Population: ‘We could cope with 100,000

JERSEY could cope with a population of 100,000, Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has said.
Speaking to the JEP after the launch of the blueprint for the Strategic Plan, Senator Le Sueur said that such a population level would be manageable and would not put the Island’s infrastructure under too much strain.
But he admitted that a 100,000 population would not currently be sustainable and said that such a total should only be reached over a number of years. Senator Le Sueur said: ‘Jersey is capable of maintaining a population level of between 95,000 and 100,000 but the Island would face increased pressure if the level exceeded that.
‘I think Jersey is capable of sustaining a population of 100,000 over a period of time, but not at the present time, as we don’t have the accommodation to meet that demand.’
The number of people in Jersey has increased considerably over recent years, with population levels rising from 87,186 in March 2001 to 90,800 by the end of 2007. (from thisisjersey)

100,000 seems like its a litttle high to me, but he is the Chief Minister...

What is wrong with our two islands , why do they insist on getting more peeps in when it is quite obvious that we have imo to many as it is .

And i just cant see quite what being Chief minister got to do with it , he is probably more out of touch that us plebs. :)

Has he thought that through or has he been misquoted? He must have been briefed by someone who has greater knowledge, but does seem an odd thing to say.

That is an increase of almost 10%. Does Jersey have sufficient housing? Can the infrastructure take that increase? Main Drains? Parking? Schools etc. etc..... ?

I agree with Digger, why was he coming out with this? Was it after a good lunch?

With a population of 100,000 I think it would be a clear case of 'sink' or 'swim'!!!! mind you if it's like Guernsey the locals will leave because they cannot afford to live there - so the 100,000 will probably be unachievable.......especially when Red Ken and Obama have worked their magic on the finance industry!!!

I'm glad to say that I am finacially 'magiked' proof!!!!

Dell wrote:Has he thought that through or has he been misquoted? He must have been briefed by someone who has greater knowledge, but does seem an odd thing to say.

That is an increase of almost 10%. Does Jersey have sufficient housing? Can the infrastructure take that increase? Main Drains? Parking? Schools etc. etc..... ?

I agree with Digger, why was he coming out with this? Was it after a good lunch?

Hey Dell the man is thinking of all the extra tax, they will get from the extra workers,

But with this that will mean the population will be in further trouble when all these workers get to retirement age...

The States say they are having trouble making ends meet for the current pensioners, how the hell will the cope with an extra 10%

Easy - work until you drop (locals only)......... :x

Jersey is not capable of sustaining anywhere near 100,000 people at anything like current living standards. It may just be possible on a very changed lifestyle eg all becoming non-driving vegans. The Chief Minister is grossly abusing the word sustainable to mean a very narrow financial definition -ie we could perhaps meet our future financial obligations (pensions etc). When you look at water suply, food production, dealing with waste, maintaining a viable island eco-system and habitats then 100,000 simply isn't possible.

I'd welcome a higher population, although it would mean that the we, the public, and planning would need to accept that more accommodation needed to be built, and that, IMHO, would be best achieved by building vertically within St Helier.

15k extra adults of working age would not only mean 15k extra taxed salaries, but 15k extra local customers.

It is of course crucial that these extra bodies only turn up when they have worthwhile, viable employment to take up once here.

Consuming less and wasting less are the only way forwards. Unfortunately our political leaders are so in thrall to the now discredited notions of wealth hoarding and the false values of property, and that we have been brainwashed into consumerism, that any talk of reducing our current input/output levels is branded as heresy.

These pollys should move to inner cities (preferably a long way away) - where they can get their lust for population growth appeased by building a few ghettos :x

Fast Robert wrote:Consuming less and wasting less are the only way forwards...

Wasting less is obviously a good idea, and consuming less unnecessarily is the same goal, but these goals can be achieved alongside population and economic growth, increasing the quality of life for all at the same time... of course that does mean that the people have to be prepared to change some aspects of their lifestyles, not just rely on the States to legislate the wiping of their arses for them.

karma wrote:...their lust for population growth appeased by building a few ghettos :x

Nobody is talking about increasing the population by building and filling ghettos. Increasing the population by creating good quality, affordable, desirable accommodation and attractive living and working conditions is the goal.

All the arguments I hear against population increase seem to be based on scare-mongering rather than reasoned argument.

If the population figures in Jersey are calculated in the same way as Guernsey, your population could exceed that figure already.

