Southwark-wide CPZ

[Rockets]

If Mal does ban all cars they will need a caveat and special exemption clause for those emergency journeys made to run furniture to their second home in France of course...

[CPR Dave]

Modern major general, have the council told  you what action they will take in response to your epetition on their website?

It seems to me that is a crucial piece of the campaign and you need to get as many signatures as you can, preferably more than 500 

  

[modernMajorGeneral]

53 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

Modern major general, have the council told  you what action they will take in response to your epetition on their website?

It seems to me that is a crucial piece of the campaign and you need to get as many signatures as you can, preferably more than 500 

  

We're enquiring. Subscribe to the website to keep up to date. Opposethecpz.org

Also, may be worth a new epetition aimed at the borough wide policy. Something we will discuss on Monday.

Edited July 9, 2023 by modernMajorGeneral

[hpsaucey]

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

If Mal does ban all cars they will need a caveat and special exemption clause for those emergency journeys made to run furniture to their second home in France of course...

Edited July 9, 2023 by hpsaucey
HUUGE emoji... replaced.

[malumbu]

Wow, I have a superpower to ban vehicles.  I was totally unaware.  How exciting 

[megalaki84]

Well, I'll poke the bear but I'm all for a council wide CPZ. Far too many people in Southwark have a car that don't need one making everyone's life more unpleasant. Best thing the council have done. 

[first mate]

Jolly good for you. If your lifestyle and responsibilities are such that you can go completely car free then that is marvellous. For many life without the use of a car can become immensely stressful and rental cars are not necessarily the solution. I posted a link to some interesting info on that elsewhere.

I dislike the fact that borough wide CPZ will make the lives of some residents much more difficult and costly. I also dislike the notion of charging Blue Badge holders.

Most of all, I dislike the slippery and Machiavellian approach to CPZ by this council, who have no mandate to impose borough wide permits and who seem to have told some rather large porkies when asked for information, at various points. This is important in terms of the democratic process.

Edited July 10, 2023 by first mate

[megalaki84]

95% of people can go completely car free in Southwark. I simply do not buy the excuse that more than a handful of people in Southwark need one. There are regular bikes, cargo bikes, delivery, car clubs, Uber, TFL. Owning a vehicle that gets used 4 times a year is not ethically neutral in my eyes and a kick in the teeth to our children's future 

[first mate]

How can you possibly be so sure? People have all sorts of responsibilities you are seemingly not aware of. But I feel no need to persuade you as you clearly have made your mind up that these are all just 'excuses', all car users are lazy etc.. I also think that there are many, many aspects of modern life that are arguably a 'kick in the teeth to our children' but there is this myopia about car use with too much emphasis on the stick and little on the carrot. 

 

 

[legalalien]

Whole subject of borough wide CPZ discussed at yesterday’s cabinet meeting.

Documents here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7677

 

YouTube here (sound quality very poor at start but improves later on.) watch from start, includes deputations from Living Streets and Nunhead CPZ objectors. Cllr McAsh acknowledges change of CPZ approach and says it’s required as a matter of justice - non car owners should not subsididise use of public space by car owners etc.

Haven’t watched it all yet but worth a watch if this is an issue you are interested in.

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by legalalien

[jazzer]

Can someone translate into what he actually means "Cllr McAsh acknowledges change of CPZ approach and says it’s required as a matter of justice - non car owners should not subsidise use of public space by car owners etc."

[Rockets]

Hmmmm, dangerous "justice" path for Cllr McAsh to plot on that one because it then could set the precedent "well I don't make use of that facility so should not be paying for it".

 

Is anyone going to the CPZ meeting at Dulwich Library tonight - if so could they report back it would be great?

[Penguin68]

Obviously the childless and those who didn't use state education facilities shouldn't have to pay for state education, so the method that the council chooses to balance those books would be to charge parents with children at state schools for that service.

That's quite crazy. The whole point of taxation is that we all make limited or no use of some things paid tor by taxes in exchange for the use of things we do use. You can't just cherry pick.

What contribution to road etc upkeep is being made by pedestrians and cyclists? Or to street cleaning by those with dogs?

There's a couple of old women on the pavement outside chatting, where are the rent collectors to charge them for their pavement usage. I'm not there and it's not fair they are using the pavement when I'm not. 

Considering that the council is a taxing authority it's more than a bit worrying that they don't understand the principles of general taxation. 

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

What contribution to road etc upkeep is being made by pedestrians and cyclists? Or to street cleaning by those with dogs?

Well since road upkeep is paid for by the council, the bulk of it comes from council tax.

And if you're going down the wrong-in-so-many-ways "they don't pay road tax" argument, I assume you'll also be having a go at emergency services vehicles, agricultural vehicles, most electric vehicles, mobility scooters, historic vehicles and vehicles that are used by organisations providing transport for disabled people which are all exempt from VED.

[Moovart]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Hmmmm, dangerous "justice" path for Cllr McAsh to plot on that one because it then could set the precedent "well I don't make use of that facility so should not be paying for it".

The council already started down that route years ago by charging individually for garden waste collection.  

[first mate]

3 hours ago, legalalien said:

Whole subject of borough wide CPZ discussed at yesterday’s cabinet meeting.

Documents here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7677

 

YouTube here (sound quality very poor at start but improves later on.) watch from start, includes deputations from Living Streets and Nunhead CPZ objectors. Cllr McAsh acknowledges change of CPZ approach and says it’s required as a matter of justice - non car owners should not subsididise use of public space by car owners etc.

