viable city centre transport alternative
Chris
is that the guided bus?
saw it in CEN so it must be true
http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2007/07/12/803b7b5b-cbdd-434a-bfd3-88bbdb58483a.lpf
Roland Perry
Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Chris <ch...@berimbadgerbau.co.uk> remarked:
>http://w3.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2007/07/12/803b7b5b-cbdd-434a-bfd3-88bbdb58483a.lpf
"It would be more appropriate to site the balloon in a location that is
already surfaced rather than reducing highly valued green open space
enjoyed by many city residents and visitors."
Top of the Grafton Centre car park, I reckon.
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
news:11843417...@storm.cam.harlequin.co.uk...
Just to make this perfectly clear (I'm not suggesting that you're confused,
Chris, but others certainly have been):
There are two completely separate and independent issues for the city
council to consider here.
(1) As the land owner, does the council wish to enter into this business on
its land?
(2) As the planning authority, can planning permission be given?
One of the four possible outcomes, therefore, is that the planning committee
give planning permission, but that the city council as land owner choose not
to enter into a deal with a balloon operator.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Dave Lloyd
Here's the kicker from the website:
Cambridge Life Balloon is seeking temporary planning permission for a
period of five years, as that would allow two years to recoup all the
costs and three years of making a profit, with a minimum of 50% of
profit being donated to charity.
Cambridge Life Balloon itself is "for profit". This is another of those
cons whereby money is raised for charity, but only after the company's
costs are covered (and those can be high depending on how greedy mgmt is
feeling) and then only half of the *profit*.
In other words, a money making scheme which wouldn't possibly be allowed
if it wasn't for the magic "charity" tag.
Roland Perry
Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Dave Lloyd <da...@shortfuze.co.uk> remarked:
>This is another of those cons whereby money is raised for charity, but
>only after the company's costs are covered
That's how people like Oxfam have operated since the year dot. Why
should a charity magically have no operating expenses?
--
Roland Perry
Dave Lloyd
If you'd actually bothered thinking further before writing your usual
knee-jerk rubbish, you'd realise that Cambridge Life Balloon is *not* a
charity, it is a *for profit" limited company - quite unlike Oxfam.
Do please keep up.
Eleanor Blair
>
>That's how people like Oxfam have operated since the year dot. Why
>should a charity magically have no operating expenses?
The point is that after subtracting operating expenses Oxfam use all
the profit for good causes, and Cambridge Life Balloon is only planning
to use half for charity and pocket the rest.
Toby Douglass
> Here's the kicker from the website:
> Cambridge Life Balloon is seeking temporary planning permission for a
> period of five years, as that would allow two years to recoup all the
> costs and three years of making a profit, with a minimum of 50% of
> profit being donated to charity.
>
> Cambridge Life Balloon itself is "for profit". This is another of those
> cons whereby money is raised for charity, but only after the company's
> costs are covered (and those can be high depending on how greedy mgmt is
> feeling) and then only half of the *profit*.
Well, it's hard to be half of anything else. What else could it be,
apart from profit? they could hardly pay, say, half their operating
costs - in many businesses, operating costs are far larger than profit
and so paying half of the operating costs would result fairly quickly in
bankruptcy.
In fact, in all of this, it seems to me the 50% of profits to charity
will actually be, in effect, an operating cost - a form of rent, if you
like - which will in fact be represented in the prices charged for the
rides.
If this were not so, what sensible investor would put his money into
this business, when he could just as well invest in another similar
business which doesn't carry this burden, and so make much more from his
investment.
Roland Perry
>>> This is another of those cons whereby money is raised for charity,
>>>but only after the company's costs are covered
>> That's how people like Oxfam have operated since the year dot. Why
>>should a charity magically have no operating expenses?
>
>If you'd actually bothered thinking further before writing your usual
>knee-jerk rubbish, you'd realise that Cambridge Life Balloon is *not* a
>charity, it is a *for profit" limited company - quite unlike Oxfam.
>
>Do please keep up.
I am keeping up perfectly well, thankyou.
You were complaining about a company that had the barefaced cheek to
deduct its costs before passing on (a significant proportion of) its
profits to charity. The charities receiving the money will also deduct
their costs before passing on what little is left to their good cause.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
14 Jul 2007, Eleanor Blair <ele...@the-blairs.co.uk> remarked:
>>That's how people like Oxfam have operated since the year dot. Why
>>should a charity magically have no operating expenses?
>
>The point is that after subtracting operating expenses Oxfam use all
>the profit for good causes, and Cambridge Life Balloon is only planning
>to use half for charity and pocket the rest.
So you'd rather they pocketed the whole lot?
--
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin
> Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>That's how people like Oxfam have operated since the year dot. Why
>>should a charity magically have no operating expenses?
