E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[sillywoman]

Thanks Zak, I've managed to cover a good chunk of Trossachs, Hillsborough, Thornecombe & Tarbert tonight. I'm hoping to do Glengarry & East Dulwich Grove tomorrow evening (with the help of gsirett).

I didn't get everyone as some people were out. If you'd like to sign a petition (& haven't already) - either 'for' or 'against' the CPZ (in the interest of fairness) in the proposed area, and you live in any of the roads I've mentioned calling at, then please PM me & I'll try to arrange to get to you before tomorrow night.

Once we've collated & scanned our petitions we'll post them to the gmail address, and to Paul Gellard.

Fingers crossed it will all count for something?

SW

[buddug]

Just saw this on james barber's 'can i help' thread (someone may have already pointed it out, but I'm amazed by it): "To me the East Dulwich Forum is a useful place to quickly find out what some people in East Dulwich think. But it only one format and although online is one of my preferred comms methods it is only one type. Some people have multiple EDF logins and its unclear where people live. So I can only take input via the EDF with a 'pinch of salt'."

Well james, I live in Oglander and have only one login and am against the CPZ for reasons I've already given. How easily he dismisses our views here, having decided most of us posting against on this issue don't live in the affected areas and have multiple logins. Though he says 'some people' he must mean most as it has led him to take input via EDF with a pinch of salt.

I know he's suggested how we do go about making our views heard - ie, use official council questionnaire with it's blatently trick question - but he knows this method will be ineffectual. Stating 'online is one of my preferred comms methods' is also disingenuous. You speak with forked tongue, james.

[Penguin68]

James is of course being wholly disengenuous here - nobody has suggested that the weight of posts here against the CPZ is any sort of democratic numbers game - the ED forum is just that, a forum, not an agora where democratic votes are cast.

However where weight of votes isn't an issue, weight of argument might be - we have had victims of other CPZs share their experiences of CPZ creep and of draconian policing of CPZs, we have had quite detailed exploration of the 'figures' presented in support of the case, most of which suggest an overall reduction in parking space in the CPZ which will leave less space for residents than they had when they were competing with 'commuters' - it is clear that some of these 'commuters' are actually people traveliing in to ED to ad value to our lives, rather than transients using ED station as a port of convenience, we have had clear evidence of a gerrymandered 'zone' and of gerrymandering in the scope of the consultation.

We have also had some posts in favour - I have not heard it suggested that these come from posters with multiple IDs and not from the area - but if James is so sure that those who disagree with him are some sort of frauds, then surely we might wonder about those agreeing?

For the record, I have only one ID on this forum and (as I have made clear before) as I have multiple off-street parking spaces I would benefit financially from such an introdution in time (I am not immediately adjacent to the proposed first phase of the scheme) as my house price value would increase.

[first mate]

P68,

Quite.

What disturbs me is the almost paternalistic stance of some of these politicans/ councillors- not just James. Their mindset seems to be along the lines 'we know better than you what is best for you'. The idea that most of us would not see through the biased online Southwark Council survey rather highlights the way these guys and gals must view voters/taxpayers- gullible and dim.

[gsirett]

"To me the East Dulwich Forum is a useful place to quickly find out what some people in East Dulwich think. But it only one format and although online is one of my preferred comms methods it is only one type. Some people have multiple EDF logins and its unclear where people live. So I can only take input via the EDF with a 'pinch of salt'."

Like so many aspects of this flawed proposal, Cllr Barber is picking and choosing certain facts and certain people to listen to in order to steamroller this scheme through. He now decides to rubbbish the views from this forum

The ED forum has suited Cllr Barber very well for the last couple of years. It's helped him build a strong reputation and, in fact he won "online councillor of the year" http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/02/09/online-councillor-of-the-year-2011/ . Well done

After that award, he said of the East Dulwich Forum:

Effectively its like an online surgery but held publicly. Where a problem or issue is private people either start by contacting me privately or we move into private mode.

An "online Surgery". Not an "online campaign".

If 500 people were to turn up to your physical surgery, would you take that with a "pinch of salt"?

For those of you who doubt that this proposed CPZ MAY be flawed and doubt that the data may have been heavily "selected" and doubt that there is a secondary agenda: ask yourselves "why is JB making such a fool of himselft over this?" - is he really doing all of this because of the 45 compalints from residents about parking in 3 YEARS ?

