Banning traffic from towns

[2112]

I see on the NPM Professor Ashford is persuing a campaign against motorhome and commercial vehicles in residential areas. Instead of sorting easy solving solutions, the island will end up causing complications with a sledgehammer to crack a nut situation. There is an issue with motorhome parking which needs some attention. 

[Amadeus]

14 hours ago, Asthehills said:

@Amadeus

This is a genuine question.

With hindsight as someone in your position.  Would you park there again?

I might if I’m quickly dropping something off. I wasn’t parking there all day. 

 

[Amadeus]

4 minutes ago, 2112 said:

I see on the NPM Professor Ashford is persuing a campaign against motorhome and commercial vehicles in residential areas. Instead of sorting easy solving solutions, the island will end up causing complications with a sledgehammer to crack a nut situation. There is an issue with motorhome parking which needs some attention. 

To be fair we are getting a good number of complaints about this issue and I understand when residents aren’t happy that these types of vehicles are being dumped in residential areas. 

So while I’m here: what solution would be good? Any suggestions? 

[Omobono]

30 minutes ago, 2112 said:

I see on the NPM Professor Ashford is persuing a campaign against motorhome and commercial vehicles in residential areas. Instead of sorting easy solving solutions, the island will end up causing complications with a sledgehammer to crack a nut situation. There is an issue with motorhome parking which needs some attention. 

we already have legislation regarding parking oversized vehicles in residential areas  overnight  ,  trouble is  no one  is prepared to implement it  and issue some serious fines , more talk from Chris Thomas , we are looking at introducing legislation and going out to consultation  with Local authorities , another couple of years wasted  with idle chatter 

[Roxanne]

17 hours ago, Cassie2 said:

Maybe you have real mental issues

Oh hello...

[Roxanne]

46 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

To be fair we are getting a good number of complaints about this issue and I understand when residents aren’t happy that these types of vehicles are being dumped in residential areas. 

So while I’m here: what solution would be good? Any suggestions? 

Open up Nobles Park as an 'Aire' and as a long stay parking facility for vehicles over 3000kgs. This was supposed to happen years ago, It was even advertised before someone at the town hall said that the publicity 'jumped the gun' and that regulations hadn't been put in order. It needs to be done.

Payment meters or permits for long and short stay. Access to rest water and grey and black dumping facilities. Put a limit of three days for overnight stays. After that the parking charges go up considerably. Make a proviso that the whole area has to be cleared for TT fortnight and MGP week.

People pay vehicle licensing and for larger vehicles they pay handsomely. If they can't park close to their home then they need somewhere off road that's secure. That area at Nobles next to the Police Station is ideal. If there isn't designated area with a press of education to ensure that it's sold as a positive measure and not a punitive one, then people will leave their vehicles in residential areas and ignore fines. 

You're going to have to do something and you (DBC) have a year to get it sorted. Enough fanning around. Get it done.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Roxanne
Layout

[The Port Soderick Herald]

1 hour ago, Jarndyce said:

It’s not ignorance of democratic process - it’s just another bullying tactic in the seemingly endless arsenal.

What an odd claim. Perhaps the house of Parliament library is also using a “bullying tactic” to highlight the reality of uncontested elections. Namely elections where no votes are cast (ie. the public is not directly involved in electing the official concerned). 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uncontested-elections-where-and-why-do-they-take-place/

There really do seem to be some awfully silly reality defying posters on this forum who seem to like to paint an alternative vision of reality. It does make you wonder what the editorial bias of this forum is when factual posts concerning people linked to DBC are denied, and yet claims and the open abuse of almost everyone else in Manx politics seems to be actively encouraged. 

[2112]

54 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

To be fair we are getting a good number of complaints about this issue and I understand when residents aren’t happy that these types of vehicles are being dumped in residential areas. 

So while I’m here: what solution would be good? Any suggestions? 

