|
|
 |
| |
Ridiculous to say poor will subsidise the rich
• YOUR article, Poor drivers to subsidise the rich (June 8), was more than misleading, it completely missed the point.
Islington Council is balloting on whether the cost of a resident’s parking permit should depend on how much the vehicle pollutes. Ballot papers were delivered to everyone on the electoral roll last week, and the deadline for returns is June 25.
Our proposal, should residents vote in favour, is to introduce a new green charging system for residents’ parking permits. There would be different bands of charges for different types of vehicle, with permits for more polluting vehicles costing more. The idea, ultimately, is to persuade people to drive less-polluting cars.
You reported, rightly, that the proposal at this stage does not extend to charges for residents’ parking on council housing estates. This is because housing estates operate a completely different system – residents are allocated a guaranteed space or garage where they can park their vehicle.
Homes for Islington (HfI) administers this system, not the council. But the point you completely missed is this – we have made it clear from the beginning that we designed the green parking proposal to be as revenue neutral as possible. This means that, should people vote for it to go ahead, the council’s overall income from residents’ parking permit charges should stay the same.
Some people will pay less than they do at the moment for parking permits, while others pay more. So it is ridiculous to suggest that people on housing estates will be subsidising any shortfall. Not only do they have a different service, run by a different organisation, the proposal is designed to be revenue neutral.
The second point you missed was that while the proposal does not extend to parking charges for residents on housing estates, we have balloted them as well. We want to know their opinion because the result will have implications for everyone, whether they own a car or not. Everyone suffers from pollution and the impact of climate change – in fact, national research shows that poorer people suffer disproportionately with traffic pollution.
And if Islington votes in favour of a green charging system, we expect HfI to respond to public opinion and look for a way to bring its own system in line.
We make no apology for encouraging residents to vote on this issue. Local people have told us they want us to spend more time and money asking their views on important issues – that’s why we’ve made listening to Islington our priority.
The traffic in your letters’ pages alone tells us that parking and climate change are two issues people really care about. And it’s because we genuinely want to hear their views that we are – as you pointed out – focusing on getting people to vote, rather than on trying to persuade them how to vote. We’re enjoying engaging with them in this debate and we look forward to the results.
CLLR JAMES KEMPTON
Lib Dem leader, Islington Council
• IN a borough where more people live in social housing than do not, and where more people don’t have a car than do, the council could have a greater impact on greenhouse gases by ensuring all council tenants have fuel-efficient boilers and low-energy light bulbs rather than seeking to change the behaviour of the minority who choose to drive.
Introducing higher permit charges for more-polluting cars does little to tackle the main problem of road traffic, which is the use of cars rather than the ownership.
What it does do, however, is make a good headline, puts a tick in the “something must be done” box and potentially earns the council money. Installing new boilers, on the other hand, would cost the council money and has far fewer opportunities for good spin.
GERARD LIVETT
Upper Ramsey Walk, N1
• IT is an outrage that residents’ parking permits on estates owned by Islington Council currently cost £195, while those on streets cost less than half that, at £95.
And yet, faced with the opportunity to make permit charges fair across the borough, the council has proposed in its green parking referendum to widen the gap between the charges for green vehicles even further.
The referendum proposes that someone with the lowest-emitting car would pay £35 on a street, but would still pay £195 on an estate – six times as much. I wonder how many people voting in this referendum realise this implication.
And, of course, the Lib Dems give excuses. They say they can’t make it fair because residents on estates get permits for bays rather than zones. They can’t make it fair because Homes for Islington manages the estates.
But the council owns the estates. If it had thought this through – and thought about everyone in Islington – we could be voting on a fair parking scheme. Yet the best the council can offer is that, if there’s a Yes vote, they’ll consider looking at the possibility of a similar sort of scheme on estates. This is a limp promise which lets down half the borough.
The harsh reality is simple: if there is a Yes vote to this referendum, the gap between streets and estates for green parking permits will widen. This is an inequality that Islington should not tolerate.
CLLR JAMES MURRAY
Labour, Barnsbury
• WE welcome any newspaper article or letter that raises the profile of our green parking charges referendum (Who will pay for this poll? June 1).
To me, the value gained from holding this debate goes beyond the carbon that will be saved if people switch to smaller, less-polluting cars. The referendum could get people thinking about broader environmental and consumer issues and the daily changes we can make that benefit everyone in the long run.
We know there will be both supporters and opponents and we look forward to engaging them in the debate – the first referendum on tackling climate change in this country.
CLLR LUCY WATT
Lib Dem executive member for environment |
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
