Would these be the kamikaze pilots that we've read about?

It’s ironic that an appeal from Boston’s Labour councillors in one of last week’s local newspapers - for the borough to bid for one of the £100,000 “Portas Pilots” funding grants  - was published two days after a meeting was held with exactly that on the agenda.
It would seem that once again, our so-called “leadership” considers that it owns the monopoly on ideas on issues such as this,  and therefore feels no need to involve councillors from other parties.
As ever, it comprised the usual suspects from the cabinet - the leader, Councillor Peter Bedford, plus portfolio holder for Leisure and Cemeteries, Yvonne Gunter, and the ceaselessly gung-ho town centre demagogue Derek Richmond – a trio which more and more seems to be running the shop these days, and a cast of thousands from the town’s great and good.
They had such a good time that they are meeting again tomorrow, with even more contributors.
In a foreword to the Mary Portas High Street report, Grant Shapps, Minister of State for Communities and Local Government, declares that “the high streets of the future should be multi-functional and social places bustling with people, services and jobs which offer a clear and compelling purpose and experience that’s not available elsewhere, and which meets the interests and needs of the local people”.
He added: “We are asking local leaders to come up with innovative ideas of their own to boost struggling high streets and town centres. I want to see local leaders ready to try new things, experiment and innovate so that their high streets and parades become the place to be for local people and visitors alike. We expect dedicated Town Teams - providing a vision and strategic management for their local high streets - to be at the heart of pilot bids …
“This is a golden ticket to demonstrate the ambition, enthusiasm and imagination needed to help your high street thrive. I hope that everyone who cares about their town centre will leap at the chance to get involved.”
In Boston, we seldom leap these days – a desultory hop is about the best that we can come up with.
Mary Portas herself has proposed the setting up of Town Teams – “visionary, strategic and strong” operational management teams for high streets – and also to empower successful Business Improvement Districts to take on more responsibilities and powers and become Super-BIDs.
Winning applications for the Portas largesse have to be fronted by the local council, which will receive the money and which is then expected to work constructively with local communities, through the Town Team.
Already we can foresee problems with this bid. Those are attending tomorrow's meeting are a disparate bunch, and whilst we are sure that they will talk a lot, we are less than sanguine about the likely outcome.
History has already proved that Boston Borough Council and Boston Business Improvement District are not exactly sparkling when it comes to organising projects – the community rooms fiasco demonstrates that to perfection.
And we find it hard to imagine who might fit the description of the visionary, strategic and strong managers that the report says are needed.
There is also a conflict of adages.
Is the borough attempting to pursue the philosophy that many hands make light work?
We fear that this approach also invites the charge that too many cooks spoil the broth.
As part of tomorrow’s debate participants have been sent copies of the Boston Town Centre Study - drawn up by a team of consultants for the now defunct Boston Area Regeneration Company three years ago.
It is not the best starting point for a discussion – as it talks of the failed West Street/Merchants Quay development, and the now historic opportunity presented by the 700th anniversary of Boston Stump – which the borough dramatically failed to capitalise on as a source of publicity and promotion
It does, however, correctly note threats – such as an uncoordinated and ad hoc approach to the redevelopment of the town centre; redevelopment schemes characterised by poor urban design and quality, and the increase in value brand retailers in the town centre –  which means the rise of pound shops, charity shops and mobile ‘phone retailers.
But although these dangers were highlighted as long as three years ago – little, if anything – appears to have been done to address them.
We understand that a video is also under discussion to promote Boston’s case for funding.
If so, we hope that it is nothing like the one pictured at the top of the page - recorded by staff and students from Lincoln University, which you can view by clicking here – and which has been viewed just 300 times. 
And sadly, we would also draw your attention to another video on that page – also called Welcome to Boston, by someone called “teabagbob” – which by contrast has been viewed 37,289 times.
Watch it and weep!

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com