Stadium Development

[garcon]

Sorry leeslover me old china, my sarcasticometer's on the blink...

[laticsrblue]

This brings it a lot closer doesn’t it? If that was the only major legal block then it’s job sorted, beyond that nutjob and his band of merry men saying they don’t like it there’s nothing left. Certainly nobody near the alternative site will mind I shouldn’t think, nobody is going to mind some local land being converted into a charitable war memorial garden!

 

The councils decision was unanimous, so here's hopimg....

[thelaticsfan]

Dick Dastardly is actually cartoon depiction of Schopenhauer’s theory of Man being unable to find peace within himself as he is always driven by the Will. Thus, even though Dastardly gets ahead of the pack numerous times in each Wacky Race, rather than go with the flow and carry on racing to victory he feels the need to intervene and cheat. Coyote is one of those people who probably feel they ought to become vegetarian but convince themselves that it’s OK because they got the meat themselves and know how it was slaughtered.

 

what?? im pretty sure hes just a cartoon villain! whilst on the subject, why did sylvester never ever swallow whenever he put tweety in his mouth? hence giving him opportunity to escape

[bensonio]

same with Tom an Jerry, Tom had PLENTY of chances to just eat him...but Jerry had to go an call next doors dog into it!

[Lags]

Yeah, but who was the other side? It made no sense. lol

 

They were flying aces in World War 1 trying to stop an American homing pidgeon delivering mail. So they must have been on the other side to the Americans.

[Lags]

Back on topic-ish

 

http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/page/Groun...1997658,00.html

 

At least the picture now shows open corners more clearly as this is nearer to what well be getting.

[Matt]

same with Tom an Jerry, Tom had PLENTY of chances to just eat him...but Jerry had to go an call next doors dog into it!

In stark contrast Garfield didn't like eating mice, so they had an arrangement.

 

Elmer Fudd could never catch Bugs Bunny either, bit of a theme here isn't there? Bugs was a cool customer. How could Elmer not notice the rabbit ears when Bugs was in the Carmen Miranda disguise, amongst other similar costumes?

 

My favourite was Daffy Duck and Porky Pig, without question. The real odd-couple.

[garcon]

Talking of odd couples that reminds me of the Mickey Mouse one where he's in divorce court and the Judge says, "You can't divorce Minnie for having bad teeth."

 

And Mickey says, "I didn't say she had bad teeth. I said she was f*cking Goofy!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thankyouverymuchI'mhereallweektrythecheeseandonionpie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leeslover]

why did sylvester never ever swallow whenever he put tweety in his mouth?

Perhaps he was new to that sort of thing. If I were Tweety in those circumstances I would simply have pushed Sylvester's head down and pinched his nose at the crucial moment.

[bensonio]

In stark contrast Garfield didn't like eating mice, so they had an arrangement.

 

Elmer Fudd could never catch Bugs Bunny either, bit of a theme here isn't there? Bugs was a cool customer. How could Elmer not notice the rabbit ears when Bugs was in the Carmen Miranda disguise, amongst other similar costumes?

 

My favourite was Daffy Duck and Porky Pig, without question. The real odd-couple.

 

I thought it was cause Garfield Parker was too darn lazy an couldn't be arsed?

[BlueJazzer]

Now I've heard a different version of the Lower Memorial Park thing......

 

A woman, lets call her Betty, owned all the houses on Park Ave. This is the little street at the back of Broadway that Lower Mem Park is in front of. When she sold all the houses (not sure if she owned the houses or just the land, but anyway...) she donated the land in front of the houses and made Lower Memorial Park so that nobody could ever build on the land immediately in front of the houses and spoil their view.

 

So. If this is indeed the case, then how could anyone, be it an individual, a governing body, a charity commission, or bloody Batman, swap that land for some other land somewhere else? Park Ave's residents cant look at a view from their front windows if its somewhere else! Are they going to buy the householders out completely? I reckon someone is counting their chickens before they've hatched here. The Allotmenteers can be bought off with a new shed and a patch of land somewhere else but Park Avenues residents are another matter. If i lived there I'd be asking TTA to buy my house at double market value!!

[Ackey]

It's the council - if they actually want to they can do pretty much whatever they want!

 

It's the want which has always been lacking - from Latics' point of view.

[BlueJazzer]

They cant do what they want if they dont own the land.

[real]

Now I've heard a different version of the Lower Memorial Park thing......

 

A woman, lets call her Betty, owned all the houses on Park Ave. This is the little street at the back of Broadway that Lower Mem Park is in front of. When she sold all the houses (not sure if she owned the houses or just the land, but anyway...) she donated the land in front of the houses and made Lower Memorial Park so that nobody could ever build on the land immediately in front of the houses and spoil their view.

 

So. If this is indeed the case, then how could anyone, be it an individual, a governing body, a charity commission, or bloody Batman, swap that land for some other land somewhere else? Park Ave's residents cant look at a view from their front windows if its somewhere else! Are they going to buy the householders out completely? I reckon someone is counting their chickens before they've hatched here. The Allotmenteers can be bought off with a new shed and a patch of land somewhere else but Park Avenues residents are another matter. If i lived there I'd be asking TTA to buy my house at double market value!!

 

 

The actual park is staying as it is. It always was. It's the scruffy land to the south of it that people want preserved. Not that they cared a jot about it until the stadium plan came along.

