In each case, he focused exclusively on population, and not on the kind of infrastructure - especially water supplies - needed to sustain that population.
He also has noted that a smaller population would mean "a greater proportion of older people", so in terms of the demographic issues, it looks likely he would buy into the "Population Ponzi Scheme" whereby you solve the demographic of an aging population in the short term by importing younger people, a policy which is mathematically unsustainable in the long term.
I think he is a perfect fit for the Jersey Alliance party, with their fudges and delays on population policies, their general acceptance of Ponzi population solutions, and that is why he certainly won't be getting my vote.
JEP 2012 Letter: From Clifford Wilson.
I WRITE following your newspaper's report of Thursday 29 March, in which Mark Boleat, who heads the new States of Jersey Development Company, is headlined as indicating that an extra 10,000 in population in ten years 'would be no problem'.
Though he has an absolute right to his opinion, this poor man, I consider, must be very seriously deluded. Comparisons of Jersey's population density with places such as Hong Kong are absolutely irrelevant, farcical and serve to be wholly misleading. Such a comparison is akin to comparing the explosive co-efficient of a penny banger with that of a thermo-nuclear explosion. The comparison is entirely out of context and is baseless.
Mr Boleat's approach to population growth is, I think, naïve, over-simplistic and transparently skewed toward the long-term interests of his paymaster, the States of Jersey Development Company.
Contrary to Mark Boleat's expressed opinion, I believe that a further growth in population of 10,000 would be absolutely disastrous for the quality of life of us all. This Island is already overpopulated and God forbid that the vested, selfish, solely economic focused interests of the minority should be allowed to continue to overwhelm the broader socially-based interests of the majority.
Perhaps, though, the newly formed and no doubt hungry States of Jersey Development Company has an eye towards the possible creation of a series of soulless land reclamation schemes (just like our Waterfront reclamation site) where still more 'Dandaraesque' flats can be built to accommodate the swelling hordes of immigrants.
Apr 7, 2012: JEP Letter from A. Bellows.
THE recent article highlighting the possibility of a hosepipe ban and water shortage (JEP, 3 February) gives the lie to Mark Boleat's assertion that Jersey could quite easily cope with an increase of 10,000 extra people (JEP, 29 March).
Hong Kong, which certainly has a higher density than Jersey, alleviates its water supply problem by getting about 70% of water imported from the Dongjiang River in the neighbouring Guangdong province of China. Whether France could supply our own water supplies by a pipeline is questionable; it would certainly be an expensive engineering problem, not carried out overnight. And it would put the price of water up.
As Mr Boleat notes Bermuda is a smaller Island than Jersey, with a greater density of population. However, their water supply is alleviated mostly by mandating that houses have water storage tanks to supply water.
It would certainly be costly to fit those, with extra plumbing, into existing houses, even if it were possible, but for the large developments of flats, over several stories, it would be virtually impossible. It is a huge extra building cost in Bermuda, which is probably why they have introduced very stringent immigration controls and work permits, which are curiously missing from Mr Boleat's analysis.
Of course, we could just flood an extra valley to take care of the water problems, but I suspect that would not be very popular politically, even if we can locate a valley that is nearly empty of buildings and with a suitably large capacity to make the project worthwhile. There is no point in flooding a small valley. And this too would put the price of water up.
In conclusion, Mr Boleat seems to have cited comparative jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Bermuda as locations which can support a higher population density. But if examined closely with respect to water supply, which is surely a fundamental need of a growing population, they are not that comparable at all.
I WRITE following your newspaper's report of Thursday 29 March, in which Mark Boleat, who heads the new States of Jersey Development Company, is headlined as indicating that an extra 10,000 in population in ten years 'would be no problem'.
Though he has an absolute right to his opinion, this poor man, I consider, must be very seriously deluded. Comparisons of Jersey's population density with places such as Hong Kong are absolutely irrelevant, farcical and serve to be wholly misleading. Such a comparison is akin to comparing the explosive co-efficient of a penny banger with that of a thermo-nuclear explosion. The comparison is entirely out of context and is baseless.
Mr Boleat's approach to population growth is, I think, naïve, over-simplistic and transparently skewed toward the long-term interests of his paymaster, the States of Jersey Development Company.
Contrary to Mark Boleat's expressed opinion, I believe that a further growth in population of 10,000 would be absolutely disastrous for the quality of life of us all. This Island is already overpopulated and God forbid that the vested, selfish, solely economic focused interests of the minority should be allowed to continue to overwhelm the broader socially-based interests of the majority.
Perhaps, though, the newly formed and no doubt hungry States of Jersey Development Company has an eye towards the possible creation of a series of soulless land reclamation schemes (just like our Waterfront reclamation site) where still more 'Dandaraesque' flats can be built to accommodate the swelling hordes of immigrants.
Apr 7, 2012: JEP Letter from A. Bellows.
THE recent article highlighting the possibility of a hosepipe ban and water shortage (JEP, 3 February) gives the lie to Mark Boleat's assertion that Jersey could quite easily cope with an increase of 10,000 extra people (JEP, 29 March).
Hong Kong, which certainly has a higher density than Jersey, alleviates its water supply problem by getting about 70% of water imported from the Dongjiang River in the neighbouring Guangdong province of China. Whether France could supply our own water supplies by a pipeline is questionable; it would certainly be an expensive engineering problem, not carried out overnight. And it would put the price of water up.
As Mr Boleat notes Bermuda is a smaller Island than Jersey, with a greater density of population. However, their water supply is alleviated mostly by mandating that houses have water storage tanks to supply water.
It would certainly be costly to fit those, with extra plumbing, into existing houses, even if it were possible, but for the large developments of flats, over several stories, it would be virtually impossible. It is a huge extra building cost in Bermuda, which is probably why they have introduced very stringent immigration controls and work permits, which are curiously missing from Mr Boleat's analysis.
Of course, we could just flood an extra valley to take care of the water problems, but I suspect that would not be very popular politically, even if we can locate a valley that is nearly empty of buildings and with a suitably large capacity to make the project worthwhile. There is no point in flooding a small valley. And this too would put the price of water up.
In conclusion, Mr Boleat seems to have cited comparative jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Bermuda as locations which can support a higher population density. But if examined closely with respect to water supply, which is surely a fundamental need of a growing population, they are not that comparable at all.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment