15th February 2013, 11:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 15th February 2013, 11:21 AM by Unitof1.)
Quote:“It is essential that adequate financial provision for long-term storage should be provided through the infrastructure delivery plan and the community infrastructure levy.
It seems to me that its a bit unfair that if a developer has already paid to have the archaeology "done" including paying for storage that the developer should have to pay extra towards running these second-hand shops. I cant find very much information in these second-hand shop accounts to see what value they put on their assets and no evidence that they put any value on any archaeological archives. I think that these second hand shops should start valueing their assest as its a basic principle of accounting.
came accross this in my wonderings
http://www.museumsassociation.org/publications/12541
and this in their so called ethics
Quote:Treat collections as non-negotiable assets in financial affairs. Refuse to mortgage collections or offer them as security for a loan. Sustain the financial viability of the museum irrespective of any valuation placed on items in its collections.
but they would expect a developer and who ever buys the properties to be mortgaged up to the hilt to pay for it. The second hand shops are thriving round my way but the museum closes over winter, hopefully they wont open next year.
Reason: your past is my past