CO2 parking charges scrapped (From Haringey Independent)

The former council and, it would appear, the local branch of "friends" of the earth keep tell us that this policy reduced CO2. But they still refuse to explain how.
People who own huge gas guzzling vehicles tend to be those who can afford large houses with drives (like council leaders). This policy isn't going to change their habits. The people affected the most by this policy are those of us who live in the town centres, who don't need to use our cars as we live near the stations. Why should we subsidise everyone else just because we want to park our cars (which, I'll say again, produce no CO2) outside our houses?
Take a look the recent election results. Those areas who don't have parking permits tend to be Liberal Democrat, and those who do tend to be Conservative. This backwards policy which does nothing which they claim it does has deservedly cost them their jobs. A couple less CPZs and they may still be in power.
I don't have the slightest problem with paying for a permit to cover the costs of administation and patrolling. CO2 should be charged at the pump, and it already is.

Dear Phil,
The issue is more complicated. What the RTT did not report from the Council committee meeting that debated the abolition is the fact that it will cost £410,000 that could otherwise be spent on essential children’s services. The latter were cut to the tune of £590,000 by the Council’s Cabinet only the day before.
To answer two of your complaints more directly: you note that you pay for a relatively high emission vehicle that you don’t use much. You also note that the charges do not affect those who park high emission vehicles on driveways. The charging scheme is an imperfect mechanism in an imperfect world: we should see it as a tax on ownership of higher emission vehicles rather than on parking. And it is a tax that applies only to those parking in CPZs. The point is that the fight against climate change is so serious that it has to be tackled by every means at every level, including by local councils who only have parking charges at their means as a way to influence behaviour. If you don’t use your car much perhaps you should opt for one with lower emissions or no car at all. If people have cars, they tend to use them. The alternatives to car ownership include membership of a car club like streetcar that allow you to hire a local car on an hourly or daily basis at short notice.

Am I alone in wondering what has happened to the R&TT letter pages? No more tirades against ex-Cllr Trigg and his draconian parking policies; no more of his routinely predictable responses. No more bilious attacks from Sir David Williams, Serge Lourie or C'llr Elengorn against anyone who dared to challenge the LibDem right to rule us as they saw fit. What a pity - it used to fire me up for the weekend! Instead we have a rather half hearted attack on the £100K cost of the Tories borough wide consultation by a new Councillor, Gareth Roberts of Hampton who, co-incidentally, runs a market research business. He was supported by his senior colleague, C'llr (just) Williams of Ham - distance yourself Gareth, it will all end in tears. Do the LibDems have no shame? Under their regime we incurred £1.3M for new complex parking meters and a "poison pill" legacy of £90K to convert the meters - that was an elementary contractual mistake which anyone in the private sector would have been disciplined for making. How much was wasted on the abortive Twickenham Riverside sell-off? £700K at least. They should be ashamed of themselves for their profligacy with our money rather than sniping at those who have to sort out the mess they have left behind - yet again.
Four years ago the LibDems sprang a number of taxes and cuts in service on us, starting with their own whopping pay rise and the CO2/CPZ tax wheeze in 2007, none of which were mentioned in their manifesto. By contrast the Tories are sticking scrupulously to their manifesto pledges and deserve a great deal of credit for doing so - what a refreshing change.
I attended half of the E&S scrutiny committee meeting on Tuesday about the scrapping of the pointless CO2 related parking tax schemes - I couldn't hack any more after watching Councillor Elengorn's theatrical outbursts, Councillor Elloy's irritation and Councillor Knight's endless leading questions which were mercifully cut short by the chair - if only we had more Councillors who have made a real living in the private sector, that sort of pointless time and money consuming debate wouldn't exist. There were two speakers in favour of the LibDem "call-in". Councillor Elengorn gave a ringing endorsement of a letter from the Friends of the Earth but failed to mention that the first speaker was undoubtedly the author of that letter, nor did the author acknowledge his probable role as local representative of the FOE - was he or wasn't he? Since he only referred to himself as a local resident, that omission fatally undermined his argument, how stupid was that? By contrast, James Page of the Green Party declared his role quite clearly - good for him.
The two previous correspondents make cogent points although I take issue with twickers425 who uses words I heard at the E&S meeting - "the charge is an imperfect mechanism in an imperfect world" Right! So why apply it? "Because its all we can do and we must do something" simply isn't an answer. I see the word "Tax" used twice in his post despite the fact that the LibDems did everything they could to avoid the "T" word when they introduced the "charge". In 2007, C'llr Elengorn referred to the scheme as "not so much a tax but a charge for a service which a resident may or may not choose to purchase". Fine if you have off street parking in Teddington, where he lives but hard to avoid if you live in a terraced cottage in Richmond.
It was a shoddy opportunistic bit of taxation which did nothing but harm to the cause which twickers 425 espouses. Coercion won't win the battle, it simply hardens attitudes and increases distrust of motive. The bond of trust between government and governed seems to have broken down in our green and leafy borough over the last four years - let's hope that the refreshing Tory initiatives go some way to restore that bond.
Alex

Alex, here is a reply from twickers425: I use words also used at the Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting because I was that first speaker. I didn’t declare my membership of Friends of the Earth because doing so would have been a false declaration. I am not a member of Friends of the Earth or any other environmental group. Perhaps I should have declared my membership of the Automobile Association since I am a motorist though one whose concern for the environment is such that I desire to be taxed off the road.
CO2 based parking charges are an imperfect solution but better than nothing. I note that Cllr Katherine Harborne wants “to try something new” in their place. What is your alternative? Is it just to redistribute £410,000 from vulnerable children to the owners of higher emission vehicles?

I really must apologise to twickers425, not for accusing him of being a member of Friends of the Earth but for wrongly guessing that he, as a brave 3 minute speaker, had another agenda - perhaps I could be forgiven for my error given C'll Elengorn's patsy questions.

I'm curious about this "redistribution of £410,000 from vulnerable children to the owners of high emission vehicles". When Councillor Trigg was justifying his CO2/CPZ tax, he had a letter published in the Richmond Informer on March 2nd 2007 headlined "Our proposals are legal, here are the real facts". Please check the whole letter - if they don't have it any more, I have hard copy. Here is an extract which has relevance: "If Mr Lawson looks at our proposals he will see that they are revenue neutral, ie, there will be neither a revenue surplus or deficit. Should there be a small surplus, as it is, clearly, not possible to get everything down to the last penny, then that will be spent on transport related activities. That is what we are require to do..." He also wrote another letter detailing the sort of transport related activities he was allowed to spend the money on - it referred to CPZ studies, bus passes and bus lane surveys - if anyone is interested, I will find it. This seems like an awful lot of pennies to add up to £410K - perhaps our administration are just as inept as HMRC at getting their numbers and revenue forecasts right?

What has any of this to do with vulnerable children who do not deserve to be dragged into a debate about CO2 emissions? Is this yet another shabby LibDem point scoring exercise?

Alex

Well spoken Alex.