Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
In this Discussion
Top Posters
- Arkady 5356
- miss annie 5139
- andy 4506
- Ali 3405
- krappyrubsnif 3208
- tosscat 2291
- David 2179
- ADGS 1875
- kreuzkav 1733
- Mirandola 1618
New cpz charges!
I have just been told that this year my Islington cpz charge has gone up by £100 !!! I still drive the same car as last year but they have just told me co2 emissions and the new roaming pass is why I must pay extra.
Oh well.... Will have to park on the Haringey side now, just to prove a point of not paying!!!!
Oh well.... Will have to park on the Haringey side now, just to prove a point of not paying!!!!
Comments
Plus, never really had a problem with additional exclamation marks. Certainly not to the extent where its the only thing i can say on a thread.
Part 1 of 2
Kevin,
What are the primary objectives of CPZ's in Islington?
According to you its....
*ensure our roads are safe
*enable traffic to flow freely
*give residents and local businesses priority over commuters
*provide parking for disabled people and health care workers
*ensure that the parking rules are enforced using common sense
In my view, its to control the number of stationary vehicles in the locality with a strong bias towards local residents and businesses. Ensuring they can go about their everyday life and business without interference from non-residents. After all, their council tax and permit revenues are spent in their area.
There doesn't seem to be a massive disconnect between my views and the your own, so why am i absolutely raging about your parking policies?
All residents would see a CPZ as a benefit to them and would be happy to contribute to a level that covers the administration of the scheme. With new permit prices now issued and accounts published for income and expenditure, i feel you have to justify yourselves.
You have full knowledge of what cars are registered to the area, which also shows you the best possible way you can supposedly generate income. When you look at the scales of emissions versus the jump in costs it is very apparent that its been set-up to maximise revenues. I propose that the "green" angle by which CO2 emissions and engine size determine payment, are more a means to charge rather than a means to encourage a change in behaviour. Given that cars depreciate greatly, the financial incentive to sell up and get a smaller, greener car, do not equal the benefits via the parking scheme. i.e. its cheaper to keep your existing car and pay than take a hit on the value of your car and a cheaper permit.......and i think you know that. Your research shows we can't respond......do not PUSH people on an agenda that is unachievable or hide behind it. Are all council cars electric cars? they should be if you want us to take you seriously.
Overall income/expenditure issues
My biggest grievance relates to your accounts. In 2009/10 you showed almost a £5m surplus. Permits and vouchers accounted for only 23% of your total income. You got most of it from your army of enforcers who raked in a cool £11m, Pay and Display £6.5m etc. The vast majority of your income comes from non-residents, and so it should. So why the massive hike in permit costs? We live here, have rights within our area. You should be protecting us, not taxing us more. Its vehicles in transit through Islington that cause pollution, not residents. You had a surplus but rather than look after us, you took it upon yourselves to spend it on "highway improvements" and "transport planning". Filling gaps in budgets in other divisions is not how my parking permit money should be spent. Do not assume that because we live in Islington and are car owners that we are affluent and are happy to subsidise stuff that you think is a good idea. Look at the role of the CPZ, and ask how its revenues should be allocated. Also, since its possible to itemise your income, you should be able to do so for expenditure. Its ommission from the accounts suggests that you are embarassed to publish it. I suspect the vast majority is on enforcement, which would make a fantastic newspaper headline....hence, no detail.
Consultation timings
I also take issue with the timings of the "consultation". 10th through to 31st of December, possibly the busiest time of the year for most, with a large majority leaving the borough for xmas. For the "consultation" to truly be a consultation you would build in a greater response time to the outcomes, rather than have a 31st Jan start date. I propose that you have ticked a box to say that you told people when in actual fact you never had any intention of listening to peoples concerns, suggestions and issues.
Roaming
While i'm not negatively affected by this (in actual fact positively), those residents living in IS-Z can have any IS permit come and stay in their area for the whole day. Given that the area is close to Archway tube, i'm sure this will mean that people can now drive up and park and hop on the northern line for work. Great for me, but what about those local residents who you should be protecting! I wonder what will happen in some areas when Arsenal play at home too.
Overall, i just think you're just taking advantage of residents. We have no choice unless we want to get a mass of parking tickets. We have made our homes here, we pay income tax, council tax, road tax, VAT, fuel duty, congestion charge, national insurance, inheritance tax, capital gains tax............and now also.......an inflated tax to park a car outside our own house. Start doing your job properly and get back to looking after your residents, rather than being lazy and automatically taking more from us and hiding behind so called green agendas. Just because you've been asked to make some cuts, does not mean that you automatically come to me and just ask for more money. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
This will be 4th note on parking without a response from your teams, perhaps you can take that into account when you publish your pointless self-serving KPI's. I'll put this on www.stroudgreen.org too and you can follow the debate there, by the looks of things the local papers enjoy lifting stories from there anyway.
@ADGS. Thanks. I know it won't change anything, but i just wanted them to know that we're not a load of muppets, we do know what they're doing, and that i think they're useless. At the very least, i'm sure it will have annoyed them. Part of me wants everyone to get an electric car so that £5m quid leaves the budget.
As in you won't have the same funding as before, so don't do as much.
Cut does not mean find funds from somewhere else to fill a gap.
Same lazy attitude that got us into the mess....someone else has to pay. "I don't have the skills or intelligence to get projects and initiatives away without saying i need more resource"...what a load of tosh.
Even if labour had won the election, i gaurantee i would be receiving the same letters so the libcon argument is pointless.
Congratulations to Labouur for winning a popularity contest in an environment of cuts and general depression. Didn't see that one coming at all. Well done them.
Anyway, anymore parking comments or do we need to move over to the all purpose political thread before everyone else gets bored?
I hope your tax isn't paying for parking either, it should all come via the scheme and its participants.
In economics terms, demand for owning a car is likely to be very inelastic - you either need one or you don't. People who need one, need one. On top of that, parking in Islington is more or less a monopsony - there is only one seller of on-street parking in the borough.
So i) people need cars and ii) they can't buy parking from anyone else. This gives you a situation where the council can push up prices and the consumer can't do anything about it. In most situations like this, you have a regulator (like in gas and electricity), but this doesn't happen with parking. On top of that the council doesn't have many types of income where it can raise money with such loose oversight, so the temptation is irresistible.
As a result, parking fees and fines are massively profitable and likely to be subsidising other parts of the council.
Things are often called luxuries by people who don't use them. Splitting things into arbitrary needs and wants introduces a hair shirt self-righteousness into discussions like these.
Remember, people who walk everywhere, barefoot, are better than you.