Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Illogical and incoherent Cllr Rogers...

Cllr Dr Jon Rogers [pictured] says, ‘We are determined to see the quality, quantity and accessibility of our parks and open spaces improve all across the city in the next 20 years’ (‘Land sell-off is right’, Post, Letters Dec 27). But hang on this man has, along with all Lib Dem and other councillors except the Greens, said it’s the right thing to do to plan to sell many acres of Bristol’s parks and green spaces over the next 20 years! That’s a decrease not the ‘quantity...improved’ that he claims he wants to see. As for improving accessibility to green spaces, well it’s self-evident that you make it more difficult to achieve this if you plan to sell some of them off and allow building over them. It’s worrying in the extreme to see such a lack of logic and coherence from Cllr Rogers. It was always illogical, inconsistent and incoherent to plan to sell-off chunks of our parks and green spaces whilst saying you are committed to health, wildlife, climate change and economic policies that require protecting and increasing green spaces.

Cllr Rogers contact details on the Bristol City Council website are:
email - jon.rogers@bristol.gov.uk , or telephone (0117) 914 2558, if you want to get in touch to set him straight.


  1. Er - we are also buying additional green space for the city. Overall, our plans mean more publicly accessible green space, and major improvements in quality, accessibility and maintenance over the next 20 years. Totally logical!

  2. Er...where is the money coming from to buy additional green spaces when you are making cuts left right and centre? What's notable is that your comment here is not a guarantee that the total amount of green space in Bristol, whether publicly accessible or not, will increase or even stay the same over the next 20 yrs. From a wildlife and climate change point of view its the total that counts. Would you would lke to give such a guarantee of an increase in the total here, now?

  3. Cllr Rogers - you are being very slippery here. The whole idea of selling green spaces is to rasie money. One presumes that the more land bought the harder it would then be for you to raise the sums needed to improve quality and access. Whichever way its looked at it does not add up - but by all means set me straight on both the total green space and on the net sums raised issues.


Genuine, open, reasonable debate is most welcome. Comments that meet this test will always be published.