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
Wireless licence review hearing
https://www.facebook.com/events/1544478598987229/?ti=cl
Licence review hearing for Wireless. 15th & 16th Oct. at the Civic Centre, Wood Green.
Licence review hearing for Wireless. 15th & 16th Oct. at the Civic Centre, Wood Green.
Comments
I am glad the council have got their priorities correct..
Ffs
I read somewhere that the event moved from Hyde Park because of the licence regulations there - Haringey should have set the same rules - if they are good enough for the Toffs in Knightsbridge then they are good enough for us.
Finsbury Park - 3/10 - Islington Council / Haringey / Hackey
One set of squalid toilets, nice cafe (but can leave you smelling like chips), popular but dilapidited playground, small landscaped formal garden, rarely used sports ground, extremely dangerous at night, homeless campers, intimidating drunks, good road for running on, boating lake (but it needs a bit of TLC). Basketball court. Tennis. Skate park.
Many concerts throughout the year making 50% of the park unusable and the resulting wear and tear difficult to bring back to life. Associated ASB from the concerts in the local area . No investment despite the millions gained from running numerous events there. Should be the best, turns out to be the worst. An absolute disgrace to all councils involved who should be providing a space for "the many not the few" that really benefit from free communcal space and public facilities. JC should hold his head in shame on this one. He tends to sit outside so must find the chip smell on his shell suit annoying.
Victoria Park - 9/10 - Tower Hamlets (meant to be skint right?)
2 high quality childrens playgrounds and one splashpark, 2 excellent cafes, numerous lakes and ponds, football fields, good running space, large farmers market every Sunday, well maintained in all aspects. Happens to have a few concerts staged there every year, looks like the money goes back in. Best park in the city
Clissold Park - 7/10 - Hackney
Best playground in the area, but showing a few signs of underinvestment. Good looking cafe and main building, but a bit rubbish actually. Tennis courts, two lakes with fountains, MINI ZOO! Paddling pool, some local concerts and events. One set of toilets, which are a bit hit and miss. Nice formal area around the house.
Making a case around noise and bad langauge was such a waste of time. I would have been hammering them on the detail of where the money gets spent. Our local councils are mugging us off and blaming everyone else apart from themselves. Tower Hamlets has the best park in London, and would have had cuts just like everyone else.
FP vs VP.
Firstly VP is twice the size of FP.
So saying it has two toilets vs one toilet isn't saying much.
You mention homeless camping in FP, but don't mention that VP has the exact same thing.
You mention FP is unsafe, but fail to mention that VP has its fair share of crimes.
When you look at the list of sports facilities (you missed the baseball ground) it seems FP has more per area than VP.
I do not disagree that it seems FP needs more money spent on it. But the only solution to that is more gigs. Wireless festival provides about a quarter of the parks budget. We need it.
They make about a million a year from them, and it all goes in to the parks. The numbers are all available.
I get a bit sick of people wanting more money spent on the park, and not wanting gigs on it at the same time.
"but why can't it be like it used to be and the council pay for it"
"why can't I have ice cream for pudding"
My bias report aside, the issue is about "incremental spend". If you make a million, add it to the budget don't just take a million out the budget and then rely on it. I'll take the inconvenience of the events and the anti-social behaviour if it means that for 45 weeks a year we have a park that reflects the money that has been created from its rental. We don't, its rubbish, in fact its worse than before. As some have said, its quite cool having it on your doorstep and hearing familiar tracks on a hot summers evening through your window from afar, but i won't give up on the money issue. Its just not fair on people that live here.
VP hosts events and isn't under invested. So, whats the difference here then? Its twice the size and has less events.
What would FP look like if it didn't host the events. My bet.......the same.
The park makes a million and consumes a million.
Do you think the money is wasted some how?
I'm not as out going as I was a few years ago (dog, baby, getting too old for the hangovers), but VP has/had a few multiday gig/festivals in the past. Right? Feels like it was on a par with FP.
Maybe it being so much bigger meant that the fenced off area felt less imposing?
I believe Parking enforcement has been used in the same way, to such an extent that its probably a key revenue stream with targets because budgets now rely on it. I wonder what we'd see if everybody parked correctly and switched into electric vehicles. Probably a council tax rise.
I quote:
"Music festivals and other events in Finsbury Park helped to raise around £600,000 for the council last year – the majority of the £750,000 raised from park events across the borough.
But the Court of Appeal ruling recognised that, under the Open Spaces Act 1906, money raised by the council from the hire of Finsbury Park can only be spent on Finsbury Park.
It means the council’s £1.2 million expenditure on the Parks Service could widen substantially.
Councillor Tim Gallagher, Labour member for Stroud Green and chair of the environment and community safety security panel, said: “My understanding has always been that a lot more has been raised from events than is actually spent in Finsbury park.
“So, if it is the case that money raised from events can only be spent on Finsbury Park, we now have a considerable hole in the parks budget.
“That clearly has very serious implications – not least because our principal finding throughout this review is that the parks budget as it is is in trouble, and we are not funding parks as we should be.”"
But -
Haringey parks raised a total of £750k last year.
FP raised £600k of that.
The council spend £1.2M on the parks that year, which includes the money they earn from events.
The law says that the money earned in FP must be spent on FP only. It can't be used on other parks in Haringey or on other non-park related things in Haringey.
Those figures seem sensible to me. I would imagine that the parks would cost that much to run with the facilities we have.
You could file a FOI request and ask for the break down of expenditure on Haringey parks, if you want to know the specifics.
There is also the occasional few million from lottery grants, too.
So what do people actually want?
It sounds like people are saying they want few gigs on the park and more spending.
Well that isn't very realistic is it.
Haringey are meant to pull in 14million a year from it!
Maybe a speed camera on the park's road would solve all problems