E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[garnwba]

can you take buddug with you?

[Penguin68]

I'm not sure how introducing a CPZ constitutes altering electoral boundaries

The gerrymandering reference was (a) to the slightly weird shape of the proposed CPZ itself - which excluded some roads close to ED station - and (b) to the roads which were being polled as to their views, excluding roads which would have been impacted by a CPZ while giving CPZ proposed raods an option to consider the impact on them of another road close being CPZ-ed.

[helena handbasket]

garnwba Wrote:

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

> can you take buddug with you?

(tu) She must be even boring herself by now.

[ed_pete]

Penguin68 - thanks for your interpretation of Giles's statement. I was under the impression that Southwark Council officers had determined the CPZ proposed roads, not the three LD councillors to who Giles referred.

[Penguin68]

I don't think that the LD councillors were initiators of the strange zone, which had something to do, it was claimed, with TFL who were funding the consultation, or even the rules regarding consultation, but at least one of them very clearly supported and argued in favour of them. Most agreed there was no parking logic to the zone chosen, so one does look for other drivers.

[peterstorm1985]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I don't think that the LD councillors were

> initiators of the strange zone, which had

> something to do, it was claimed, with TFL who were

> funding the consultation, or even the rules

> regarding consultation, but at least one of them

> very clearly supported and argued in favour of

> them. Most agreed there was no parking logic to

> the zone chosen, so one does look for other

> drivers.

I think it is the drivers that are the problem......

[ed_pete]

@Penguin68

I see. So I am right in thinking that although you may agree with Giles (gsirett) on a number of other things regarding the CPZ issue, you don't agree that the LD councillors were responsible for Gerrymandering ?

[peckhamboy]

Do we really need an inquest on this? I think it fair to say that although there were two camps on the issue, views within those camps can vary widely. Gsirett and others did a great job of raising the profile of this council initiative and bringing it to the attention of people affected by it (whether favourably or unfavourably). Both camps would probably agree that the council should have made a better fist of that in the first place. Equally, he and others spent a lot of time investigating the truth behind the 'facts' presented by the council and counterbalancing the horribly skewed consultation document.

It was a highly contentious issue and some of the debate became quite personal against James Barber and other lib-dem councillors. That was wrong and mostly those concerned have conceded that. However, it has died down now in any case, and there is a more constructive thread on parking issues in its place. Let's just leave this one to die now and stop raking over the embers - or take it offline if you really need to know exactly where gsirett and Pingu are aligned and where they disagree.

[ed_pete]

Peckhamboy - no one is forcing you read or contribute to this thread are they ? What right have you to say what is and isn't discussed ?

Gerrymandering is a serious business, tantamount to political corruption in my view - remember Homes for Votes and Shirley Porter ?

The eighteen councillors that were consulted about the proposed zone and voted on the report may be guilty of many things but personally I don't believe that any of are guilty of Gerrymandering.

History is written by the winners and in this case I don't think that one of the winners - Giles - has got it right.

[Loz]

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.

[peckhamboy]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> Peckhamboy - no one is forcing you read or

> contribute to this thread are they ? What right

> have you to say what is and isn't discussed ?

>

As much right as you have to criticise me for saying it. However, I made no attempt to control what is or isn't discussed - merely suggested you take it up offline if you're that bothered about what Penguin68 thinks of one comment made by another poster. This thread has had a long and hard life and should be allowed the right to die in peace.

[flocker spotter]

Crikey - this is now up to 48 pages.

That shows how contentious this issue is.

And much of this is because the consultation and the area involved was too limited.

Driving passed the Dulwich Leisure Centre the other night I noticed how congested parking was in the surrounding area. Those close to North Cross Road suffer at weekends with shopper parking.

The fact is car ownership greatly exceeds places to park.

We live in a Victorian built area - if a house is divided into 2 flats, there will not be sufficient space for both residents of that building to park outside. Congestion is to be expected and tolerated.

Choosing a select few streets to look at commuter parking is a rather short-sighted view considering the total congestion in the area.

The consultation should be re-done considering the whole area - and a view of all residents across the whole area taken into account.

