E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[Huguenot]

Since the Lib Dems voted for CPZ on limited streets, and there was clearly at least one street that wanted it, it strikes me that the Lib Dems were the only councillors trying to find a compromise solution for everyone - the very spirit of democracy.

Why buddug thinks James is going to come out into the foyer to be accosted by a furio who wants to get their freehold for nothing is beyond me. I can imagine buddug raising her voice and crowing as she plays to the gallery...

There has also been a ridiculous amount of unnecessary attacks on the Lib Dems and particularly James throughout this thread from people using the CPZ as a vehicle for their own issues.

Whilst Mscrawthew only wants to thanks those who opposed the CPZ I'd like to state my admiration for those residents who had the temerity to stand up to the large numbers of aggressive bullies who want to exploit their neighborhood as a free carpark.

That took some balls guys.

[DJKillaQueen]

Tbf you weren't at the meeting H. There seems to have been reported a clear distortion of the facts by JB and co to an extent that I just find mystifying (if true) tbh given the knowledgeable and eloquent manner in which many have contributed to the debate on here (and further did so at the meeting).

I suspect JB was trying to be all things to all views but he had plenty of opportunity to state his stance beforehand and make a sensible arguement for it. In the end I think his unwillingness or inability to do that (not sure which) is what has riled people most....and they will have the chance at the next local elections to show that (if they feel inclined to do so). From a political viewpoint....no-one ever got elected by ignoring the majority view.

I think the decision is the right one. Adressing one set of problems on one or two streets only to create new problems elsewhere was never going to be the right answer. What is needed now is a look at other solutions (better solutions) for the problems residents of Derwent feel they have.

[Huguenot]

I don't know what James said regarding the figures - but it's apparent that they can be used to represent several diffferent perspectives.

It's certainly not disgraceful, certainly not undemocratic, and in no way should it be supported by claims that he should 'stand down'.

As for 'political suicide' - this is just silly grandstanding from people who think making decisions about our community should be made by lurching from one single issue crisis to another whilst spitting and blustering about how hard done by we are and how everyone's a thief and a liar.

Ridiculous.

Anyway, technically you're incorrect. The majority of people in this country believe in the death sentence. Fortunately a brighter minority prevails. :)

[DJKillaQueen]

Yes and no. No referendum on capital punishment has ever been held and I can't see that being a vote winner over other things, just as in some ways you are correct in arguing that a conflict over a CPZ zone would impact over other more important issues.

And yes, people can get carried away with the tone they take and language they use in an online forum - not something you and I could ever be accused of though eh ;) - that's just the nature of forums.

I agree that taking an unpopular view is not reason enough for demanding a councillors resignation and I have defended James right to not be subjected to abuse in an earlier post. The right place to show an opinion on him or any councillor for that matter is at election time.

[fazer71]

Had James voted against I would 100% have accepted his decision and maintained my respect for him.

The fact he didn?t abstain is proof enough he?s a man of conviction.

A number of comments above show the illogical mentality of those who fought like headless chickens against the CPZ with zero respect for their neighbours or anyone else who happens to see things differently, just spouting poisonous blinkered comments.

Pathetic individuals who want to make the world a better place by saying no to change.

Very sad face of democracy.

[DJKillaQueen]

Tony Blair was a man of conviction too when he sent british troops into Iraq in pursuit of non existent WMDs. Didn't mean he was right!

People are not pathetic because they say no to something.

[Penguin68]

I have said on a number of occasions (and I say again) that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a politician holding political views, or indeed voting with his/ her party whip - that's the 'deal' where you have formal parties and politicians representing these parties.

However here we have seen all the machinery of politics being hugely dissembled by at least one of the politicians. If Mr Barber had come out, up front, as being in favour of CPZs and (implicity) against car-owning local residents; if he had urged CPZs as a necessary revenue generating device to support other 'good' council expenditure - had he argued against cars at all as polluters and saw the blocking of their entry into ED from 'outside' as being beneficial, had he put any case clearly, honestly and consistently for CPZs I could have respected, if disagreed, with those opinions and his right to hold them.

Instead he pretended to be even handed and balanced in his approach to the 'problem' - while consistently putting forward the argument from only one side and, worse, consistently distorting the few 'facts' that were actually available.

