LEAVE aside for just one minute the substance of the information which was handed to States Members after they had voted to agree the plan and financial arrangements for Esplanade Square on the Waterfront.

Instead, simply focus your mind on the fact that the Members were given relevant information after they had voted. The financial report handed to Members is cautious about the financial capabilities of Harcourt, the chosen developers.

It is, firstly, staggeringly arrogant to withhold such a document if it was done in the belief that Members would only draw from the report what would back their own ends and beliefs. Both the Chief Minister, Frank Walker, and Waterfront Enterprise Board director Senator Jim Perchard claim that the result of the debate would not have been any different. How can they possibly know that? And, indeed, if that was the case, was it just a silly slip that Members had not seen it before?

If it was not withheld for this reason then why was it? When the constant accusation levelled at the States is that ‘they have fingers in pies’ then why lay yourself so obviously open to that accusation?

Were those who should have known simply ignorant of the lawsuits against Harcourt? If they were aware, in what world is that not relevant information?

Further, the Chief Minister’s statement that he had been misinformed about the lawsuit against chosen developers Harcourt is simply not good enough, especially after he had reprimanded a fellow Member for simply believing what he had seen on the internet. Perhaps if he had looked himself and then asked pertinent questions he would not have found himself in this situation.

What is a bit of a head-scratcher about the debate both in regard to the plans and the finances are that, at least in the States Chamber, good questions were answered inadequately and yet the majority of Members voted in favour anyway.

For example, Housing Minister Terry Le Main’s response to figures regarding housing on the site and what would actually be affordable was that people should not believe everything they read. Even when the document being read from is a letter from the Planning Department, Senator?

The argument seems to be that we are getting a £330 million state-of-the-art development for nothing – the developer Harcourt will pay for it – and it will be risk free. Ah, that risk-free world. Don’t you just love it?

There is also the point that the decision to build here was already made by the States four years ago and that this is better than previous designs, which is supposed to make it all seem like the right thing to do.

If only we could have some guarantees when it came to the Waterfront. Mind you, guarantees or not, we are going to get this financial district.

1. A guarantee that we really do need a new financial district.
We need one if we agree that Jersey’s finance industry needs to grow and this will be the basis of our future happiness. If we don’t agree with this basic premise then any guarantee will be lost on us.

2. A guarantee that said district will look the part when it is finished.
Even more tricky, this one, because no two people every agree on what looks fab. But some kind of absolute assurance that we will not get a build-by-numbers block. The perfect example is all that I currently see on the Waterfront but most glaringly and recently the Radisson. It might be fab on the inside and the views are great but it still looks crap.

3. A guarantee that it is necessary to hook up the Waterfront and St Helier.
Certainly, if you are going to get business into the Waterfront area then you need some kind of enticement and the way that has been hit upon, it would seem, is to build some more bits in between and the working population would then be a sort of captive market. Hang on, that is exactly why people argued against this lot in the first place in an effort to save St Helier.

4. A guarantee that it will only (a word to choke on) cost the £330 million it is now set down to cost.
No one would ever sign such a guarantee.

5. A guarantee that some of this cash – or in fact any cash – could not be better used to regenerate or encourage the regeneration of the parts of St Helier which are now looking a bit shabby.
The trouble is that people already own that and they are not easily parted with their cash. Much easier to make something new than tackle something old. Perhaps St Helier will just go away? Except no, the Enivronment Minister wants to make St Helier an enticing place to live so that they don’t keep wanting to move into three-bedroom homes in the country.

Does this mess, both the debate and the Waterfront in general, fit with the Chief Minister’s stated purpose earlier in the week of keeping Jersey special?