Only then can a clear picture be formed rather than a knee-jerk reaction to a few vocal residents.

[Huguenot]

Eh what Loz?

"Gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected districts."

What on earth does that have to do with the CPZ????

"If you view it as a vote.."

It wasn't a vote. If it was a vote it would have been called a 'vote'. It wasn't. At no point did anyone suggest it was a vote apart from those complaining about it not being a vote.

It was a consultation on the opinions of local residents on a CPZ.

I frequently ask people their opinion. It doesn't mean I agree with it or that I do as they say.

[Loz]

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.

[fazer71]

As I understand it they had not choice but to have the consultation.

Wasn't that part of the process?

It's a pity there wasn't a rule saying if there is less than a certain % response rate then the councillors make the decision the response rate was just 21%!

If there was such a rule I guess there would have been a much "edit spelling" bigger response rate.

And there would have been a clear democratic result.

Rather than ?85,000 wasted because 79% of the locals couldn?t be bothered to reply.

[Huguenot]

Except it wasn't a vote fazer71 - there was no %turnout before councillors make the decision because it wasn't a vote.

The councillors are there to make the decision, that's what they were elected for. We don't make decisions by referendum, we're a representative democracy. We elect representatives.

It was an opinion seeking exercise.

As such it was money well spent - it established the criteria for a CPZ, initiated discussions for and against, stimulated research into the effectiveness of these initiatives, opened up the community to larger questions about responsibilities for our immediate environment and concerns for others.

I'd say it was an absolute ROARING success! :))

[fazer71]

I never said it was a vote!

I never mention turnout!

If the results are used and the percentages quoted then they need to be put in context.

Which ever way you look at it vote or consultation.

The numbers show the views of just 21% of those who were asked.

One can't honestly expect to rely/use/quote or believe that such a pathetic % of those questioned should provide a basis for making any decision. So they should be put in the bin.

You are correct the ultimate decision is down to the judgement of the locally elected politicians.

Who could still go with implementing the CPZ.

But you wouldn't know that after reading all this B?&?&?s .

[Huguenot]

:))

[tomsav]

Just a belated well done to everyone who campaigned to get this ridiculous CPZ idea blocked.

And to add that I'll never vote for James or his LD colleagues again (and I did last time) because of the way he has conducted himself during this whole debate. He doesn't appear trustworthy.

[fazer71]

What on earth are you talking about?

And why are you Spouting your political views on here?

One decision by the LD you don?t agree with and now you?re voting Labour or the Monster Raving Loony party.

Do get a grip??.

The final decision has not been made yet.

Yes the assumption is that it?s going to be a No.

ASS out of U and ME ? all you like but I won?t .

[rch]

Actually, I'm also a Liberal Democrat councillor and I voted against the introduction of the CPZ at the Jan 24th DCC meeting, so I think it's unhelpful to make this into a political issue.

At the meeting, I explained in a nutshell exactly why these issues keep arising and gave my advice of what the public needed to do to address them longterm, but it seems that nothing I said has registered, which is a bit worrying.

[Penguin68]

Councillor Hilton

I wouldn't worry that there appears to be a lack of comprehension on this thread - there are a number of people posting who have very fixed, indeed immutable, views which are mutually irreconcilable. Many of us have boxed ourselves into ideological corners where a change of opinion would be a loss of face.

Which is why this thread still has people fighting battles in a war which is now ended.

[BrandNewGuy]

And there's a certain irony that most of the positive contributions on the thread suggesting practical actions that we can take now seem to come from those who were opposed to CPZ. I suggest we all decamp over there and throw in our penn'orth. Only by looking at all the issues surrounding local car use, parking, public transport etc are we likely to improve the situation or at least stop it getting worse.

[first mate]

BNG,

I agree, let us leave this thread to the 'clever' people.

[fazer71]

rch Wrote:

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

> but it seems that nothing I said has

> registered, which is a bit worrying.

Nope that's the norm around East Dulwich the local know it all.

They're very a clever bunch.

Infact they?re so clever one of them is going to come up with a parking fix which is not a CPZ.

I can?t wait!

Bunch of T???$?$