[Ackey]

Trust me, they can.

[oafc0000]

Trust me, they can.

 

 

Trust me, they can't...

 

There are all sorts of rules, regulations and laws on what the council can and can not do and they certainly can not do anything they want...

Edited March 20, 2010 by oafc0000

[daznathe]

id say that if they can turf people out of their own homes, knock them down and build a posher house for someone else, then yep they can pretty much do what they want.

[oafc0000]

id say that if they can turf people out of their own homes, knock them down and build a posher house for someone else, then yep they can pretty much do what they want.

 

Even compulsory purchase order have rules attached... It has to be a compelling case in the public interest and you can challenge it with a independent inspector.

 

So no, councils can't do what they want. Its just inaccurate to think that. Not that it won't stop people thinking that...

[thelaticsfan]

Ye we tried that when our houses where under these compulsary purchase orders, one inspector ruled it cannot be done as they were undervaluating houses and where not thinking of the welfare of the current residents,

 

next thing you know the council then "investigated" him for fraud and dragged his name through the dirt, so much so that when other inspectors where called none of them wanrted the same treatment so decided against it

[jimsleftfoot]

Now I've heard a different version of the Lower Memorial Park thing......

 

A woman, lets call her Betty, owned all the houses on Park Ave. This is the little street at the back of Broadway that Lower Mem Park is in front of. When she sold all the houses (not sure if she owned the houses or just the land, but anyway...) she donated the land in front of the houses and made Lower Memorial Park so that nobody could ever build on the land immediately in front of the houses and spoil their view.

 

So. If this is indeed the case, then how could anyone, be it an individual, a governing body, a charity commission, or bloody Batman, swap that land for some other land somewhere else? Park Ave's residents cant look at a view from their front windows if its somewhere else! Are they going to buy the householders out completely? I reckon someone is counting their chickens before they've hatched here. The Allotmenteers can be bought off with a new shed and a patch of land somewhere else but Park Avenues residents are another matter. If i lived there I'd be asking TTA to buy my house at double market value!!

 

Land that has Charitable Status is governed under Charity Law. The Law allows a trustee to dispose or transfer land in line with the conditions set down. If the council are acting as trustee, then they can try and transfer the land to somewhere else if there is good reason. Obviously, the donors wishes and also the intended beneficiaries of the land having charitable status have to be taken into account but nonetheless, it can be done.

 

If the transfer is deemed to be of benefit to the local community, then the Charity Commission may well allow it to go ahead.

[thelaticsfan]

Its going to take one authority who is currently sitting on the fence to take a side before we see any development in the matter, too many are not getting involved and are as yet undecided, as soon as the charitable commision makes up its mind on wether or not to allow the land swap, we will see progress on the matter

[edhunteruk]

Now I've heard a different version of the Lower Memorial Park thing......

 

A woman, lets call her Betty, owned all the houses on Park Ave. This is the little street at the back of Broadway that Lower Mem Park is in front of. When she sold all the houses (not sure if she owned the houses or just the land, but anyway...) she donated the land in front of the houses and made Lower Memorial Park so that nobody could ever build on the land immediately in front of the houses and spoil their view.

 

So. If this is indeed the case, then how could anyone, be it an individual, a governing body, a charity commission, or bloody Batman, swap that land for some other land somewhere else? Park Ave's residents cant look at a view from their front windows if its somewhere else! Are they going to buy the householders out completely? I reckon someone is counting their chickens before they've hatched here. The Allotmenteers can be bought off with a new shed and a patch of land somewhere else but Park Avenues residents are another matter. If i lived there I'd be asking TTA to buy my house at double market value!!

 

the park isnt being dug up and built on,so there view regarding that wont change...they will still be able to look out of there window and see the park,its 2 :censored:ty bowling greens(trust me i play on them) that horrible cobbled together :censored:hole of a portakabin...and the chavtastic park playground area where kids congregate to smoke drink and cause general mayhem.....

 

the land being developed is the land surrounding the park,but the park is also lined with substantial trees of some 40 or 50ft in height,and when fully blossoming you cant see squat through them....so whats the problem???

[jimsleftfoot]

Its going to take one authority who is currently sitting on the fence to take a side before we see any development in the matter, too many are not getting involved and are as yet undecided, as soon as the charitable commision makes up its mind on wether or not to allow the land swap, we will see progress on the matter

 

The Charity Commission is not on the fence any moreas as both the Council and locals agree that the land has Charitable Status. The land swap is a relatively new issue.

Edited March 22, 2010 by jimsleftfoot

[garcon]

The trouble is, having seen them fail to reach a decision on the first question, we're now asking the Charity Commission to reach a decision on two more.

Edited March 22, 2010 by garcon

[jimsleftfoot]

The trouble is, having seen them fail to reach a decision on the first question, we're now asking the Charity Commission to reach a decision on two more.

 

Not so (in my opinion). Land Law is pretty complex at the best of times and I would consider it unfair to say that they have "failed" to make a decision when the evidence is not clear cut, especially when your relying on historical documents and you cannot just ask the people who were at the meeting to set up the Memorial Park Trust as they are not around anymore.

 

In regards to the transfer, I don't know the ins and outs but I expect that they would be more able to make a decision though I would imagine it would take some time.

Edited March 22, 2010 by jimsleftfoot