To go against the view of the majority of your electorate may be brave and principled, but to pretend that this is not what you are doing is either self-delusional or mendacious (50:50?).

Mr Barber is not a fool, he fully understands that a 'trial''tiny' CPZ would neither be a trial, nor, eventually, tiny - the wedge principle of CPZ introduction is very well understood and documented - so he knew that 'helping' the Derwent Grovers was also going to lead to a pernicious spread of CPZ into areas which even he could not argue weren't substantially against it. So any attempts to suggest he was just thinking of a 'persecuted minority' in Derwent (minority in proposed Grove Vale CPZ, majority in Derwent, of course, as regards cast 'votes') would be disengenuous.

[first mate]

f71,

Were you there last night? Given the strength of your views and vitriol I'm sure you must have made the effort.

If you were there you'll know that along with the majority effort to halt the steamrollering through of CPZ, were also an overwhelming number of calls for some creative thinking to relieve parking in affected roads. The view from the floor and from petitioners and a majority of councillors was that there had to be a better way than CPZ.

You are right about James et al as conviction polititicans- they came across as blinkered, sticking rigidly to their CPZ dogma, come what may. It did not invite confidence.

[fazer71]

No I was not there not my bag, I don't like being around illogical people.

It just makes me angry seeing people without a brain getting so upset.

http://gtalfaromeo.co.uk/images/NOvote.jpg

Why do people vote against their own interests?

Apparently

?The ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted.

This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.

And when the politicians say to the people protesting: 'But we're doing this for you', that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.?

[first mate]

Oh dear.

[gsirett]

http://rosieshimell.mycouncillor.org.uk/

This blog says it all.

Lots of content about local issues? - no

Lots of party-political bickering and sniping at opposition councillors? ? absolutely

The Lib Dems will save the world from the evil labour empire. "these aren't the droids your looking for, they're our local councillors"

[gsirett]

gsirett Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://rosieshimell.mycouncillor.org.uk/

>

> This blog says it all.

> Lots of content about local issues? - no

>

> Lots of party-political bickering and sniping at

> opposition councillors? ? absolutely

>

> The Lib Dems will save the world from the evil

> labour empire. "these aren't the droids your

> looking for, they're our local councillors"

Ahhhhh........droid number 3 has some clear and independant views. Quite different from his collegues:

http://jonathanmitchell.mycouncillor.org.uk/

[sorry to quote my own post, coudlnt click edit on my phone]

[fazer71]

Would you all stop talking politics and other B??$s

It?s obvious you have NO solution for the actual problems.

So you talk nonsense?

[fredricketts]

There is a problem in the whole East Dulwich with parking.

And it is not going to get any better in the future.and CPZ is not the answer.perhaps

Southwark council might go back to the drawing board with local residents and traders

And try to resolve the problem, but it will not be resolved by pooring more people into

East dulwich.I for one would never vote lib dem again.the govs policy to keep building

Flats and house without any consideration for car parking,with policies like this you can

Expect more parking problems.

Well down the EDF.

[peckhamboy]

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Would you all stop talking politics and other

> B??$s

>

> It?s obvious you have NO solution for the actual

> problems.

>

> So you talk nonsense?

It's obvious that you are in a minority in thinking the proposed cpz was the solution. I dare say that for those within the zone who are happy to pay the fee and live with the crap that comes with a cpz, it may have made it easier for you to park. But the price of that on a much larger area meant it would create more issues than it solved. Now that the idea seems dead in the water, how about everyone tries to look to alternatives rather than just continuing the old arguments?

[buddug]

Huguenot wrote: "Why buddug thinks James is going to come out into the foyer to be accosted by a furio who wants to get their freehold for nothing is beyond me."

You really should read people's posts more carefully, Huguenot. It was in fact your friend James Barber who posted that he'd been "talking to Southwark accountants if they could they'd give freeholds away to tenants as technicalyl they show as an asset but in reality they're a liability and give poor service to boot."

I had posted: "I had cost Southwark taxpayers ?10,000 in lost payments due to the section 20 notices, plus compensation and damages paid us by Southwark due to cowboy contractors over the past 13 years - ?10,000 paid for by taxpayers! I said it would have been cheaper to just have given us the freehold when it became apparent things were going so wrong."