Edited to say: for the record, I have one EDF login and have been clear that I live on a road adjacent to the CPZ.

I have NEVER been involved in any form of campaign or local politics before, but I beleive it is only through this forum that most people in East Dulwich have heard about this scheme, we haven't been consulted

[gmackenney]

I also have only one login and live in a road adjacent to the CPZ! I'm against for the reasons I've stated earlier on this thread.

[intexasatthe moment]

first mate - yes patronising and paternalistic .

Blaming the council for conniving to delay weather dependent work when the weather has been wet and listening, if rather late, to locals about Grove Vale isn't very fair or likely to encourage them to listen again.

Leaving aside my view that the argument is being misrepresented in the first half of this sentence ,it's the last bit that gets me .

" encourage them to listen again " if the kiddies are, in our view , disrepectful we'll stop listening to them.

Why does Southwark need encouraging to listen ?

Aren't they elected ? Aren't they supposed to be listening ?

IME local authorities do what they like ,after they've spent money pretending to consult ,so good on all of you who are exposing this and trying to achieve a wider consultation .

[fredricketts]

I also have only one login and live in a road adjacent to the CPZ!

Where there is liars, and big money you will always get corruption.

And Southwark Council is full of it. This stinks of TFL, taking control of our streets.

I think that the EDF is a great place to air your views, especially when The Council and councillors ignore petitions? and complaints. We in our street have been campaigning about traffic and parking for over ten years, and all the Council can do is, place humps in the road that would not even stop a snail from speeding. The Council is always asking people to get involved, when people do get involved, they cannot wait to get rid of them, because it?s not what they want to hear. They block off rat runs when it suites them, other rat runs they ignore, we have asked for tonnage restrictions, our street to be blocked off, and made a one way, but it has all been ignored, why, probably because there is no money in it for them.

[gsirett]

Take some encouragement from this:

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,23682,440,00.htm

[fredricketts]

Take some encouragement from this:

[www.southwarknews.co.uk]

gsirett I have covered Ashbourne Grove, some of Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove. A lot of people not in, I have not found one person for this scheme yet.

What do you want me to do with the sheets of signatures?

[StraferJack]

people do realise that elected officials have to listen to ALL of the electorate and not just the ones you happen to agree with right?

I see the pro-CPZ people have largely excused themselves from the thread and I suspect that is due to the ferocity of a couple of the anti-CPZ campaigners

But that should be taken as read that the anti's ARE the majority - so sneering at councillors for not listening to their electorate is just a bit childish

[katie1997]

Not too disimilar perhaps to the people that excused themselves from engaging on the forum eg on AV for *possibly* the same reason and the arguments presented FOR that were done in a far nastier and personal way by some vociferous pro-campaigners on here (not all).

[fredricketts]

Talking to people who have experienced PCZ, they are saying it was good at first, and then they found that they were not guaranteed a parking space, and began to hate the scheme.

[StraferJack]

fred - totally agree with that and it's a point I've already made myself

[Mscrawthew]

Fred, in my experience (5 years worth) it was never good. To add insult to injury you also had to deal with the lovely people people (not) at Southwarks parking shop.

James, I may have missed it but did you answer my question as to the reason why resident permits and visitors permits would not be free to everyone living in the "affected" area? Thank you!

[Bobby P]

I don't think the arguments either for or against on this board have been out of order. It is simply people engaging in lively democratic debate about an issue they feel passionately about, one way or the other.

If anyone thinks that this debate has been "nasty" or "personal", they should check out the House of Commons for a day.

Democracy in action, thanks to the ED Forum.

[fredricketts]

Bobby P. Totally agree with you

[James Barber]

Hi mscrathew,

I've pointed out what appears unfair in that parking permits on council estates with controlled parking are free but controlled parking on the public highway ?125. They must cost similar amounts to check eligibility and issue.

I'd feel more comfortable if the parking permit fees on the public highway hadn't been increased from ?99.30 to ?125 pa and more was achieved with the available funds i.e the surplus on the parking review fund rather than using permit fees to make up for people getting fewer parking tickets. Ideal would be just covering the admin costs only for first cars to ensure the accusation of profiteering was clearly wrong.

Of little comfort but Southwark's permit fees are still one of the lowest for London.

