This Is Jersey

From Daniel Wimberley.
THERE is a clear policy, although it has never been clearly stated, to allow a huge increase in Jersey’s population.

There are two issues here: one is the policy itself, and the second is the covert way it is being brought in.

You only have to watch all the straws in the wind to see that the policy is real: the vast proposed new Waterfront business district; the decision to scrap the Island Plan; the proposal now before the States to rezone large areas of Green Zone ‘on the hoof’ in advance of any principled review of housing or detailed and Island-wide discussion of the population question; the proposal brought to the States and (amazingly) passed to build an incinerator bigger than that needed for the present population.

It is a disgrace that the policy is covert, but it is. It has never been publicly stated, bold and clear, that the intention is to bring in an extra 17,000 people. Why? Because an increase of this magnitude in the Island’s population is not what most people want.

Why do Islanders reject any large increase in population? I believe there are two reasons. First, the need to preserve the natural beauty, the scale and the culture of Jersey. I believe we are not far from the tipping point.

I drove along the Avenue the other day and looked up at the Millbrook playing fields and the open field beyond, forming a vital ‘green lung’. Can they be seriously thinking of building on this land? Well, yes, actually (see the JEP, 11 March) The building over of Goose Green Marsh is a glimpse into the future we are being offered. Others will no doubt have their own examples.

The Draft Strategic Plan 2006-2011 contains the target: ‘net growth of the working population of less than one per cent per annum’ Does not sound too bad does it? I got out my trusty calculator and soon found that this means an increase of 17,000 people from what was then an estimated 85,000 to 102,700, over 20 years. I wrote in response:
‘Have you calculated the requirement for additional schools, hospital beds, swimming lanes, policemen, etc, etc, which the extra 17,000 people will bring? Have you made it clear to the people of Jersey that this is what is envisaged?’

Which brings me to the second reason why people reject the policy of increasing the population – the people who are brought in to supposedly solve the problem of the ageing society by adding to Jersey’s wealth, will themselves become old, and what happens then? Bring in more people yet again?

There are at least two alternative ways of tackling the questions raised by the ageing population. One is to require the economically active to pay a little more tax. Everything that is man- or woman-made, from the culture and the values that we have inherited, to the sewers, to the schools – who put them there? The people who are now old. So I cannot see what the problem is with repaying the debt we owe for the capital we now enjoy in the form of a slight increase in overall taxation, if that is necessary.

The second approach is to run our whole society in a less wasteful way. This would a) free up resources and b) reduce costs in every field, including that of care for the elderly. It’s not rocket science, and we would not even notice, because our quality of life would stay the same even as our consumption went down. Readers will note that there are other equally important reasons for pursuing this path.

The bottom line is that our leaders are taking us to a place we don’t want to go to while trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It is an uncomfortable and unpleasant feeling.

Let us hope that there are enough candidates at the next elections with the kind of intelligence and integrity to offer a serious alternative to some of the present bunch so that Jersey can face the future in a completely new and better direction.
2 La Hougue Mauger,
St Mary.

Article posted on 17th July, 2008 - 3.00pm