I have today read a letter written in today's "Daily Telegraph" from
Ken Livingstone. It is in reply to an article written 2 weeks ago
(presumably he took 2 weeks to reply whilst gladhanding at Londoners'
expense his friends in the People's Republic).

It makes reference to the fact that the Reuben brothers have a "stake
in land at the heart of the [proposed 2012] Olympic site" and that if
they do not comply with his wishes, "the Olympic Development Authority
has the right to step in and do the work itself. Unfortunately this
could mean an additional £600 million cost, which would need to be met
by the taxpayer... [equaivalent to] a £250 contribution from each of
London's taxpayers".

It would seem that the Reuben brothers have been dragging their heels
in allowing the development, as was apparently the case with their
behaviour in the Stratford Station redevelopment, and at White City.

So, what can be deduced from this?

1. The Olympic bid was made on a false prospectus that all of the land
needed for the 2012 Olympics was readily available.
2. That the taxpayer will be expected to underwrite any landholder's
recalcitrance.
3. That any problem that arises will be dealt with as follows:

(a) Seek the landholder's better nature and ask him to agree, and if
that fails
(b) require the taxpayer to buy him out.

This is scandalous, and if an extra £600 million is already being
bandied about within a year of the winning bid for 2012, can you
imagine the extra costs that are going to be incurred by the time the
Olympics are actually held?!

Marc.

wrote in message
ups.com...
I have today read a letter written in today's "Daily Telegraph" from
Ken Livingstone. It is in reply to an article written 2 weeks ago
(presumably he took 2 weeks to reply whilst gladhanding at Londoners'
expense his friends in the People's Republic).

It makes reference to the fact that the Reuben brothers have a "stake
in land at the heart of the [proposed 2012] Olympic site" and that if
they do not comply with his wishes, "the Olympic Development Authority
has the right to step in and do the work itself. Unfortunately this
could mean an additional £600 million cost, which would need to be met
by the taxpayer... [equaivalent to] a £250 contribution from each of
London's taxpayers".

It would seem that the Reuben brothers have been dragging their heels
in allowing the development, as was apparently the case with their
behaviour in the Stratford Station redevelopment, and at White City.

So, what can be deduced from this?

1. The Olympic bid was made on a false prospectus that all of the land
needed for the 2012 Olympics was readily available.
2. That the taxpayer will be expected to underwrite any landholder's
recalcitrance.
3. That any problem that arises will be dealt with as follows:

(a) Seek the landholder's better nature and ask him to agree, and if
that fails
(b) require the taxpayer to buy him out.

This is scandalous, and if an extra £600 million is already being
bandied about within a year of the winning bid for 2012, can you
imagine the extra costs that are going to be incurred by the time the
Olympics are actually held?!

Marc.


Where does the £600 million come from and who does it goto?

If the OA can just step in, problem solved.

Why are the Reuben bros being so uncooperative?

According to Livingstone's letter, the £600 million will come from the
taxpayer and go to the Reuben brothers (or the company in which they
have an interest).

If, by "OA", you mean the Olympic Association, that does not seem to be
the case, according to the letter from which I have quoted.

I have no idea who the Reuben brothers are, but if they are the sort of
money-making businessmen that Livingstone is accusing them of being,
then this ought to have been known earlier, and it is negligent not to
have taken into account their effective veto BEFORE the bid was made.
To answer the question you ask, I (who have no interest in sport or the
Olympics whatsoever) too would be "uncooperative" with Livingstone if
that were a way to make money!

Marc.

In message , Aosmosis
writes

This is scandalous, and if an extra £600 million is already being
bandied about within a year of the winning bid for 2012, can you
imagine the extra costs that are going to be incurred by the time the
Olympics are actually held?!

It was always clear that any over-run would most likely have to be
picked-up by London tax payers - and there is ample precedent for
serious over-runs on many previous Olympics, so it was always
predictable and will probably become worse.

I'm just astonished that so many Londoners appeared to have been in
favour of a London Olympics - I wasn't for precisely this reason.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote in
:

In message , Aosmosis

writes

This is scandalous, and if an extra £600 million is already being
bandied about within a year of the winning bid for 2012, can you
imagine the extra costs that are going to be incurred by the time the
Olympics are actually held?!

It was always clear that any over-run would most likely have to be
picked-up by London tax payers - and there is ample precedent for
serious over-runs on many previous Olympics, so it was always
predictable and will probably become worse.

I'm just astonished that so many Londoners appeared to have been in
favour of a London Olympics - I wasn't for precisely this reason.


If you lived in East London as I do, you'd be in favour too. Have you
seen some of the areas they're developing? They're eyesores. Any
regeneration is good.

Furthermore, if it improves the transport links, then even better. I
don't mind paying a bit more council tax as a result (I know my house
will go up in value when we have all those nice parks and stadia around
the corner - the legacy is tremendous). I reckon my house has gone up by
20% since the announcement was made. Well worth paying £250 more per
year over six years!

I know the improved transport links should have been carried out anyway,
but even if they do the right thing for the wrong reason, at least
they're doing it. And hopefully this whole Reubens nonsense will sort
itself out, and the cost will be averted anyway.

Furthermore, there are a couple of other very good reasons, namely:

National pride - it's a huge honour to host the Olympics, and this being
such a sport-loving nation, it's about bloody time. I'm delighted to
show off my lovely city to so many people.

