NEWPORT PARKING: Council snubs petition (From South Wales Argus)
Get involved: Send your photos, video, news & views by texting ARGUS NEWS to 80360 or email
us
NEWPORT PARKING: Council snubs petition
10:40am Friday 11th January 2013 in News
NEWPORT PARKING: Council snubs petition
NEWPORT City Council is pressing ahead with its decision to reintroduce parking charges in the city – before reading our petition signed by thousands of traders and shoppers.
The council posted a public notice on page 32 of yesterday’s Argus entitled “Variation of Parking Charges 2013.”
The notice stated that “On 1 February 2013 Newport City Council…intends to vary the charges for car parking in the following car parks.”
It went on to detail the introduction of a flat rate of £1 for up to three hours parking in its Park Square, Hill Street, Riverfront, Stow Hill and Emlyn Street car parks as well as the council-run pay and display at Faulkner Road.
Three to five hours parking will cost £3.50 in all of those car parks except Faulkner Road where it will be £3.60 to park for anything more than three hours.
A stay of more than five hours in the car parks other than Faulkner Road will cost £4.50.
The move comes despite our petition, urging the council to reverse its decision to axe two hours of free parking, not yet being submitted to the council.
Kingsway car park free for 2 hours
TWO hours’ free parking remains in place in the Kingsway multi-storey car park.
Comments(22)
Valrep
says...
11:31am Fri 11 Jan 13
D Taylor
says...
11:49am Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident
says...
12:03pm Fri 11 Jan 13
Yes indeed, good for the council.
I'm voting Tory next time.
D Taylor
says...
12:26pm Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident
says...
12:46pm Fri 11 Jan 13
D Taylor wrote:It was a clear enough desire that the local newspaper ran a campaign.
What clear desire? They have done no such thing. 4,000 signatures is a tiny fraction of the population. And there have been many comments on here supporting the Council. Including in this column today.
4000 signatures means there were 4000 people who wanted their voice heard, that is far more than the few pro-council commenters who post on this site.
The population of Newport covers 70 square miles of the local area, the issue is relevant only to people in and around the town center, you can spout your fractions of the population all you like, the fact is a sizable number of the voting public have taken action to have their voice heard, only to be ignored by the very people who are meant to represent their needs.
D Taylor
says...
12:51pm Fri 11 Jan 13
D Taylor
says...
12:53pm Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident
says...
1:11pm Fri 11 Jan 13
How many people are enough? Is there a set percentage? is there a threshold at which the Council could care less?
Would you be so understanding and enthused with the Council if they were planning on scrapping bin collections in your street because they were too costly?
whatintheworld
says...
1:35pm Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident wrote:Are 4000 people enough? Out of a population of around 145,000... no. Is there a set percentage? No, but a little more than 3% would help. To your last point, the scrapping of a public service that everyone uses is very different. Apples and oranges.
You're avoiding the point to try and deflect, are you saying 4000 people are not enough voices? How many people are enough? Is there a set percentage? is there a threshold at which the Council could care less? Would you be so understanding and enthused with the Council if they were planning on scrapping bin collections in your street because they were too costly?
portforever
says...
1:53pm Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident
says...
2:23pm Fri 11 Jan 13
whatintheworld
says...
2:27pm Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident wrote:that's a fair point!
The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out.
Mr Bump.
says...
3:58pm Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident wrote:Did the four years those clowns along with their lap dog Liberal partners ruined this city pass you by somehow? I applaud the council on this car parking decision Bravo.
At this point, the whole affair is more indicative of Newport City Council's lack of respect for its constituents, who have vocalised a clear desire for a particular issue, and have been summarily dismissed and ignored.
Yes indeed, good for the council.
I'm voting Tory next time.
D Taylor
says...
4:20pm Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident wrote:Yes but that isn't to force a decision. It's to get an official response. Which we've had. It's pay a £.
The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out.
Howie'
says...
5:40pm Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident wrote:We have a similar thing in the UK, The e-petition, which with 100,000 signatures the subject would be eligible for consideration for debate by MPs.
The United States has a petition system on the Whitehouse website that mandates an official response from the Whitehouse if a petition reaches 25,000 votes in a 30 day period, from a population of 315m thats a 0.008% percentage. Considering the limited scope of the Argus, its website and the Newport public, 3% is a pretty good turn out.
The Council have replied, you just weren't listening. It went something like this "up yours we will do as we like" or more probably it was along the lines of "as the elected representatives of Newport it is our duty to spend what little money we have on keeping essential services going".
sylwebydd
says...
9:03pm Fri 11 Jan 13
The People's Republic of Newp
says...
10:27pm Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident wrote:Good on you. After all, the Conservatives are renowned for subsidising public services.
At this point, the whole affair is more indicative of Newport City Council's lack of respect for its constituents, who have vocalised a clear desire for a particular issue, and have been summarily dismissed and ignored.
Yes indeed, good for the council.
I'm voting Tory next time.
£1 for 3 hours is more than reasonable. If you can afford insurance, petrol and tax you can certainly afford such a negligible charge.
The People's Republic of Newp
says...
10:29pm Fri 11 Jan 13
UpsetResident wrote:What's your solution? Reconstitute the polis? Referenda left, right and centre?
D Taylor wrote:It was a clear enough desire that the local newspaper ran a campaign.
What clear desire? They have done no such thing. 4,000 signatures is a tiny fraction of the population. And there have been many comments on here supporting the Council. Including in this column today.
4000 signatures means there were 4000 people who wanted their voice heard, that is far more than the few pro-council commenters who post on this site.
The population of Newport covers 70 square miles of the local area, the issue is relevant only to people in and around the town center, you can spout your fractions of the population all you like, the fact is a sizable number of the voting public have taken action to have their voice heard, only to be ignored by the very people who are meant to represent their needs.
areyour4real
says...
10:06am Sat 12 Jan 13
Do something positive for a change rather than dragging this town into the muck and pitting us residents against one another.
I will be voting independent next time!
D Taylor
says...
10:17am Sat 12 Jan 13
Limestonecowboy
says...
1:33pm Sat 12 Jan 13
whatintheworld says...
11:21am Fri 11 Jan 13