OBSERVER: Tourism pros and business woes

Your letters, emails and opinions - Boston Standard, Lincolnshire:, on Twitter @standardboston
Your letters, emails and opinions - Boston Standard, Lincolnshire:, on Twitter @standardboston
Share this article

Stories on opposing pages caught my eye last week: both could have implications for the town, one good and the other possibly bad.

The initiative to promote the history and heritage of the waterways and develop riverside tourism is to be praised – and is very much similar to that which I suggested a few weeks ago, although I hasten to add I take no credit!

It is to be hoped all the representatives present from the various organisations named can work together and not be subjected to too much ‘political’ infighting.

All in all it is to be welcomed, but the other story which caught my eye had me wondering if there can be any real future for businesses in the town.

The report of the Boston Improvement District meeting laid bare the in-fighting going on there. Money being spent without, apparently, proper insurance being in place certainly leads to the question: do businesses really understand what is happening to the money being collected from them and spent on their behalf?

If they want to spend money on attracting visitors to the town surely that is up to them, not a committee.

At a time when businesses should be attracted to the town, it seems as though most have lost confidence in this particular group – the very one which receives money from them to help improve the attractiveness of the town. It cannot be good for business.

It is to be hoped that the relevant councillors take note of the comments made on The Standard website. Many echo those I have made in the past, which have been ‘rubbished’ by certain portfolio holders saying I have my facts wrong.

So, councillors, I’m certainly not alone in claiming there are fewer market stalls, fewer people visiting the town, and that parking charges are too high!

Or are all those leaving comments getting their ‘facts’ wrong as well?