Sinister anti-CPZ posters in shop windows

[edcam]

You lost me at "akin to pro-regime propaganda I've seen in Syria and Iraq" Get a grip.

[NewWave]

Either way its the death knell for our local buisnesses and characterful high street.

brace yourselves for more independent traders closing and LL full of chain stores chain restaurants and estate agents.

I saw it happen in North Kensington despite widespread opposition by residents and traders alike.

[Penguin68]

BTW where were all these second hand pram shops you keep referring to? I can only remember one at the Goose Green end of Lordship Lane!

There was one at the other end, close to where Franklin's Farm Shop is now, if memory serves.

[edanna]

I think it?s exorbitant rents that are the biggest risk to independents.

NewWave Wrote:

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

> Either way its the death knell for our local

> buisnesses and characterful high street.

> brace yourselves for more independent traders

> closing and LL full of chain stores chain

> restaurants and estate agents.

> I saw it happen in North Kensington despite

> widespread opposition by residents and traders

> alike.

[stefd]

I'm not sure that 37% response rate is correct. The interim report states that:

A total of 7,180 consultation packs were sent out to 81 streets within the consultation area...

We received 2,244 responses from residents and businesses/organisations within the consultation boundary...

418 responses were received from visitors to the area taking the total of responses to 2,662...

The 37% figure comes from comparing 7,180 consultation packs to 2,662 total responses (2,662/7,180 = 37%). However packs were only sent to streets within the consultation area (I assume one per household but I don't know) but the total responses include those from outside the area. Moreover the report also states that "More than one response per address was accepted but duplicates removed where the same name was used" so it's not as if we can use the 2,244 figure either.

I don't think we have enough data to know what the response rate was. I wish we could see the full data set, it's so easy to misrepresent statistics.

[Sally Eva]

I went to the closing down sale of the kitchen shop at the Goose Green end of LL. I asked the owner why he was closing. He said taht the landlord believed that he could get a much higher rent. He said his shop was profitable but wouldn't be at the higher rent so he had no option but to close. He was losing his livelihood.

I haven't looked recently but for a long time the shop was empty and the economic situation hasn't got any better.

edanna Wrote:

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

> I think it?s exorbitant rents that are the biggest

> risk to independents.

>

>

> NewWave Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Either way its the death knell for our local

> > buisnesses and characterful high street.

> > brace yourselves for more independent traders

> > closing and LL full of chain stores chain

> > restaurants and estate agents.

> > I saw it happen in North Kensington despite

> > widespread opposition by residents and traders

> > alike.

[Rockets]

Does anyone know what the point of this thread is? I am struggling to work out what it is trying to achieve. Do people want the posters removed on the basis that the stat doesn?t take into account the turn-out? That makes no sense.

The stat quoted comes from the council so whomever designed the poster is perfectly entitled to use it.

And Lowlander says the poster says 68% of people voted against it, it doesn?t it actually says 68% oppose the CPZ which, based on the council?s own results document is perfectly factual.

And let?s remind ourselves that the process saw the council send information booklets to each house or premise in the proposed CPZ with instructions on how to partake in the process to register their vote on whether they wanted a CPZ on their road. And upon logging on to the site each respondent was to indicate which road they live in within the CPZ area and if they did not they had to identify themselves as ?other? which I am sure became the visitor category.

So how can the 68% not be reflective of the views of the area....what on the basis that not everyone voted? Really? That?s nonsense.

If you want another stat from the council?s own report that show the weight of opposition to the CPZ read the below:

Street-by-street analysis shows that within the whole study area 15 streets supported a parking zone while 54 streets were against. 10 streets were undecided and there was no response from two streets. Figure 2 below shows, based on responses, majority support in green, majority against in red, and undecided in blue.

That seems pretty conclusive.

Fine, maybe you want to claim that not every residence in East Dulwich was part of the process but I am pretty sure that if more properties were polled (on the other side of Barry road for example) then those opposing it would be a greater percentage as the further you get from the VRA zone around the station so support for the CPZ wanes massively.