Sport - apart from the various free events like the walking and the
marathon (which will go right close to my house!) I will get, as a local
resident - tickets to see quite a lot of the non-track and field events
for free (this was promised by Tessa Jowell in the run up to the bid,
let's hope she keeps her promise). My family are coming over from Spain
and I'm already allocating my garden space for tents on a first-come
first-served basis for friends and family. This is going to be a
wonderful occasion that I'll never forget.

The legacy of the stadia, and the gentrification of a particularly ugly
part of the capital (eg Hackney Wick).

The fact that we'll win loads of medals etc (home nation always does
well), and as I said, I'm a sports fan.

Beach volleyball in Horse Guards Parade... need I say more? ;-)

" I reckon my house has gone up by
20% since the announcement was made. Well worth paying £250 more per
year over six years! "

Yeah, well writing as someone (like about 54 million others) who
doesn't live in an East End slum, and to whose house the Olympic
fiasco will add not one penny of house value, I'm happy for those who
benefit to finance the project, but why should the rest of us have to
pay anything?

National pride: I am content with what we have (and have had for almost
1,000 years): a relatively stable, democratic country with a rich
cultural lie which has exported its experience and benefits to about
1/3 of the globe in one form or another. The Birthday of Her Majesty
The Queen, like her Golden Jubilee 4 years ago, an the 50th and 60th
Anniversaries of D-Day and V.E/V.J. days sums it all up for me - and
none of these cost anything like the sums being poured into the
Olympics.

Marc.

Tristán White wrote:

I'm just astonished that so many Londoners appeared to have been in
favour of a London Olympics - I wasn't for precisely this reason.

If you lived in East London as I do, you'd be in favour too.

I live in East London and I'm not in favour. Maybe it's because I don't own
my home so am not going to cash in on it.

Have you
seen some of the areas they're developing? They're eyesores. Any
regeneration is good.

They said this about the Millenium Dome...

Tristán White wrote:
Paul Terry wrote in
:

In message , Aosmosis

writes

This is scandalous, and if an extra £600 million is already being
bandied about within a year of the winning bid for 2012, can you
imagine the extra costs that are going to be incurred by the time the
Olympics are actually held?!

It was always clear that any over-run would most likely have to be
picked-up by London tax payers - and there is ample precedent for
serious over-runs on many previous Olympics, so it was always
predictable and will probably become worse.

I'm just astonished that so many Londoners appeared to have been in
favour of a London Olympics - I wasn't for precisely this reason.


If you lived in East London as I do, you'd be in favour too. Have you
seen some of the areas they're developing? They're eyesores. Any
regeneration is good.

Furthermore, if it improves the transport links, then even better. I
don't mind paying a bit more council tax as a result (I know my house
will go up in value when we have all those nice parks and stadia around
the corner - the legacy is tremendous). I reckon my house has gone up by
20% since the announcement was made. Well worth paying £250 more per
year over six years!

I know the improved transport links should have been carried out anyway,
but even if they do the right thing for the wrong reason, at least
they're doing it. And hopefully this whole Reubens nonsense will sort
itself out, and the cost will be averted anyway.

Furthermore, there are a couple of other very good reasons, namely:

National pride - it's a huge honour to host the Olympics, and this being
such a sport-loving nation, it's about bloody time. I'm delighted to
show off my lovely city to so many people.

Sport - apart from the various free events like the walking and the
marathon (which will go right close to my house!) I will get, as a local
resident - tickets to see quite a lot of the non-track and field events
for free (this was promised by Tessa Jowell in the run up to the bid,
let's hope she keeps her promise). My family are coming over from Spain
and I'm already allocating my garden space for tents on a first-come
first-served basis for friends and family. This is going to be a
wonderful occasion that I'll never forget.

The legacy of the stadia, and the gentrification of a particularly ugly
part of the capital (eg Hackney Wick).

The fact that we'll win loads of medals etc (home nation always does
well), and as I said, I'm a sports fan.

Beach volleyball in Horse Guards Parade... need I say more? ;-)


You now bring the total of "so many Londoners" in favour of the
Olympics that I am aware of to two. I have lost count of everyone else
in London I've spoken to who is not in favour.

But we were never formally asked. The personal CVs of Sebastian Coe
and Ken Livingstone are far more important than the opinions of
millions of people who will be paying for having their city and its
transport links blighted.

The Olympics will not improve transport links other than to a wasteland
(remember North Greenwich?). Other much-needed projects are being cut
back (with a possibility of hugely expensive resurrection later) so
that works aren't going during the Olympics.

Is there not still time for it to be given to Paris?

"Is there not still time for it to be given to Paris?"

Surely, there must be - especially since it now seems that one of the
voting countries made a mistake when voting!

Moreover, very little seems to have been done in London so far, and
even if the costs to date were written off it would be but a fraction
of what we are going to have to pay for the Olympics, even by the most
optimistic estimates!

Marc.

"Tristán White" wrote in message
09.145...

I reckon my house has gone up by 20% since the
announcement was made. Well worth paying £250
more per year over six years!

The selfishness of this statement is staggering.

I reckon the Olympics shold be held here, but a special tax on East London
property owners like yourself should pay for as much of it as possible. It
is wrong that Livingstone should be taking money out of the pockets of
people living in slums in North Kensington and pouring it into the poskets
of wealthy landowners in Stratford.