Specific parking areas? Perhaps if residents on Corpy estates or other areas have the money to both buy, maintain and tax a motorhome, and afford steam packet pricing maybe they could afford their own home, with a driveway big enough to accommodate vehicles? If there is legislation it should be used and clamped down heavily, making an example where necessary. The same should apply to commercial vehicles, whereby a nuisance could occur, causing disruption in terms of lack of parking to others. 

[Jarndyce]

11 minutes ago, The Port Soderick Herald said:

There really do seem to be some awfully silly reality defying posters on this forum who seem to like to paint an alternative vision of reality.

You said it…right back atcha..

[The Port Soderick Herald]

9 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

You said it…right back atcha..

Are you saying the Parliamentary library is incorrect in its explanation of uncontested elections in any way as I can’t see any substance in your reply. Just erroneous and rather aggressive claims of things you never seem able to back up. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

I largely agree. There is the potential for a democratic deficit, though. Gelling would get re-elected unopposed and then hold ministerial roles (even CM) over mhks  who'd topped contested polls. 

It's probably less important in local government - especially outside Douglas where there's little executive decision making. They should, perhaps, consider reducing the number of roles. It's less than ideal to have an uncontested Councillor because it's a stick to beat them with, usually used by unelected self-appointed "Voices of the People" who have less democratic mandate. 

But the reason that MHKs were returned unopposed (and I think 2011 was the first election were this didn't happen in at least one constituency) was usually that the sitting member was seen as unbeatable.  In some ways it's a bigger democratic mandate than getting elected in a contested election.  Either everyone is satisfied with their representative(s) or any potential rivals think the majority of people are.

As I've pointed out before, the politically-interested in rural authorities often tend to collectively agree the approved list to avoid the cost of an election (they must have been annoyed with Oliphant-Smith), though the real problem has often been finding candidates.  For towns and villages it was probably easier (though more expensive) when there were annual elections and fewer candidates had to be found at any one time.

But reducing the total number of LA members doesn't always help - Douglas has come from 24 to 12 in recent years, and it means more work pressure on those elected.  It also means much more power in the hands of the LA officers and less monitoring of what they do.  Those who believe that you can 'save' money by getting rid of a few members getting a couple of thousand a years expenses each, while the number of officers on £50k plus increases, are clearly looking for a job in the IOM Treasury.

[Gladys]

13 minutes ago, The Port Soderick Herald said:

Are you saying the Parliamentary library is incorrect in its explanation of uncontested elections in any way as I can’t see any substance in your reply. Just erroneous and rather aggressive claims of things you never seem able to back up. 

No, there is nothing in that piece that supports the view that someone returned unopposed has some inferior status.  It says uncontested elections are not great, and no one is arguing that they are.  Just that they are a feature of our democracy and someone returned in these cases is no less a valid representative than those who have stood for a contested seat.  If you are arguing otherwise, then you miss how undemocratic that would be. 

  

[Jarndyce]

13 minutes ago, The Port Soderick Herald said:

Are you saying the Parliamentary library is incorrect in its explanation of uncontested elections in any way as I can’t see any substance in your reply.

Not sure what you want by reply.   The library article surveys uncontested elections by time and by geography.  It gives an overview of what leads to this situation.   While implying that the situation is not desirable, at no point does it state that the result is undemocratic - please feel free to cut and paste any section of the article which supports your view of DBC.

As for describing me as rather aggressive- well, the irony is obvious.

[Zarley]

48 minutes ago, The Port Soderick Herald said:

There really do seem to be some awfully silly reality defying posters on this forum who seem to like to paint an alternative vision of reality. It does make you wonder what the editorial bias of this forum is when factual posts concerning people linked to DBC are denied, and yet claims and the open abuse of almost everyone else in Manx politics seems to be actively encouraged. 

This axe you're grinding - it must be worn down to a mere nub by now. (One hopes!)

[The Port Soderick Herald]

7 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

Not sure what you want by reply.  

Just facts really. Although it is quite amusing reading the aggressive diatribes of a load of out of touch pensioners and the delusional PR of self important local authority types. This forum looks like it could do with a lot more facts though.