So can someone who is pushing this agenda please explain what the issue with the posters really is, is it maybe that the pro-CPZ protagonists don?t want people to think the majority don?t want it or are keen to drive the narrative away from the annoyance of many with the way the council has handled this, especially those in Peckham West who have been treated even worse than those in East Dulwich.

[Lowlander]

Hi Rockets

I started this thread to find out:

(a) why the poster is posting fake stats and facts (i.e. there was no 'vote' and 67% of ED residents did not vote against a CPZ)

(b) who I an contact directly regarding the posters? Someone has enough resource to design, print and persuade businesses to put up this poster, under the guise of anonymity. There are plenty of people in ED who would be willing to go public and represent them if they wish to retain their anonymity.

I've tried to be as polite as possible but have been told to "get a grip", that I have a pro-CPZ agenda (I don't), and had the thread populated by anti-CPZ material which belongs on the main thread.

For the last time, can anyone tell me why the poster states that "67% of ED residents voted against CPZ"?

And a bit of detail on who is behind the campaign?

At least if I'd picked on a massage advert I'd have had a happy ending by now...

[Eileen]

Hi Lowlander - your post seems to assume that the person doing the posters deliberately left off the details of the originator. I have been involved in producing community posters for many years and agree it is very important to always give the creator / contacts about the poster. Because I also think this is important, I notice when they are missing, but also that often it is more from an oversight or lack of awareness than from deliberate concealment.

[stefd]

The posters don't use the word "vote".

[Hemingway]

So the business owners whose livelihoods will be threatened by a parking zone put posters in their windows correctly quoting figures in a well and widely published consultation show that the majority of ED residents oppose it and the OP finds this 'sinister'? How bizzare.

[Rooster Booster]

I think we all know that 67% of respondents does not equate to even half of those invited to respond with their views.

The hysteria by some over this is quite ridiculous, as it seems to think that a CPZ will decimate the area. All over our city there are similar areas which are thriving under a CPZ - look at Clapham, Brixton, Greenwich, Blackheath, Balham. Besides this area is easily accessible by public transport, and surely with climate change so high on the political agenda, encouraging people out of their cars is a good thing. And, considering how little parking there is around Lordship Lane, I think it is clear that most customers do not drive to the LL shops.

I am not in favour of the full time CPZ plan - I think a part-time CPZ, or a CPZ down one side of each street, would be better, providing a disincentive, but not a total prevention, or car commuting into the area.

[Abe_froeman]

If it's true that half of the signatories to the petition were visitors to the area that is very concerning indeed.

Losing 4,000 customers would decimate the high street and with that ED can kiss goodbye to its house prices.

[Rockets]

Lowlander - we are going round and round in circles on this one.

May I suggest you do this:

- Head down to Lordship Lane and Re-read the poster - as I pointed out in my post it doesn't mention "vote" it says "oppose"

- read/Re-read the council's CPZ Recommendations document - the link to which is posted earlier in the thread from where the stat comes

- read/Re-read my (and other's) previous posts as it clearly lays out why the creator of the poster is perfectly entitled to use the stat they do and why it is based on fact and is not at all fake

- Contact EDIBA (as I suggested some posts ago) if you want to determine who created the poster - it's clear no-one here knows and they will have a much better idea than any of us....although I am not sure why you are so obsessed with who is behind it. Why cant you satisfy yourself that whomever is behind this poster (and the one that shopkeepers displayed previously) is someone who is interested in protecting Lordship Lane from a CPZ? Just as the Vale Residents Association want to promote why they think there should be a CPZ (no one has been demanding their contact details).

A lot of people have taken time to try to answer your questions but you appear not be listening.

[first mate]

If the poster does not use the word 'vote' isn't it 'fake news' to suggest it does and to keep repeating this?

[TheArtfulDogger]

When I first started looking at this thread I imagined a poster showing in black and white councillor Livingstone's head floatining ominously on a black background with a sepia toned single message below it "CPZ", akin to the 1932 poster used in Germany

Now that would be sinister

But no, having seen the posters, that are part of the East Dulwich traders response to a minority of voices supported by the local authority pushing thier agenda, then there is nothing sinister about them.

