Waterfront.

I’m getting tired of this disaster area, but am forced to respond to the JEP article of May 11th. 

In the UK, there are national and regional newspapers of varying political persuasions. One presumes that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but, here in Jersey, we have only one publication – the JEP. I believe, therefore, that it is incumbent on the latter to publish factually and not put bias in its reporting. Sadly I have not always believed that to be the case. Also,  we can probably all recall hearing the saying ‘don’t believe everything you read in the JEP’ at some time or other.  To that portfolio we can now add another – rewriting history.

The JEP of May 11th, on page 33, states:-  ” JEP saves Island from potential finance centre mistake”. It goes on to state:- “The Esplanade Quarter might have gone ahead without proper financial safeguards had the JEP not investigated the proposed developers behind the scheme”. They continue:- “…Frank Walker reassured his fellow politicians that developers Harcourt were credible and not involved in any court proceedings anywhere else. However, that evening a team of reporters used every method available to them to investigate the rumours about Harcourt.”
They also state:- “After the JEP’s reports, the development plans were put on hold while every baspect of the development was properly scrutinised”. 
So it was the JEP who uncovered the mess? In their dreams.
I’ve corrected the JEP about this before, but as it seems their ego exceeds their ability to report accurately, there’s little point in asking them to correct their misinformation yet again.

Fot those who are interested, here are the true facts:-

As a long-standing Deputy of St. Clement, people had got used to my painstaking research, my refusal to be intimidated and my quest to expose issues in the public interest.
As a result, I often received ‘tip-offs’ of one kind or another because people knew they could trust me not to betray the source of my information.  Recall the ‘phone-in’ seeking public response to the waterfront a few years ago and how the results favoured a certain outcome?  It appeared that just a few ‘phones made multiple calls – clearly intended to ’skew’ the results. Well, I received a tip-off that the ‘phones belonged to Dandara, but, because I couldn’t expose the source, had to use a different tactic - I proposed a States Inquiry into the matter, whilst pretending I had no idea who it might be. And guess what? Just a few hours before the scheduled States debate, Dandara admitted the ‘phones used belonged to them.

Likewise, I received information from various sources indicating disbelief that the States were considering using Harcourt as the developer for the multi-million pound Waterfront development. That was over a period of a couple of weeks, but it was not until I received an e-mail from a parishioner just before the States debate on the waterfront, that I had tangible evidence on which to act.
Following up on that lead, I discoverd that Harcourt were indeed defendants in a Las Vegas court case. Remembering that the USA is several hours behind us time-wise, I took a long shot and e-mailed the plaintif’s lawyer.
I got lucky – I received a reply giving all the details of the case including the case number, the name of the courthouse – even the judge’s name.

Armed with this, I challenged Senator Walker during the States deate, but he was adamant that no such case existed.
Furious at his misleading of the States Assembly, I rushed out and challenged him in the members’ room behind the Chamber. I said “Frank, either go back and retract what you said, or I’ll lodge a vote of no-confidence in you in the morning”.  He knew I wasn’t joking, and left to make a ‘phone call. He returned minutes later, his face rather grey.
He managed to utter something along the lines of “You were right – I’ll get that bloody Izatt (WEB managing director)”
Apparently, Izatt had told Frank that it was Harcourt’s responsibility to tell him (Izatt) if anything like that cropped up and they hadn’t. Apart from seeming outrageously naiive, I can’t quite believe that, as it would have taken Izatt more than two minutes to discover the truth had he not known about it. Maybe Izatt ‘phoned Harcourt whilst Frank was there and they admitted it – I don’t know.
Whatever, Frank went back into the Chamber and admitted his mistake. Trouble is, by then the vote had already been taken. 
So it was the JEP who exposed this? Yeah, right. And they spent all night investigating? Why didn’t they just ask me? After all, I had all the information.

Whilst I’m on the subject of the Waterfront and the managing director, Stephen Izatt, I notice that, according to the JEP of May 12th, the latter was speaking at a lunch of the Institute of Directors on May 11th - where he blamed ‘political interference’ for delays on the Waterfront. What a cheek! The guy is on £290,000 a year, and almost cost senator Walker his job by not checking out the developer!
Maybe it’s just as well there was ’political interference’ otherwise no doubt the project would by now have gone ahead. And where would we be now, with a developer who has since failed to raise the necessary bond to prove itself financially secure enough to undertake the project?
I’ve always maintained a project of that size should use three developers. That way, they’d compete with each other for progress and, should one pull out, the others, having witnessed the work, would take over. With one contractor, what would happen if he stopped work part way through? Another contractor would have to be brought in – on his terms – and would he be prepared to continue building on anothers’ foundation? I doubt it.

                                                                                        ————————————–