MLA Dean Dent makes a fair point when he indicates taxpayers should not be expected to pay for most of the cost of preparing industrial land, only for private companies to benefit from buying it cheaply and, potentially, selling it on later at a profit. (see last week’s front page).
But much as it pains me to fence-sit the Chamber of Commerce also has good reason to question an increase from £20.54 to £50 per square metre.
A rise of 143% is enormous. It’s not simply an adjustment for inflation or rising costs it’s a major change and one which could make a real difference to whether some businesses can afford to expand.
Sometimes it can sound all very black and white though right? The taxpayer on one side and the private business on the other. But in a small place like the Falklands I feel like the two are much more closely intertwined. Local businesses employ people, provide services and put money back into the economy. Helping a business to grow is not necessarily money lost to the public purse
Done sensibly, it can bring benefits back to the community for years.
There’s also the question of who is most likely to be affected by the higher price. A large company may be able to absorb a substantial increase in the cost of land. A small local business, trying to take its next step, may not.
Ultimately though FIG’s primary concern is that people are buying cheap industrial land simply to hold onto it or sell it later for a profit; as such surely that problem can be tackled more directly.
The Chamber suggests there are more effective mechanisms available – and it’s a fair point – conditions on the resale of some land in the Falklands already exists.
That would seem a better answer than making land substantially more expensive for everyone, including businesses which genuinely need it in order to grow.
None of this means industrial land should be sold at an unrealistically low price forever. Costs have increased and Government has every right to look again at what represents fair value.
Ultimately though the Chamber is justified in questioning how the figure was reached and whether enough thought was given to the consequences.
DESPITE an MLA’s rather jittery sounding assurance that the hugely well-paid Director of Operations role is simply being funded out of salaries that haven’t been used up (cough, cough), I did still feel as though my dental anaesthetic hadn’t quite worn off when I read the advert this week.
The winner of this giant payout really had better display that required “keen practical intelligence”, bearing in mind that the rest of the workforce is still being denied pay rises in line with inflation and has had holiday credits whipped away. Not to mention those assurances at the last election that the fat cats would be culled.
Clearly the whole ‘nine lives’ adage is true.