Rooster , I've been to many areas where CPZs have been implemented and the traders in them all say the same things, the introduction led to a reduction in footfall and visitors to their businesses resulting in closures and supermarket "local" stores moving in as they trade after the CPZ hours ...

I for one don't want to see that as I value the independent nature of East Dulwich and being able to shop locally as the businesses are supported by both locals and visitors to the area.

[goldilocks]

A few points on the comments above:

1. It would indeed be massively concerning if 4000 people instantly stopped shopping on Lordship Lane as a result of the CPZ - catastrophic in fact. But no one is saying that they will and conflating 'I got here by car, and / or and would prefer there not to be controls on parking' with 'and if there is I will never come here again' is a leap!

2. The VRA has not been "campaigning for a CPZ". Their response was shared widely around the houses in their area and was supportive of the consultation, but their aims were more around ensuring that the needs of local businesses were met (eg suggesting longer unpaid times in the 'short stay' bays to better reflect the needs of the businesses as well as suggestions like reducing yellow lines by driveways to maintain spaces).

3. There is a separate group for those in favour of a CPZ on the roads surrounding East Dulwich station. This group has a twitter feed and email address and is by no means anonymous. It has had representatives speaking at council meetings and sent a deputation to the council assembly.

[Abe_froeman]

Re 1. even if only a quarter of those 4000 stopped shopping here that would probably be enough to close a number of businesses and empty shops are like falling domminoes for the rest of a high st.

Re 3. Thanks for pointing this out. Their twotter feed includes the poster so the "voted for" / "objected to" question can be answered:

Disappointed to see some of our favourite Lordship Lane shops & local businesses campaigning so hard against something which will improve the environment for shoppers & local residents. A CPZ is supported by a majority from within the zone being recommended. #cleanair pic.twitter.com/wJ43Qp2PKz— EDstationparking (@edstnparking) April 24, 2019

 

[Rockets]

and to Rooster Booster here is a post from this very forum from someone who lived in Brixton on the realities of a CPZ that was posted back in January.....you can expect a similar situation to befall East Dulwich upon implementation of the CPZ.....

"I am 100% against this. I used to live in Brixton/Herne Hill when they introduced CPZ there. I was a 10min walk away from the tube. The CPZ around the tube, bumped cars onto neighbouring streets until the whole area was covered in CPZ. I now hate going to Brixton because I'm always watching the meter, looking out for traffic wardens who patrol the streets on mopeds hoping to catch people out.

I now only go to Brixton if it's essential even though I have family who still live there. I can't pop in for a cup of tea to see my mother in law as that will cost me ?3 per hour. I've been given parking tickets because I completed a visitors permit in pencil (not pen) so that cost ?120 over 2 days. Does anyone in their right mind want to invite this into their lives???

This will not benefit our community. It will alienate visitors

I for one will be very sad if a CPZ is introduced to the ED."

[Galileo]

and speaking as someone who used to live in the Brixton CPZ, it was great. With one of the only tube stations in South London being there it would have been hideous without the CPZ. It is a shame to get a ticket for filling in the permit in pencil, this is to stop them being reused and would not now happen with electronic permits. The person referred to in the previous post would likely not have got a fine without the CPZ being in place, but this is because s/he would have been unlikely to be able to find a parking place on the street!

[exdulwicher]

Re 1. even if only a quarter of those 4000 stopped shopping here that would probably be enough to close a number of businesses and empty shops are like falling domminoes for the rest of a high st.

That pretty much never happens though. There are now countless studies from the UK and abroad which shows that every time you improve the area in terms of removing cars, people spend more time and money in that area because it's simply a nicer place to be.

https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/policy-and-resources/our-policy/high-streets

There's a pdf available on there called The Pedestrian Pound which looks at multiple aspects of pedestrianisation, restricted motor traffic, retail footfall and spend and so on. Interesting read. Happens with cycle lanes too - the usual furore about cycle lanes removing parking and the standard "lycra lout" comments but then once it's in, the shopkeepers all find that actually it's beneficial. On a (sort of related) point, house prices near to Santander Cycles docking stations are higher than those that aren't (in the same way that being near a train station etc means higher prices because of improved convenience).