>
> The point is that after subtracting operating expenses Oxfam use all
> the profit for good causes, and Cambridge Life Balloon is only planning
> to use half for charity and pocket the rest.
... and, their profits are after things like salaries, which
presumably could be arbitrarily large for the people involoved in
running the company.
Tony Raven
>
> .... and, their profits are after things like salaries, which
> presumably could be arbitrarily large for the people involoved in
> running the company.
They could be but then you could look at the person behind it and assess
whether you think he's that sort of person:
http://www.toby-churchill.com/english/company_background/about_company.html
Tony
Colin Rosenstiel
Perry) wrote:
I think you will find that the City Council would rather the City's green
spaces remain fully available and not be taken over semi-permanently for
commercial operations.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
02:07:00 on Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk>
remarked:
>> >The point is that after subtracting operating expenses Oxfam use
>> >all the profit for good causes, and Cambridge Life Balloon is only
>> >planning to use half for charity and pocket the rest.
>>
>> So you'd rather they pocketed the whole lot?
>
>I think you will find that the City Council would rather the City's green
>spaces remain fully available and not be taken over semi-permanently for
>commercial operations.
That's a completely different issue.
FWIW I support the City Council if they decide that this isn't a
suitable use for that particular open space of theirs, and repeat my
earlier observation that the roof of the Grafton Centre would seem to be
a better launch site.
Although the ballon company will have to negotiate a commercial rate
with the landords, I suppose, rather than assuming that public open
spaces are places that anyone can start a business no questions asked.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2007, Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> remarked:
>> The point is that after subtracting operating expenses Oxfam use all
>> the profit for good causes, and Cambridge Life Balloon is only planning
>> to use half for charity and pocket the rest.
>
>... and, their profits are after things like salaries, which
>presumably could be arbitrarily large for the people involoved in
>running the company.
But that accusation applies equally to any charity.
--
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin
Charities are scrutinized by the Charities Commision. If they take the
piss they'll lose their charitable status. In the case of a company
it's just up to the shareholders.
Roland Perry
>piss they'll lose their charitable status. In the case of a company
>it's just up to the shareholders.
There are plenty of charities headquartered in very grand offices. I
think your faith is somewhat misplaced.
--
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin
Oxfam was mentioned up the Fred as an example. ISTR that about 80% of
the money they raise gets spent on development prject and emergency
relief. It's not a question of "faith". If you give money to Oxfam you
know that a substantial proportion of that is actually spent for the
intended charitable purpose.
In this case, i.e. a promise to donate some proportion of profits, you
really have no idea if *any* of it will ultimately be spent on
charity.
Colin Rosenstiel
Perry) wrote:
> FWIW I support the City Council if they decide that this isn't a
> suitable use for that particular open space of theirs, and repeat
> my earlier observation that the roof of the Grafton Centre would
> seem to be a better launch site.
thereby demonstrating your ignorance of the arrangement of the roof of
the Grafton Centre. Apart from the glass bits and the bits that are
people's flats or car parks, there is very little left, certainly not
enough for launching balloons.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
remarked:
>> FWIW I support the City Council if they decide that this isn't a
>> suitable use for that particular open space of theirs, and repeat
>> my earlier observation that the roof of the Grafton Centre would
>> seem to be a better launch site.
>
>thereby demonstrating your ignorance of the arrangement of the roof of
>the Grafton Centre. Apart from the glass bits and the bits that are
>people's flats or car parks, there is very little left, certainly not
>enough for launching balloons.
I was thinking of one of the parts which is "car park". Every time I've
been there it's been empty, and I'm sure the landlords would get more
revenue from the ballonists than a few peak-time parkers.
--
Roland Perry
Colin Rosenstiel
Perry) wrote:
You obviously don't come at busy times then. The Grafton car parks are
frequently full. The only City car park that is not frequently full is
Queen Anne Terrace.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Alan Levy
Right next to Parkers Piece - aha!
--
Alan Levy (alan...@delete-this-first-ntlworld.com)
Delete the spoiler to reply by email!
Roland Perry
remarked:
>You obviously don't come at busy times then. The Grafton car parks are
>frequently full.
Is that partly as a result of the reduced capacity at Lion Yard.
Struggling here against almost overwhelming negativity, whatever the
topic... but surely if some of the Grafton Car Park was removed from use
by cars, wouldn't that further the widely held anti-traffic aspirations
held by various councils?
>The only City car park that is not frequently full is Queen Anne
>Terrace.
Yes, as previously discussed, the ground floor is often completely
empty.
--
Roland Perry
Colin Rosenstiel
inever....@ntlworld.com (Alan Levy) wrote:
It was the only one full for some of the Big Weekend, though.
--
Colin Rosenstiel