Not quite the same thing. You seem to have the same propensity to twist the truth as James, Huguenot. Why are you so upset that democracy was upheld at last night's meeting. I suppose there isn't much of that in Singapore...

[Penguin68]

Maybe, before we stumble around looking for solutions we might do some real work on understanding what the problem is.

So far three 'causes' for local parking congestion have been hypothesised:-

1. Onwards commuters parking locally to use ED station (but coming from where?)

2. Inward commuters coming to ED to work and add value locally, including 'public' servants such as health and education workers.

3. Residents having more cars than spaces outside their houses, either because of multi-car families and/ or multi-occupancy housing (including purpose built flats not provided with adequate parking space). Part of this latter is intentionally caused by politicians who are anti-car and want to force Londoners only to use the (currently laughably inadequate, particularly at weekends imho) public transport systems. Indeed it is arguable that lib dem politicians, pursuing an anti-car agenda, have actually been the cause of the problem to which they are now offering an additional anti-car solution. Rather than thanking the lib dems for championing them, there are arguments that the Derwent Grovers could be seeing them, and not mythical commuters, as the cause of their woes. Arguably.

Either which way, finding out the true extent of, and causes of, parking congestion problems locally has to be the initiating move in devising solutions one of which could be (and hugely unpalatable to some) making future planning permission dependent upon developers offering realistic parking solutions, rather than forcing a 'use public transport or die' approach. The Garden Shop development will be the next cause of strain on local parking lives - and that will be absolutely a planning, not a commuter, blight.

Working to make car ownership impossible or unaffordable in ED (clearly part of a lib dem agenda, I would suggest) is an unacceptable attack on personal freedoms and liberty, again imho. But that's all political, and if it was argued openly in that way, it would be refreshing. And maybe the electorate could express an opinion through the ballot box and not a flawed and spun 'consultation'.

[James Barber]

Well done to the NO campaign and espeically Giles - you clearly won hands down.

Before the meeting we had a very clear idea of how the Tory and Labour councillors would vote. I didn't know how my ward colleagues would vote. Anyone who know Cllr Mitchel and Shimell will know they do not do what I want all the time. As they hadn't experienced the forum feedback they were more robust on this issue than me.

I thought the Zenoria residents deputation was a real surprise. They were begging for controlled parking 24/7!

Several comments that a big public car park should be built where the Dulwich Hospital is. Making it secure would require a fee...

If any one has ideas about helping with car parking pressures near the station - other than controlled parking - please contact me by email. Not sure I'm masochistic enoguh to check into this thread again for some time.

After the break lots of ironic smiles when the local Police report back highlighted vehicle crime issues from people not being able to park close to their homes.

Hi buddug,

The interval. I didn't get to show my head there in the foyer as a shopkeeper from Lordship Lane collared me about Puffin crossing installations and lack of parking. Useful feedback but I missed the sandwiches until later. Happy to meet you or anyone else to discuss local issues.

[buddug]

James Barber wrote: "Anyone who know Cllr Mitchel and Shimell will know they do not do what I want all the time. As they hadn't experienced the forum feedback they were more robust on this issue than me."

You voted for a CPZ. Yet now you turn on your own 'partners in crime'. Dear, dear.

And as to: "Happy to meet you or anyone else to discuss local issues." - I was going to ask you to resign, James. Will you now do so?

[peckhamboy]

James, thanks for coming back on here this morning - many would understand if you hadn't. Re Zenoria though, they kind of missed their chance if they didn't repsond to the consultation. And if they did, then clearly they were in the minority for that street, even if they were vocal last night.

IMO, any problems with parking are too small and localised to be appropriate for a CPZ. Maybe in a few years' time, there might be better arguments but for now it's wrong solution, wrong place. As I've said many times, and Penguin has again above, there is simply insufficient information about the root causes of any problems. And how much did it cost to get the "parking survey" done? If you ever need someone in the future to spend a day or two guessing how many cars there are and which ones belong to residents, just ask me instead - I promise to undercut them by 50%.

