Nopermit <nopermit@email2me.net> wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<bnqoco$ivf$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>...
>> Nopermit <nopermit@email2me.net> wrote:
  
>>> No the Council polled 775 households got 92 responses, of whish 60%
>>> were in favour ( around 60 households).
 
>> Why "No"? It is quite plain - 683 households did not bother to vote,
>> and therefore they have no right to complain. They were given the
>> opportunity to state their viewpoint, they decided not to. Of those
>> who decided to state their choice, the majority voted for a CPZ.
>> Seems to me that democracy means the CPZ goes ahead.
 
> Like I said, the scheme affects 1000 households - so some observation
> would have shown you that 225 households weren't even included in the
> "consultation".
> Whether or not 683 households did or didn't vote (and the sick, dead
> and otherwise absent would have found that difficult), the fact
> remains that of a population of arround 2000, the Council gained the
> support of around 120 (or 60 households).  Unlike Dundee City Council,
> some might argue with the lack of interest (or embarrassingly low
> interest - barely above 5% support) then the correct policy would have
> been to maintain the status quo - ie not introduce a CPZ

The fact remains that the vast majority of people when asked couldn't be
bothered to reply. Of those who could be bothered to reply, the majority
favoured the CPZ. I think people need to learn that if they don't vote,
they run the danger of getting something they don't want.

>> But voter apathy here clearly makes no sense. No evidence has been
>> provided that it was pointless voting because the council would put in
>> the CPZ regardless of the result. So far as I can see, the
>> council in good faith ran a consultation, and would not have set up
>> the CPZ if the majorty of those who voted had voted against it.
 
> How low would the level of support for the scheme have to be before
> the Council decided not to go ahead? Your logic is bewildering!

The logic that a decision goes to whichever side gets the most votes
makes perfect sense to me. 
 
>> You have not answered my question. You complain about there being
>> "only 400 parking spaces" but you have not said where any others might
>> come from. 
 
> Well had council planners marked the roads more efficiently they could
> probably have got 1 25% increase on the number of spaces now
> available, but that's besides the point.  The fact remains that the
> council is selling permits for a service - and that service is
> something they cannot physically provide.  In other circumstances the
> contract lawyers would have a ball.

The permits represent the cost of policing the CPZ. The amount quoted 
does not seem out of scale for this, in fact it's rather cheaper than
for CPZs where I am. Thus your idea that it is a "money making scheme"
doesn't make sense. It looks like it's no more than cost price, if that.

> But not so here - visitors cannot get permits - and p[ermit holders
> have a 72hour restriction on parking - so I cannot go on holiday for
> over three days and leave my car parked at my home!! you wonder why we
> apathetic people whinge?

Yes, I can accept that's certainly an error in implementation that needs
rectifying. Was it made clear that this is how it would work in the
publicity material that was circulated before the ballot? 

>>>> Unfortunately, a lot of political whingers don't seem to understand
>>>> the concept of finite resources. Even more unfortunately, a lot of
>>>> politics is about managing finite resources. 
  
>>> Well perhaps employing decent road planners would be a start!!
 
>> So you want demolition of all parts of our towns that were built
>> 50 or more years ago when most people did not own cars and planners
>> did not think in terms of mass car ownership? In my case that would
>> mean demolishing almost the entire borough. 
 
> Alternatively, planners could work with, for example NHS Trusts (who
> have taken to centralising services in areas where road layouts
> cannot, for exactly your reasons, cope with the increased commuter
> traffic.  In my case, perhaps the Hospital could have built a free
> carpark for staff (or even allowed free staff parking in its existing
> carparks) instead of selling of various land assets (or taxpayers
> property) to the lowest bidders.

Do you have proof that there were bidders who were prepared to pay
more for the land but were refused? 

Of course, a "free carpark for staff" would not have been free. It
would have had to be paid for somehow - by the taxpayer, or perhaps
by cutting services in the hospital. If the money had not been made
by selling the land, again it wold have had to be made up by the
traxpayer paying more, or health services being cut.

This is what I mean by "whingers". People whinge about having to pay
taxes, and when as a result taxes are kept down and places like hospitals
are forced to get by through selling off any assets they can, they whinge
at the knock-on effects.

What I am getting at is that it would help us all if people were to
accept that much politics is about balancing out finite resources,
that there aren't usually easy answers to this because you will always
get conflictimg demands for these resources, that to whinge about
all politicians being evil bastards under the supposition that if they
weren't they could magic up infinite resources is very damaging to
democracy, and that the political process needs a steer by people being
actively involved e.g. voting and responding to consultation. 

Matthew Huntbach
 
Matthew Huntbach