[kr988]

I think this thread has decended into a back slapping exercise for people living outside the CPZ zone. Arguments about taxes etc are good ones but irrelevant. Why any govt has the ability to decide how much taxes to charge is beyond me but beside the point we are discussing here. Do you want to go into NI and inheritence tax as well?

People are bored with arguing as far as I can see. If you live outside the zone and it impacts you then sorry. But to be honest tough! This should be a residents decision - they are not building a dump or a prison here. Feel free to offer as much opinions as you like but don't think people who have asked for a CPZ should get intimidated and back down because people who it should not affect at all if their arguments are valid start throwing there toys out of the pram. Any opinion/petition etc expressed by people outside the zone cannot be taken into account at the expense of those within the zone. If it is we need to take into account the opinion of the entire of London and this desicion to be implemented for every CPZ zone in the city.

[fredricketts]

What happens with the PCZ in East Dulwich Station Area, does affect all of Dulwich, and that is where I think the EDF, is doing a great Job.

And the council have lacked the initiative to consult the residents, who, will have, the knock on affect from this decision.

We all live here, and want what?s best for our families and friends, hence all the more reason for proper consultations with the residents, to thrash out, something that suites all residents, not Councils, that is why we all pay our rates and taxes. For services that we all want.

[Widdy]

KR988 - why should it be just a residents in the zone's decision? Why is it ok for one household to have more than 1 car (and some 5!!) and still expect to park outside their house or very close to their house, stopping others from doing so, yet but not ok for local business workers and their customers, a few commuters and other residents to benefit from some parking? Maybe its just tough for the few people who have occasioanl difficulty parking outsdie their house rather than inflicting it on a massive area? I think its rediculous to say only people living in the zone should have their comments taken into account - it affects more people than that (as i'm sure you can appreciate) and those living just outside will be as affected (if not more so) than those living within - I dont thnk you can compare undertaking a thorough and fair consultatoin of local residents likely to be affected (but outside the proposed zone) to consulting the whole of London.

Whilst it is obviously a different issues, i'm sure that if a prison was proposed nearby, you'd expect to be consulted and your comments taken into account, and not the decision making / consultation stance you're advocating here?

From the comments on here, it seems that many living in the zone don't want it, and many dont seem to consider there is the parking pressure that others do.

[bmu]

kr988, who is bored? Why do your needs outweigh those of those of everyone who would be disadvantaged? And what is this intimidation? Perhaps you shoul get the police on to it, looks to me like incitement to ED station CPZ hatred. Using unlawful weapons such as reasoned argument, common sense, and calls for fair consultation. Outrageous behaviour.

[Huguenot]

As an outsider looking in, there seems to be three groups to look at:

Those living inside the CPZ - a reasonable (but not substantial) majority feel that ?125 is a reasonable fee to pay to ease parking congestion.

Those just outside the CPZ - the majority claim ?125 is an outrageous fee (although they won't pay it), and claim there is no congestion problem but simultaneously say that the congrestion will get passed to them (somewhat contradictory then).

Those who live more than a mile from the CPZ, but use the CPZ area for commuter and shopper parking - claim ?125 is an outrageous fee, claim there is no congestion problem, and use children, the handicapped, geriatrics or the commercial success of LL as justification for their convenience, and attack the council for carpetbagging and the government for both the Iraq war and the price of petrol.

Ho hum.

[Carrie]

As someone living at the Grove Vale on Oglander Road one of my main objections to the proposed CPZ is the likelihood that there will be a sizeable number of car owners within the CPZ who don't want to pay for the privilege of parking on their own road (supported by the council's own figures) and will therefore park on neighbouring non-CPZ roads, with our road being one of the prime targets. In fact James Barber in an earlier post appeared to actively suggest this as a way of not having to pay the ?125.

This will lead to the ludicrous situation of there being empty spaces on the roads within the CPZ but an increase of parking stress on the streets immediately adjacent to the CPZ, not through any influx of commuters but from those who do not want to pay for a permit.

[EmilyE]

It's not necessarily a contradiction to suppose that those just outside the congestion zone could face a problem. Even supposing that there is currently absolutely no problem within the proposed zone, if you were to move some commuters, some visitors and possibly some residents who don't want to pay ?125 to just outside the zone, then the people just outside the zone would have a problem. The council officer at the library admitted that this was only too possible.

To answer a question earlier on - apparently the ?125 is to fund the scheme, which must be self-funding.