Realism is  the key to planning for the future Wednesday sees the first cabinet meeting of any interest which the hoi polloi  - that's us - will be allowed to attend – assuming that nothing changes before 10am tomorrow.

The word cabinet sounds very posh until you take a look at some of the contents – and even though there is so much needs doing, there are only four items on the agenda – two of which are routine.
One of the reports on the agenda is by Boston’s Head of Planning and Strategy, Steve Lumb, on a short term economic strategy to take us from what remains of 2011 to the year 2013.
It is encouraging if only because it shows that Boston is at last waking up to the fact that it needs something approaching a cunning plan.
Having said that, it has taken a long time to get to this stage.
It was back in November 2009 that an Audit Commission report on Boston’s regeneration services noted the absence of an economic development strategy. Tellingly, it appears that council officers “did not believe that a detailed strategy was needed, due the changing way in which economic development will be delivered in the future.”
This is known as burying your head in the sand, and despite this lackadaisical approach, it was agreed that to draw up an interim strategy economic for the borough.
Interestingly, it highlights something that we have been told many times before – that the officers tend to tell the councillors who are supposedly in charge what’s what, and the councillors tend to obey them.
Whilst we acknowledge that the officers are supposed to be the “experts” and that in many cases the councillors are not – how true this is with some of Boston’s elite – it does show that councillors may have been unnecessarily passive, which is something that we hope will not continue.
But, back to business.
At the end of 2013, the interim strategy will be reviewed, and between now and then, the Policy and Projects Committee will look at developing a long term Economic Development Strategy beyond 2013.
So what is the cunning plan before tomorrow’s meeting?
We’ve touched on it before, and it boils down to four main aims.
• Development of Boston’s business environment and an enterprising culture to stimulate business growth and attract new businesses. Great emphasis here is laid on heritage and tourism.
• Improving the built environment and appearance of the town centre to increase retail and business opportunities and encourage more regeneration.
• Develop educational skills at all ages and promote greater involvement in higher education.
• Improve the transport infrastructure and develop major freight links through the Port of Boston and via the rail network, plus a road infrastructure to support routes “to market” via major trunk routes.
Accompanying each objective is a peppering of other suggestions, such as providing support services for new and existing businesses – which is essential given that  several existing businesses are likely to be destroyed by the Market Place renovation work, and those lucky enough to survive will need all the help they can get.
And one that brought a smile to our lips was the suggestion to “develop and manage Boston’s evening economy” – an idea which we are sure the police will embrace wholeheartedly!
All in all the report is a fine collection of words – but we can’t see it accomplishing very much at all.
In one breath it recognises our shortcomings – but fails to acknowledge that these selfsame problems mean that we will never in a million years achieve the solutions being proposed.
The best that we can hope to do is to lick our wounds, apply some sticking plaster and start a serious campaign of promotion for Boston which will attract more investment than we have at present.
Developing educational skills, for instance, is laudable. But unless employers are there to take on the better qualified product of this, all we will be doing is creating a potential brain drain of young talent.
Then there is our place in history.
Almost three years ago, the report’s author was interviewed about Boston and its heritage on BBC Lincolnshire.
Mr Lumb described Boston's heritage as: ..... "really second to none. Sometimes we smile when we compare it to York, but really it is very comparable to York ... except York has had its money and in terms of listed buildings, in terms of its archaeology. Really there is nothing much else to beat it (Boston) in the East Midlands."
It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee, we think.
Boston has the Stump, the Guildhall, the crumbling Hussey Tower, the Maud Foster windmill and Fydell House, which is not much of an attraction. We also have a few remnants of old medieval lanes – many of which have been marred by badly designed shop fronts and blanked off windows.
Last time we looked, York had a Cathedral, the Yorvik Viking centre, the Castle Museum, the National Railway Museum, (well, we’ve got the Dogdyke Pumping Station Museum – open for four days this year…) Clifford’s Tower, and the Shambles (Britain's Most Picturesque Street 2010) - to name only a few.
To compare Boston with York is comparing chalk with cheese – although the word shambles is common to us both!
With what little we have here – nice though it is – it would be foolhardy to try to turn the place into a medieval theme park, as there aren’t enough rides.
Similarly we have to accept that with the North Sea as our eastern border, our options are pretty limited to begin with, and that if the major north-south and east-west roads that we need haven’t been built by now – they never will be.
We need a commonsense approach to the future, one that takes a realistic look at what can be done, and then to proceed accordingly.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.