A long-awaited report into the capital's Common Good assets found that the city council pocketed thousands of pounds meant for the people.
The report by officials to go before councillors at the end of the month came after an expert in common good assets - properties historically owned by the taxpayer and managed by local authority custodians - claimed around £20m worth of such land had been mishandled.
The investigation found that £70,000 from the sale of such property at Granton Road, between 1996 and 2003, was paid into the housing revenue account rather than common good fund.
The council was told that the money should be repaid to the common good fund and it has also called for changes in the "management and accounting principles governing the common good fund".
The investigation also found that the council's city chambers, The Meadows parkland, and some roads, but not property across the Old Town, New Town, Leith and Portobello are assets of the common good fund.
Andy Wightman, a recognised Scottish land reform expert, claimed that the former Waverley Market on the south side of Princes Street was transferred out of the common good fund by councillors in 1982 before it was replaced by Princes Mall shopping centre.
The centre has since been sold on, but it was estimated that if it had remained in the common good fund it could have earned millions in rent and still be worth around £20m as a capital asset.
However, the new report by director of finance Donald McGougan said that the council of 1937-8 transferred the fruit and vegetable market from Waverley to East Market Street.
He said: "Accordingly Waverley Market ceased to be part of the common good at the time of the transfer of the fruit and vegetable market to East Market Street."
The balance of the fund as at March 31, 2007, was £1.67m, which has increased from a balance of £0.88m inherited from Edinburgh District Council on April 1 1996.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article