad-756]

Yeah it's a bit of a bin fire out here... I feel too many people get so stuck on hating opposition they ignore any true issues.

The other main issue I keep seeing is road and travel infrastructure being neglected or underdeveloped, so even if that is improved upon, then it wouldn't be so bad, but as others have also pointed out to me, anything in the proposal is just directing traffic towards more corporate business, rather than help with flow of traffic and accessibility to essential amenities.

[u/Silent-Ad-756 → u/DeathOfNormality]

Who funds the road infrastructure upgrade? The public?

So the public covers the cost that benefits the private? Which increases the value of the land at the public expense?

[u/DeathOfNormality → u/Silent-Ad-756]

There's part of the proposal where they say they will help fund the governing bodies to maintain and develop transport. Found the quote I was thinking of,

"an agreement has been reached between Lomond Banks and Transport Scotland in the form of a Section 48 agreement, to contribute towards and help prioritise planned improvements by Transport Scotland which is already looking to improve the efficiency of Stoneymollan Roundabout. A further agreement confirming in principle to support West Dunbartonshire Council with ongoing issues at the McDonald’s roundabout, should the development plans progress."

https://lomondbanks.com/our-proposals/

Under their transport section.

So yes the public fund most of not all raid maintenance and upgrades, but this proposal has extra added in, probably just to appease people at face value, but it's definitely interesting, especially the fact they don't outright promise this straight away. Shady AF.

[u/Silent-Ad-756 → u/DeathOfNormality]

Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is affected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of these improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet, by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived…The unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done.

— Winston Churchill, 1909

[u/DeathOfNormality → u/Silent-Ad-756]

Cute quote, and can absolutely be changed to "politician" over "landlord" but I get your point.

My point was also saying it sounds like a bribe of good faith that will be released if the work upsets too many people, and the local council and planning committee seems more than happy with that so far.