| |
Poll tax for motorists
• ISLINGTON'S council leader, James Kempton, has taken another opportunity to trot out the same flimsy justification for last year’s massive hike in residents’ controlled parking permit charges (Together for a better borough, January 4).
He tries to justify this on the back of popular support from voters, but a closer examination of the facts, the background to the referendum and the council’s behaviour in its own backyard makes these deep green claims look pale indeed.
While it is true that a majority of those bothering to vote were in favour, more than 107,200 Islington voters did not endorse this policy. The majority in favour was just 4,343 – three per cent of voters. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
The policy was promoted on the grounds that the polluter should pay for the carbon emissions caused. Fair enough, but the pre-referendum publicity might have argued that a parked car produces no carbon emissions at all. An inconvenient truth, in the context of charging higher parking fees.
The council’s pre-referendum leaflet claimed that “Islington produces more carbon dioxide (CO2) than some small countries”. A good story, backed up by no discernable evidence – and 20,226 voters fell for it.
Even if it were true, it would be interesting to know how much of those CO2 emissions are created by Islington residents. Islington is bisected by oåne of Britain’s major trunk roads, adding all the while to our CO2 footprint. Why should we pay for others’ pollution?
According to its own website, Islington meets all the government’s air quality standards, except those relating to nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, pollutants which are associated mainly with diesel fuels, boilers and industrial processes. How big a part in this pollution do residents’ parked cars play?
The council did not answer my question about whether the new charging structure would be revenue-neutral, so we can safely assume it is another attempt to raise more funds for the council’s budget.
Reorganising a couple of council offices to provide energy-saving information (closed, I notice, on Saturdays) and installing a wind turbine do not strike me as justification enough. Islington’s parkkeeping staff use petrol-driven leaf blowers to clear pathways and tennis courts. How green is that?
If it really is necessary to charge for the operation of controlled parking zones, I believe such charges should reflect their costs and not be used as a means of supplementing the rates.
As a ratepayer and car owner (but commuter by public transport), I resent being held to ransom, as an easy target to shore up Islington’s budget deficiencies. If the council is short of money then it ought to find more honest ways to bolster its funds than dressing up a poll tax for car owners as a green initiative.
BARRY NEEDOFF
N5
(Address supplied)
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
| |
| |
| |
