LeMaquis Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I've not got a problem with subsidising things, but believe that it should be based on a person's ability to pay not their geographical location. I take it from that that you'll be proposing a means-tested scheme which will be even more costly to administer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 No it doesn't. The Council have never interpreted a no response as anything other than a no response. The plain fact is that it is very difficult to elicit a response to consultations from most residents and businesses. Response levels are normally quite low. Consultaions are to give decision makers a flavour of local opinion, they are not a ballot. Yes, the council isn't really interested at all. Where ballots are held, as some have been in certain parts of the city on whether or not a particualr street is included in a scheme, the basis for the ballot is clearly explained and it is normally highest number of responses for or against wins. That at least sounds fair. Although I'd like to see the explanation and the arguments presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narden Dee Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 this thread is a farce we have a green councillor ( or prospective ) arguing about something that affects a small majority of people when there are bigger things within this city that need sorting out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Yes, the council isn't really interested at all. That really is a load of rubbish. If they were not interested, they wouldn't take the time and effort (and of course the not inconsiderable cost) to ask. The minimum "consultation" they need to do is just advertise the legal order in the legal notices column in a local newspaper. They don't even need to put up notices on street. The consultation they do is far above legal minimum and is in line whith what other authorites do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Would you not then concede that anyone who runs a car can afford £36 per annum? It's about half a tank of gas after all. Not exactly a kings ransom when compared to the other costs of running a car. So would you base all Council charges for services on a person's ability to pay? And again, how does lowering the cost of motoring sit with your party's green credentials? So you believe that because someone can afford to run a vehicle then they are ripe for fleecing for a parking permit. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litotes Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 That really is a load of rubbish. If they were not interested, they wouldn't take the time and effort (and of course the not inconsiderable cost) to ask. The minimum "consultation" they need to do is just advertise the legal order in the legal notices column in a local newspaper. They don't even need to put up notices on street. The consultation they do is far above legal minimum and is in line whith what other authorites do. But then they ignore the residents. In open and public consultation meetings they take no minutes. Specific requests are ignored and not minuted They ask for the residents' opinions when half of the residents aren't there (July - August) When asked to present the residents views, the councillors say they can't as they do not belong on that particular panel Which all suggests that the council is wasting even more money. Why do it if all they are going to do is ignore it? For info Sharrowvale 2010-2011 Income £659896 Expenditure £507552 Sharrowvale 2011-2012 Income £782817 (+18% on 2010) Expenditure £472147 (-7% of 2010) So not only are they milking us for even more, they are becoming better at doing it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuttsie Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 But then they ignore the residents. In open and public consultation meetings they take no minutes. Specific requests are ignored and not minuted They ask for the residents' opinions when half of the residents aren't there (July - August) When asked to present the residents views, the councillors say they can't as they do not belong on that particular panel Which all suggests that the council is wasting even more money. Why do it if all they are going to do is ignore it? For info Sharrowvale 2010-2011 Income £659896 Expenditure £507552 Sharrowvale 2011-2012 Income £782817 (+18% on 2010) Expenditure £472147 (-7% of 2010) So not only are they milking us for even more, they are becoming better at doing it!!! They need the money to pay the chief executive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Why do it if all they are going to do is ignore it? Yet again you (deliberately) mistake not agreeing with you for ignoring you. ---------- Post added 12-02-2014 at 20:19 ---------- When asked to present the residents views, the councillors say they can't as they do not belong on that particular panel That isn't true. It was a meeting held in public. Councillors who weren't on that board could attend the meeting and ask to speak just like any member of the public. I've seen many Councillors do just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Yet again you (deliberately) mistake not agreeing with you for ignoring you. ---------- Post added 12-02-2014 at 20:19 ---------- That isn't true. It was a meeting held in public. Councillors who weren't on that board could attend the meeting and ask to speak just like any member of the public. I've seen many Councillors do just that. Given the figures posted in last post quite obvious the council are on a nice little earner in Sharrowvale alone,and I think its safe to assume the council are also racking up the profits in the other permit zones. So given the vast profit made from permit zones, why do the council charge householders £36 for a permit. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Given the figures posted in last post quite obvious the council are on a nice little earner in Sharrowvale alone,and I think its safe to assume the council are also racking up the profits in the other permit zones. So given the vast profit made from permit zones, why do the council charge householders £36 for a permit. ? They might be using it to cross subsidise the Sheffield dumpit sites, so that Barnsley residents can use them without paying for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now