Haven’t watched it all yet but worth a watch if this is an issue you are interested in.

 

I have tried to watch this. What a very fortunate coincidence for the scrutiny commission that the sound is so very bad on the reply about Jane Goodman's antics, as well as James McAsh on whether the Movement Plan was in fact a consultation, as asserted, mandating borough- wide CPZ. Again, democracy not in action. What is the point of these videos if the sound is so muffled you cannot make out councillor replies.

Apparently, a speaker was not plugged in properly. Actually this seems such a convenient omission/ mistake/ failure of equipment on key questions that I wonder if there are verbatim transcripts of what was said?

Edited July 11, 2023 by first mate

[Penguin68]

31 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

And if you're going down the wrong-in-so-many-ways "they don't pay road tax" argument, I assume you'll also be having a go at emergency services vehicles, agricultural vehicles, most electric vehicles, mobility scooters, historic vehicles and vehicles that are used by organisations providing transport for disabled people which are all exempt from VED.

That was rather the point I was making, I'm glad you understand how general taxation works. Even if you don't agree with it when it comes to privately owned cars. 

[Moovart]

10 minutes ago, first mate said:

I have tried to watch this. What a very fortunate coincidence for the scrutiny commission that the sound is so very bad on the reply about Jane Goodman's antics, as well as James McAsh on whether the Movement Plan was in fact a consultation, as asserted, mandating borough- wide CPZ. Again, democracy not in action. What is the point of these videos if the sound is so muffled you cannot make out councillor replies.

Apparently, a speaker was not plugged in properly. Actually this seems such a convenient omission/ mistake/ failure of equipment on key questions that I wonder if there are verbatim transcripts of what was said?

I've noticed that a lot of council meetings have such poor sound on zoom and YouTube that I'm beginning to wonder if it's another deliberate act of the council to avoid proper scrutiny.  If you can't hear it you can't comment on it.

[exdulwicher]

3 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

That was rather the point I was making, I'm glad you understand how general taxation works. Even if you don't agree with it when it comes to privately owned cars. 

Taxation is a greater good type arrangement. If everyone chips in a bit according to their means then there's a pot of money to benefit everyone with shared services. 

But then there are aspects of life which don't have any sort of greater good and indeed inflict significant harm on society. Smoking being a classic one where it's reasonable for the smoker to bear some of the additional costs that they are inflicting onto society as well as have some restrictions put on where they can "enjoy" their habit to protect others.

Same with driving/parking - no-one (other than the owner) benefits from their private property being left on public space or given unrestricted access due to the significant negative externalities such as noise, pollution, road danger etc imposed on everyone whether they drive or not so it seems appropriate to charge extra for that and/or put some restrictions on it, no?

The garden waste one is an interesting middle ground - why should everyone pay towards a service that only some use when there is no greater good aspect to it? There's no societal benefit to charging everyone for it, it's solely personal. So yes, someone with a garden should pay extra for the service that they (and they alone) benefit from. 

[Moovart]

25 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

The garden waste one is an interesting middle ground - why should everyone pay towards a service that only some use when there is no greater good aspect to it? There's no societal benefit to charging everyone for it, it's solely personal. So yes, someone with a garden should pay extra for the service that they (and they alone) benefit from. 

But you can chip away at that argument too. There is a cost to maintaining a garden that keeps a green space available to wildlife, water drainage and fresh air that benefits the overall environment.  If you pave over your drive (eg to avoid a parking cost) and install fake grass (to avoid any garden waste) you can avoid the cost of a garden waste bin but that's not good for the overall environment. 

General taxation to fund a range of services is a principle that a labour council would have once upheld but like many other things, it is beginning to be chipped away. I expect to see many more charges removed from general taxation and allocated to the individual as time goes on.

Parking charges for CPZ in streets that have no issues with parking is just another personal tax.

 

[Rockets]

The problem is there isn't much else left after gardens and cars that the council can justify as a "luxury reserved only for the super rich" that needs taxing...

[Pugwash]

Leaflet delivered to a friend's door speaks about meeting on Monday 17th July 6 pm at Christ Church Barry Road for Dulwich Hill residents - no mention of needing tickets.

[CPR Dave]

"Change of CPZ approach and says it’s required as a matter of justice - non car owners should not subsidise use of public space by car owners etc." 

 

outrageous. 

 

Why can't they just be honest. The only part of the council budget that is in surplus is roads, paid for by car owners.

[megalaki84]

No, all tax payers pay for roads, not just car owners. Road tax is paid to the Treasury, it isn't allocated to road maintenance and everyone pays.

I deeply object to paying for a minority of the population to endanger my children, pollute their lungs and trash their climate. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by megalaki84

[first mate]

You are replying to CPR by referring to something else. He referenced CPZ not Road Tax.

Of course everyone should pay for use of roads, everyone benefits from them, whether cycling, use of Ubers or club cars or delivery of goods you buy. As you know, the list of benefits is long.

Car users do however have to pay an extra tax each year by way of vehicle licensing and that money does go to the Exchequer for redistribution. Maybe some of it gets reallocated to DT, that is a govt decision.

Car users also pay toll fees which, congestion charges and some pay ULEZ.

The combination of CPZ and PCN raises a huge amount of money for the Council.