| Topic: | Message for the Lynch Mob | |
| Posted by: | Michael Brown | |
| Date/Time: | 30/01/11 21:19:00 |
| Paul, I’m glad you have posted your views on this matter. Regarding ‘LM’; firstly, I’d like to point out that, as far as I’m aware, I’m the only person on this thread (other than you) that’s come anywhere near defending the ‘mob rule’ comment made by Sam Hearn but, as you’ve implied, such comments can stick – I’ve simply returned the compliment and added some humour; I’m sorry if you didn’t fall about the place laughing. I’d like to respond to some of your other points. I agree with the comments made by John Hickman, so I won’t repeat those. You suggest that some people expect you to “unthinkingly oppress minorities at their bidding”. I’ve seen no evidence of this, and John Hickman has largely responded to these claims in respect of the reported problems in Elmwood Rd. Harvard Rd, which is just the other side of the A4 is practically an unused car park, which, in the opinion of many, may well be able to be used and help the residents of Elmwood Rd; but like every other councillor, you have not even acknowledged the positive suggestions made by residents as to how Harvard Rd can, perhaps, be used to help some of the “oppressed minority”. Why is this? You refer to last Wednesday’s meeting as being “unruly” with “a lot of needless barracking, which inhibited rational discussion.” I attended the meeting and I do not agree that it was unruly; some voices of the audience (and occasionally even more voices) were raised at times when specific comments were made by councillors, which alarmed them; examples being (in simple terms) that a ‘majority against CPZ’ may not be enough, and the revelation made that a developer was given permission to build 14 flats in Grove Park without any parking facilities, provided he/she paid for the CPZ consultation (under a Section 106 Agreement). Other than that, my observations were that the audience at the meeting were generally well mannered. It would be interesting to hear the view of Paul Lewis on this, who chaired the meeting. Also, whilst I respect you and the other councillors for attending the meeting, on which was never going to be an easy night for you, I think what you really found difficult was the questions being asked from the “antis” (as you call them) and the facts and figures that they were reeling off. You say that the councillors didn’t say much because they were there to listen. Well it seemed to me that you just had no answer to the accuracy of the information being put forward. Likewise, you were unable to put any evidence forward to show that the proposed CPZs would benefit the community. You say that it was “quite intimidating” for those in support of the schemes. I can well believe that, but I don’t believe that was through any fault of the attendees against the scheme. The fact that there was only a small number in favour of a CPZ in attendance is a good reason why they may have felt intimidated, especially when they’re only trying to solve their parking problems. However, most of them got their chance to speak and make their views known. You also suggest that the alleged intimidation “may explain where, as some have asked, all the supporters were.” What supporters? The small level of support that turned up was consistent with all the other facts, figures and surveys that have been carried out. The meeting was held in Elmwood Rd too, the apparent heart of Grove Park’s parking problems. I agree with you that with issues such as parking in a neighbourhood, problems should be shared, if possible. In other words, it’s better for all residents to be 80% happy rather than a large number of residents be 100% happy whilst a small number are 0% happy. The problem is, however, is that a large majority of people, including many with parking problems, do not believe that the proposed CPZ is the solution, and any possible benefit to a small minority will be overwhelming counteracted by a much wider range of residents given parking problems; not because they don’t care about an “oppressed minority” as you suggest. Sam Hearn includes small businesses within the so called “oppressed minority” but he hasn’t made any comment about the extortionate cost of a business permit, which for a commercial/private vehicle is £400 & £635 respectably. Where have these figures come from, Paul? Don’t even waste your time with a calculator to try and work it out – I can tell you that these figures have been pulled out of the air. Regarding how you may personally be affected by a CPZ, you say that the proposed Eastern CPZ “would tip a lot of commuter parking into my street” but if your street was included within the CPZ, you say it would be “a very great nuisance and another expense”. Well, the majority of people feel just the same way – a CPZ won’t help them either, and it makes no sense to create an oppressed majority. “What we should do, (as someone suggested at the meeting, to an inexplicable round of applause) is make the entire area a CPZ in one hit, (this was ruled out at a previous consultation meeting) and save all the nonsense and expense of repeated consultations street by street“. Well, perhaps you should, if you decide to proceed with this scheme. If it’s airport commuters, for instance, and you prevent them parking in roads like Chesterfield Rd and Park Rd, they’ll just park in the remaining roads such as Staveley Rd and Burlington Lane; that’s as good as fact, which you even know applies to you personally, so you already know that the proposed scheme won’t benefit you and, as already stated, won’t benefit most other people, whether they currently have parking problems or not. “We cannot exist as an island forever, not with www.parkforfree.com sending us new friends every day.” I say that the residents of Grove Park stay as an island until such time they’re given a better option to consider, and seen as the domain of www.parkforfree.com is up for sale, their future already looks brighter as things are. It’s not my intention to go into detail on this posting about my thoughts on the finer detail of the proposals; only that the map may as well have been given to a kid with some crayons to colour in. My other major criticism is the lack of research that’s gone into the scheme. Based on all the evidence I’ve seen, the council has failed to put forward good, solid and justifiable ‘parking problem solving’ proposals; and that is the cause of your problem, not ‘the mob’. |