Common Good Asset Register
Core Assets Glasgow
• Citizens Theatre – 119a – 123 Gorbals Street
• Humbie Farm
• Pollok Country Park and Pollok House
• Cathkin Braes Country Park
• Glasgow Green
• Newlands Park
• George Square
• Hogganfield Park
• Elder Park (excluding the Library)
• Glenconner Park
• Kelvingrove Park (Part)
• Botanic Gardens (Part)
• Balloch Country Park
• Rouken Glen Park (Part)
Investment Assets
• Range of Shops – 53-67 Byres Road
• Range of Shops – 4-6 Dowanhill St
• Range of Shops – 174-182 Dumbarton Road
• Range of Shops – 407-439 Gt Western Road
• Range of Shops – 33-37 Riverford Road
• Range of Shops – 254-290 Sauchiehall St
• Bowling Green – 1240-1284 Dumbarton Road
• Vacant Land – 120 Woodville St
This above list barely represents what the fund has accrued over the last 500 years
The Common Good Fund is a collection of public owned assets, (All over Scotland) administered by the various councils for the benefit of the public. All profits from the sale or renting of these assets should go back into the Common Good Fund
How the managerial business class took control of the common good of the city
In summer 2007, Variant magazine reported on the unprecedented move of Glasgow City Council (GCC) devolving its Cultural and Leisure Services department to a private charitable trust. (Cultural and Sport) then (Glasgow Life)
Comment
Variant Affinity Group
Variant banned!
The Summer issue of Variant mapped the breakneck privatisation that resulted in the creation of Culture and Sport Glasgow (CSG). It also detailed the business interests of the board members of the twin companies which took over the management of culture and sport from Glasgow City Council. ‘The New Bohemia’ by Rebecca Gordon Nesbitt did not set out to be particularly controversial. Rather, in analysing how consolidated private interests now operate, it was pursuing the basic principle of good journalism – investigation. CSG’s immediate response was to threaten Variant with legal action, accusing the article of supplying “inaccuracies and potentially defamatory statements”. Perhaps most worryingly, CSG removed the edition from the cultural venues it now controls. CSG had not in fact put the article to any legal scrutiny and, as a subsequent list of their grievances showed, the objections were largely trivial and easily rebutted by evidence available in the public domain.
