Council costs

The city council could close more than 20 of its office buildings in a long-term plan to save £40 million. The shake-up could mean a new lease of life for a former bonded warehouse next to the River Avon, which could revitalise a neglected corner of Bristol near the Cumberland Basin. (see here). Councillors should be asking a large number of questions about the rather bold statement of claimed benefits of this proposal and they should especially scrutinise these kind of figures/estimates:

 "The cost of the offices shake-up would be an estimated £70 million, with money borrowed at preferential rates over many years. But the council's treasury officials believe that within 15 years they will have recouped all the costs. And within 25 years the scheme would deliver an overall saving of nearly £40 million."

Could you not radically change the way the council works and use far fewer buildings in many different ways? Have other options been fully explored? Is this the best option? My concern is the £70 million cost and whether this would stay at £70 million and whether it would be paid back as officials estimate.

Surely not a decision for the council but for the Mayor elected in November in any case.

Sculpture slipup

Like, I suspect, many others I dont think substantial Art's Council funding for the Nowhereisland floating sculpture is money well spent, especially at this time of cuts. The benefits that could have been received by spending the half a million pounds in another way are very likely to be much greater. Someone has not looked into the opportunity costs properly - better arts alternatives have been forgone in order to fund this sculpture. It also strikes me the the environmental impact of producing and transporting this piece of art wont be small - yet I thought the Olympics this is a part of was supposed to be green! The project's website is here if you want to find out more about it.