Alunh
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wow. At best, you’re piddling in the wind on this one!!!
In terms of principles, I would suggest that money is best left in people’s pockets for them to use personally and not passed over to Councils to spend on your behalf. Whilst I accept that there has to be a basic service provision, there is so much waste it becomes unbelievable. On the Pensions matter, there is a black hole in almost every Council because commitments have been made to (say) Teachers that are not actually covered by funds in the can. The problem is compounded by the fact that those who are expected to stump up for the eventual payments (the taxpayers) are not necessarily ever likely to enjoy the same pension payouts themselves. This will create a new politics of envy that we can term the politics of resentment
Democracy as described can only go so far. You don’t go into a Doctors and decide what is a suitable treatment, though you might select the Doctor in the first place. There has to be a deliberative element where those individuals who are elected to do a job do it. The point of an election is to get them in or get them out. I’m always wary of micro-managing complex problems, though the way in which Wrexham Council has traditionally behaved does make you question some of this
@jimbow 4270 wrote:
Everybody as a Landlord would like the highest rent possible(including WCBC).However the powers of negotiation do enter into the equation.
Not true Jim. It depends entirely on your end objective. If you were a mono-dimensional moron, this would be the case but not everyone is a mono-dimensional moron. You could, for example, take the view that you had social obligations to allow, for example, the use of stalls for charitable or cultural purposes. In that case, you might offer low or no rents. You could aim to use the idea of a full Market to maximise the value of the Markets to the wider Tourist industry, and do the same. You could realise that there was a lack of balance in the Market and to address this lacking certain types of stall/business were offered discretionary Rents. Both you and I can think of any number of scenarios where maximising Rent was actually not the main objective.
@wrexview 4211 wrote:
I was referring to the published rents advertised by the council for the vacant units at present in the various markets. Some are stalls some are shops.
You are correct. The published asking rents are, however, not the rents. Believe me
How about abandoning the most stupid cost in the Universe. What logic is there in taking money off a business before its made a bean, forcing it to set aside valuable Investment funds or forcing it to not take on staff……..and then, of course, charging the business separately for things like rubbish bin removal. Talk about an ill-conceived idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@wrexview 4196 wrote:
How much rent is paid by a stall holder on the outdoor Monday market? Rents for empty indoor market stalls are published but I have never seen any figures for the outdoor market. There must be vacancies as the number of stalls seem less and less.
You might correct me here (?), but I don’t think that Rents are actually published for the Indoor markets unless you exercise a freedom of information request. What you see are asking rents and these don’t resemble rents paid at all. There are ‘historic’ rents paid, stepped rents, day rents, haggled rents, short term rents, multi unit rents, etc. What is lacking is a consistent logic and a strategic policy.
…..following on from Jim, I have made 2 suggestions to the Council
i. That the Council, recognising that they trade in surplus in the Market, reduce the Rents overall in the Market. If they fail to do this, they are in danger of having to trade in deficit because the number of stalls let will be such that the net rent will be less than trading with lower rents.
ii. Whether they do or don’t reduce rents overall, they should certainly look at selective reductions (or even better, selective reductions as well as overall reductions). A good Market requires a range of stalls that we can all identify with. Some stalls (that are more footflow sensitive than others) have to have a Rental structure that is different to those which are not.
@zinger 4135 wrote:
Would there be any value in a few small enterprising businesses getting together to share a shop & therefore overheads? Perhaps one or two full days a week. taking enquiries for other members who are there the other days. Start very small allowing room for growth. Or am I talking rubbish? No thought gone into it just an idea that flitted into my head.
I am going to do this very thing. If anyone has an interest, express it now!!!
The interesting one is Economic Development which is a huge Borough employer. This does many good things but, equally, could it be done without?
Is there not a case to petition the Welsh Assembly to abandon Business rates and in some brokered deal, local Authorities refuse to take the equivalent from Central Authority and lay off the Economic Development team. Without paying business rates, you’d soon see Business boom and, accordingly, no need for economic development. Some of the shops in Wrexham now carry £20,000-£50,000 rates payable. No wonder they’re shutting and pricing out local business. Square the circle and see what happens. Leave the cash with the business!!
@wxm 4151 wrote:
It wouldn’t cost anything. A mutual of stall holders rents it. And then uses the surplus (currently a couple of hundred thousand a year) to reinvest in the success of the markets. As it grows, the businesses get more to reinvest, the success drives more business, and the ratepayers get rates from 100% occupancy, we get the goods we need at the prices we like to pay, and our friends and neighbours get employed.
Great idea. The fun bit will be getting any 2 traders to work with each other