Troy McClure wrote:

Fast Robert wrote:Consuming less and wasting less are the only way forwards...

Wasting less is obviously a good idea, and consuming less unnecessarily is the same goal, but these goals can be achieved alongside population and economic growth, increasing the quality of life for all at the same time... of course that does mean that the people have to be prepared to change some aspects of their lifestyles, not just rely on the States to legislate the wiping of their arses for them.

karma wrote:...their lust for population growth appeased by building a few ghettos :x

Nobody is talking about increasing the population by building and filling ghettos. Increasing the population by creating good quality, affordable, desirable accommodation and attractive living and working conditions is the goal.

All the arguments I hear against population increase seem to be based on scare-mongering rather than reasoned argument.

I didn't actually comment on population increase negatively or otherwise. I suppose I should have qualified my statement. Population increases are possible with constraints on our rampant consumerism. More and more city planners are looking at the way that the slums in third world countries operate, cramming so many people into small areas with so little resources. Obviously they are not talking about making everything into a shanty-town, but because of necessity, the organic growth of these places demands that resources are shared, that communities are efficient and that planning, accidental or otherwise, become a key feature of social need.

We are too used to our individualism. Ultimately, as the resources dry up, we're going to have to get along with our neighbours in ever increasing intimacy (not like BF and CM-B). So if we are to pursue a controlled population growth (please, please, please not by attracting high net worths that are probably near retirement age anyway), then policies towards protecting individualism - car use, the housing market etc - need changing. Otherwise the already stretched infrastructures will not cope.

I'm not against population growth per se, when resource issues bite then the surplus will leave - a bit like swarm theory, but to enable sustainability, then social policy must be elevated to top priority. Instead of this money and land grabbing nonsense that is destroying the islands.

I think you just have to cast your eyes to the Housing Estates that the States of Guernsey are now busy knocking down and know that the well off will move on and go elsewhere - but those unable to will remain and you will have the same problems all over again....

karma, what do you mean? are you saying that you think the 'well off' would leave Jersey if the population were to rise?

.........why not they don't come for the weather......do they?????? and the banks will up sticks when it suits them...... :(

karma wrote:.........why not they don't come for the weather......do they??????...

Not sure how the weather got involved?? Are you seriously suggesting that the 'well off' are in Jersey because of low population at present??

karma wrote:...the banks will up sticks when it suits them...... :(

Quite possibly... but what has that got to do with the topic of this thread?? Are you suggesting that the banks are established and trading in Jersey because of the population, and that there is a population level which would cause them to leave??

Not really but if the population goes up and the rich people leave - it doesn't take an Einstein to work out what would happen to the quality of life in an overcrowded, underfunded Island.....

JERSEY should not think about increasing its population to 100,000 as the Island cannot cope with the amount of people it already has, a local charity has warned.
Autism Jersey has hit back at Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur’s suggestion that the Island could cope with another 10,000 people.
‘That is only if they do not have a disability,’ said the charity’s chief executive Philip Le Claire, who is urging the States to invest in the Island’s vulnerable and their families.
This month the charity was told that the budget for psychology services was to be slashed by the Health department.
Mr Le Claire said: ‘We have been inundated with messages of support and sadly we have been hearing real horror stories since the JEP ran the article on Saturday, many of which are too personal to those affected, or the families are simply too scared to come forward for fear of losing the little help that they already receive. (thisisjersey)

Oh dear....... has Jersey's Chief Minister bitten off more than he can chew? It appears from this response that his comments have not been that well received!

Is this the only contrary view from our sister Island or are there more that we have not picked up on?

Has he elaborated further to clarify what he has said?

I haven't read or heard any further clarification from the CM, but I'm willing to bet he didn't mean 10,000 with disabilities, so maybe Mr Le Claire needn't worry about that too much... unless of course he just wants to get in the paper??

You are misconstruing the sentiment, probably badly written by the journo. Without investment into infrastructure for the vulnerable, any increase will stretch current provision further, the inference being that it is not adequate already.

Maybe it is poorly reported, but if that's the case then it's not me misconstruing the sentiment.

Saying that without further funding any increase will stretch resources is kinda obvious, and any inference that current provision is not adequate isn't really related to the topic of increased population as an increase in population would, in theory, increase resources unless the increase in population has a higher ratio of disabled to able people, which is unlikely.

A larger working population(other factors being equal) would, IMO, be better for those wanting and or needing to claim the benefits paid for by taxes.