And Lordship Lane is accessible (at various points along it's length from Dulwich Library to Goose Green) by about 6 different buses from Peckham, Herne Hill, Forest Hill, Camberwell and North Dulwich and by a train station at the northern end (East Dulwich).

The problem is that people are generally very lazy - they'll always take what they perceive to be the easiest option) and also very resistant to change (they'll always do what they've always done) and what they've always done is a result of the urban environment in whcih they've found themselves. If you live somewhere where it's easy and cheap and convenient to drive a car, you'll do that. Remove the ease and convenience of the car (and this next bit is crucial) replace it with another easy convenient means of transport and you'll drive change. It's actually much easier and cheaper to walk so people walk (or use a bike or a bus or a mobility scooter) and they're helped to do that by quieter, more pleasant streets.

[Abe_froeman]

While that is a very interesting puff piece for their specific organisation, every single example they cite includes a large budget "public realm improvement" program.

We are getting some parking bays and a lot of double yellow lines and that's it.

Southwark aren't turning East Dulwich into a pedestrianized nirvana. They are just going to charge people for parking their cars.

[Lowlander]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Lowlander - we are going round and round in

> circles on this one.

>

> May I suggest you do this:

>

> - Head down to Lordship Lane and Re-read the

> poster - as I pointed out in my post it doesn't

> mention "vote" it says "oppose"

> - read/Re-read the council's CPZ Recommendations

> document - the link to which is posted earlier in

> the thread from where the stat comes

> - read/Re-read my (and other's) previous posts as

> it clearly lays out why the creator of the poster

> is perfectly entitled to use the stat they do and

> why it is based on fact and is not at all fake

> - Contact EDIBA (as I suggested some posts ago) if

> you want to determine who created the poster -

> it's clear no-one here knows and they will have a

> much better idea than any of us....although I am

> not sure why you are so obsessed with who is

> behind it. Why cant you satisfy yourself that

> whomever is behind this poster (and the one that

> shopkeepers displayed previously) is someone who

> is interested in protecting Lordship Lane from a

> CPZ? Just as the Vale Residents Association want

> to promote why they think there should be a CPZ

> (no one has been demanding their contact

> details).

>

> A lot of people have taken time to try to answer

> your questions but you appear not be listening.

Rockets, finally we agree. We are indeed going round in circles. I don't give a fig about the cons/pros of the CPZ (that's all on another thread). I didn't complain about the first tranche of posters, and I didn't complain about the petition.

If the poster didn't contain the "67% of ED residents rejected..." lie, I probably wouldn't even have started this thread.

I'm not asking for the posters to be taken down. I'm asking why it's acceptable to peddle misinformation, and hide behind the guise of anonymity.

After two days and two pages, my question about the accuracy of the 67% figure is answered. It's fiction, and that's been comprehensively proven by others here on this thread. You'e just using an age old tactic of glossing over that time and time again.

I'm not now expecting an answer to my question on details surrounding the organisation behind the posters. It would be in the public interest (since this affects us all), but I'm not a journalist, and don't have the resource to find out.

[TheArtfulDogger]

The group (not organisation ) behind the poster has been identified a number of times , read back through the thread and do your own detective work.

As for the 67% being a lie ... 67% of those who bothered to register an interest said no, sadly that's how things work, if you don't like it then become part of the government and change the rules but in my personal opinion you are just squeezing sour grapes with this thread and misrepresenting what the poster says to suit your own agenda.

Lol are you sure you aren't a council statistician ?

[exdulwicher]

Lowlander Wrote:

> If the poster didn't contain the "67% of ED

> residents rejected..." lie, I probably wouldn't

> even have started this thread.

>

67% of statistics are bollocks. ;-)

It still amazes me how badly statistics are used in day to day life - from journalists dumbing down whatever random story of the day happpens to have a background stat of 84% of people polled.... to adverts for skin cream claiming that "9 out of 10 women noticed a significant difference" and then the disclaimer underneath "poll taken from 104 women in a shopping centre in Gravesend on March 3rd 2014"

If you want a good example of how "statistics" can be used, watch the wonderful clip of Yes Prime Minister and how you get the answers you want...