Why not set up a residents working party, with representatives from every street in the area, to gather information and come up with some community based proposals that actually have wide support? One way streets might help - I know you've dismissed them on the grounds of cyclist convenience but firstly, no cyclist pays any attention to one way streets and second, you could make a cycle contra-flow as you are doing on Copleston and Oglander. If it's good enough there why wouldn't it be good enough here?

A lot of people view your voting last night as representative of a blinkered anti-car agenda, commitment to a pet project and completely counter to logic and democracy. I share those views to an extent, although I suspect you also had made commitments to a number of pro-CPZ residents that you felt you had to keep as well as wanting to keep true to party policy. I don't think there is much point going on about it though - well done for showing you continue to be committed to engagement through the forum, and I hope you can now re-focus on the community rather than policy and work for the greater good not just a vocal minority who happen to share your views on cars.

[BrandNewGuy]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Since the Lib Dems voted for CPZ on limited

> streets, and there was clearly at least one street

> that wanted it, it strikes me that the Lib Dems

> were the only councillors trying to find a

> compromise solution for everyone - the very spirit

> of democracy.

The compromise solutions involved limited CPZs on an "experimental basis". When I asked the perfectly reasonable question as to how the success or failure of the experiment was to be judged, I didn't get an answer - because they haven't thought of one yet. No-one in their right minds would allow an experiment to go ahead without knowing the parameters by which it was being judged. But "experimental" sounds sort of cosy and votable for...

Oh, and not all compromises are necessarily the right solution.

> Why buddug thinks James is going to come out into

> the foyer to be accosted by a furio who wants to

> get their freehold for nothing is beyond me. I can

> imagine buddug raising her voice and crowing as

> she plays to the gallery...

This is a thread about the CPZ - please take your argument elsewhere.

> There has also been a ridiculous amount of

> unnecessary attacks on the Lib Dems and

> particularly James throughout this thread from

> people using the CPZ as a vehicle for their own

> issues.

And what would those be?

> Whilst Mscrawthew only wants to thanks those who

> opposed the CPZ I'd like to state my admiration

> for those residents who had the temerity to stand

> up to the large numbers of aggressive bullies who

> want to exploit their neighborhood as a free

> carpark.

"large numbers"? How many? Are these the "commuters" we're talking about? Let's get this clear - the council's own research counted 100 commuters in the whole area - but their definition of a commuter is someone who parks for more than 6 hours in a day but not overnight. So that includes local teachers, shopworkers, office workers, health workers etc etc. Not quite the thoughtless station users that were painted last night, though they don't know for sure because no-one tried to find out what proportion of these commuters used the station.

"aggressive bullies"? Really? Show me some evidence of bullying.

"exploit their neighbourhood as a free carpark"? Do you mean "park their car"? It seems to me that the issues talked about last night including freeing up spaces in the area, looking for other parking options, encouraging the use of public transport by local schools and employers etc etc have been ignored or downplayed throughout the CPZ process. I only hope they get the prominence they deserve to see how much they can help.

> That took some balls guys.

Maybe they could have done with your gracious praise last night, H. Why weren't you there? Oh yes, I remember...

[She'llsurvive]

Can't you just stop the personal attacks, unjustified attacks on integrity and aggression now please. You have won.

I have a lot of respect for James Barber as a local councillor, and it appears here he was trying to help some residents. He may have been wrong and clearly his proposals didn't go through, but i see no evidence at all that the claims which are still being repeated this morning have any foundation and just seem designed to stir up feeling against the proposals.

The whole debate and 47 pages all with significant amounts of vitriol leaves me much sadder about my neighbourhood and those who have been happy to stand behind such aggressive behaviour supposedly in the name of democracy.

[gedwina]

47 pages on the CPZ

4/5 pages in the sales section about a local resident facing homelessness

Interesting contrast.

[BrandNewGuy]

gedwina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 47 pages on the CPZ

>

> 4/5 pages in the sales section about a local

> resident facing homelessness

>

> Interesting contrast.

In what way?

[Loz]

gedwina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 47 pages on the CPZ

>

> 4/5 pages in the sales section about a local

> resident facing homelessness

>

> Interesting contrast.

That is probably a reflection on the fact less people read the sales section. I'm just reading the threads now for the first time as I was not aware of them.