Loz

8-

Actually, Fred, although the traders were indeed against the crossing, I believe there was significant support for it from ED residents in general. But yes, if there is to be a consultation then if does seem rather undemocratic to be proceeding. But I thought the consultation was done ages ago?

Nice bit of micro-testing if he manages to implement it (and that's a big if). It will be interesting to see its effect. Any significant movement offshore of financial transactions should see the Robin Hood tax shoved aside by the rest.

http://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/files/4/0/1/7/thread-crap-wont_die.jpg

???

CPZs are like a container and the signage only needs to be at the entry points of the container. Your only defence is to find an entry point where there is no signage and say that that is how you entered the CPZ. Apart from that, if the signs around the CPZ are intact then you don't have much hope appealing on the basis that there was no sign nearby.

Thomas Micklewright Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Compassionate consumers - certainly the way for > things to change. Money shouts louder than any political message. Surely you've just outlined your own problem, Thomas? Consumers, in general, buy cheapest and hang the message. Middle class East Dulwich people(*) may spring for free range eggs and fair trade coffee, but most consumers buy the cheap and cheerful. [* we really need a collective term for 'East Dulwich people'. East Dulwichians? Dulwicheasters? East Dulwitches?]

Hey, silver linings and all that. At least the Aussie's completed a 4-0 clean sweep over India. :))

The councillors wanted it both ways on that one Hugo. The fact that they called it 'consultation' may be true (and playing safe from their point of view), but they were pretty quick to suggest that two roads 'voted' for a CPZ. The fact that the limiting of the area and the weighting of the responses from the consultation would suggest that something very like gerrymandering was attempted. Maybe not in the strictest sense, since it was not, according to the tin, a vote. But something really rather like it.

I suppose that depends on how you view the 'consultation'. If you view it as a vote and you consider that the council targeted distributed to the stakeholders that you could easily argue would be most likely to vote in favour as well as publicly acknowledging that they were weighting higher the votes received from this population, then you can make a very good case that they did indeed indulge in a practice not a very long way from gerrymandering. Not a long way at all.

I'm thinking something more like this, El Pibe...

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Car Clubs. Research shows that over time each car club car replaces around 25 private vehicles. But > of course any released spaces do seem to get abosrbed by others parking. Sadly Southwark > Council is about to increase the charges it makes car clubs from ?450pa for each space to ?650 pa. > This at best will supress the further rollout of car clubs. Shameless profiteering (so a bit like the CPZ, then). Either the council want to encourage and support car clubs, or they want to make a quick quid out of them. This is not joined-up thinking.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You felt that having a CPZ was going to open the > floodgates to McDonalds and Rumbelows? Rumbelows? You've been out the country too long, Hugo. You're a couple of decades out on the news - they went belly up years ago. Did you know that Marathons are now called Snickers, too? :))

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.

And a big cheer for the EDF. Without the forum, you can bet there would have been no way to get the groundswell of opposition together at such short notice. Just shows what a valuable resource this place is.

I have to say that I am disappointed that James chose to vote the way he did. But, on the other hand, one poor decision does not make him a bad councillor (though, given the voter opposition, it arguably makes him a poor politician :)) ) I suspect the sheer weight of opposition to the CPZ made him rather pig-headedly hold his line, rather than be seen to waver. On balance, though, he is still a force for good around here and I hope that he does not lose too many votes over the issue. Rose Shimmel sounds like a moron, though. What was she up to in the vote? Was she taking the piss?

Hugo, A more likely outcome is that a small percentage of better off residents buy parking permits and say, "Wow, this CPZ means I can park my car really easily". Meanwhile all the poorer residents who can't justify ?125 for a permit park in the next street, causing mayhem. Much like what is being reported from Lucas Gardens. Is that a pass or fail for the CPZ? The person with oodles of space to park the Merc would think it was just lovely. I would say it is a huge fail, though. Solving a problem by creating a bigger one somewhere else isn't a desired outcome in the wider sense. But... if a permit was added automatically (car owner or otherwise) to the poll tax charge for the street, you just might just convince me as that would stop the residents moving to the free areas. And Southwark would make a mint.

Zak Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 44 contacts ?in recent years?! In five years, I believe. So about 8 per year, with no indication if these are separate individuals or a small number lodging multiple complaints. One suspects that Southwark would not be making such a big deal over 8 complaints per year unless they stood to make a wodge of money out of it. How many people are complaining about bins and recycling?

That's a big (and mistaken) assumption that opposition is generally from as far away as Scutari, Hugo. Most of the opposition seems to be coming from a majority of the streets inside the proposed CPZ zone plus the immediate streets surrounding the proposed zone. Let's face it - the council tried to gerrymander a result by shutting surrounding streets out of the consultation, even though they are obvious stakeholders in the issue. But the consultation still returned a pretty clear 'no', so if you want to talk bullying, then trying to push through this measure in the face of such opposition easily classes as such. Drawing on dubious emotional arguments such as 'but think of the young families, older people and the disabled!!' doesn't really help, especially mischievously citing the disabled who can, if they apply, get a parking place right outside their house anyway. So trying to couch this argument in terms of helping 'less mobile groups' is just a tad disingenuous. Especially if, as is expected, the CPZ with either not work or just create a bigger problem elsewhere as the excess residents from Derwent seek fee-free parking elsewhere (ironically, probably the same groups you claim to seek the help, as they will be the least likely to be able to afford the rather high - in fact, one of the highest in London - parking permit fee.)

How the hell did you do that?

Looks like it ClareC - one of those pictures had someone in a wheelchair heading towards something that was probably a lift. But the big question is... where are they going to put the Oyster card readers?

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who cares about surrounding streets? > > > Do they give a damn about the streets near the > station? errr nope. Errr, the surrounding streets *are* streets near the station.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you use the results of the consultation? > There response rate was so low it makes the > results laughable. Eh? St Francis Road (not Place as I said originally) had a 39% response rate (higher than Derwent Grove) and Melbourne Grove 20%. > > The people are especially odd not > the streets?.. > > Too many cars due to too many properties may be > part of the problem but there is no solution for > that is there? Though a CPZ would have some > impact. It sure will ... on the surrounding streets. Which is precisely the problem that everyone in surrounding streets fears.

You want to explain, Sue?

... but pretty concerned about turbulent UK/US exchange rates, I'd guess.