Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

[newbie]

You are, you've been seeking to make this a debate about gentrification from the start.

my objection is the pretense that it's not

 

[thebackrow]

horses and carts. Stop pretending I'm trying to promote some agenda. I'm not.

I have nothing to push, but I think it's worth trying to highlight the negative effects of what the council is seeking to impose and you're busy championing.

The LTN schemes have not been designed to move towards 'a more equal society', though they should have been. Just the opposite, they're about property owner self interest and they will further entrench inequality as a predictable consequence. If your intention really is to deal with inequality and inequity of opportunity there are an awful lot of initiatives much higher up any list of ways to achieve it.

Just why would walking cycling and air quality groups campaign for them if they’re all about property owner self interest?

 

[snowy_again]

my objection is the pretense that it's not

You were complaining about anecdata earlier - what do you to support that?

I live in a LA managed housing estate in the LTN. I’ve not met a neighbour who is against it (yet), most have been saying that they’ve been badgering Jim Dickson about this for a few years (some since the No 3 bus route was diverted from its old route down Rymer Road if you remember that) and wanted to expand it to include Hurst Street into it too.

 

[newbie]

You were complaining about anecdata earlier - what do you to support that?

I live in a LA managed housing estate in the LTN. I’ve not met a neighbour who is against it (yet), most have been saying that they’ve been badgering Jim Dickson about this for a few years (some since the No 3 bus route was diverted from its old route down Rymer Road if you remember that) and wanted to expand it to include Hurst Street into it too.

I've argued this is about insiders and outsiders, so I'm not too surprised residents around the edges would prefer to be inside. I've also said that I see no reason to doubt the various residents share attitudes to traffic and peace and quiet, irrespective of their tenure. None the less, in terms of material benefits insider owner occupiers and landlords will benefit more than tenants.

People who bought a home on a street with through traffic campaign to remove that through traffic, then they reap a clear material benefit when they come to sell. Pretty clear gentrification in action.

 

[thebackrow]

People who bought a home on a street with through traffic campaign to remove that through traffic, then they reap a clear material benefit when they come to sell. Pretty clear gentrification in action.

so don't improve anywhere because it will make some places better than other places? Keep Brixton Shit!

Every street must be equally polluted. If theres anywhere that's nice at the moment that's historic privilege - we should find a way to open it up to heavy motor traffic so it becomes shit too.

It's not really a positive manifesto, is it?

 

[thebackrow]

It’s all about self interested gentrification

 

[thebackrow]

This image seems to sum it up pretty well -

 

[Gramsci]

I live on Coldharbour lane. So the introduction of Liveable Neighbourhood will make my bit of Brixton more "shit". As road Im on is considered to be a main road. That traffic will use more once LTNs/ Liveable Neighbourhoods are set up.

My bit of CHL is likely to be more polluted with these Liveable Neighbourhood schemes.

 

[newbie]

so don't improve anywhere because it will make some places better than other places? Keep Brixton Shit!

I don't think of Brixton like that and I can't see why those who do would want to live here. I recognise some people have little or no choice, and would dearly love to get a transfer elsewhere, but of the rest I've seen plenty conclude that while they once thought it was great it's no longer really what they want, and so they move away.

I might need a better explanation of why nice, apparently prosperous Victorian streets are the most deserving parts of the borough to be improved.

Every street must be equally polluted. If theres anywhere that's nice at the moment that's historic privilege - we should find a way to open it up to heavy motor traffic so it becomes shit too.

It's not really a positive manifesto, is it?

Once again you're trying to imply I seek to 'open it up to heavy motor traffic' which is a nonsense slur I've rejected every time you've tried it on.

I don't have a manifesto, I'm reacting to organised social engineering that you and others are fronting on this thread, and that Lambeth are imposing in the real world. It's plain you don't like me identifying that it bolsters gentrification and will reward insider property owners.

See if your campaign had suggested that as some sort of recognition of the gain insiders would receive all owner occupier or private rent properties within the LTNs should go up a Council Tax band, then maybe I'd think differently about these aspects of it.

 

[Gramsci]

Looking at the Railton LTN twitter and they love Jim Dickson. This is the Cllr who is New Labour party loyalist. Supported turning libraries into gyms.

 

[Gramsci]

In my LJ neighbourhood the things required to make it less "Shit" are properly funded youth services.

There is an agreed plan with local community for improving the Loughborough road /CHL junction. One that all the community support.

This would improve LJ. Make it less "shit" in way that community support.

Now community has been told it wont happen. So stuck with Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood bollocks.

Apparently the scheme was to "expensive".

Despite being what the community wants.

 

[Gramsci]

Pollution and reducing traffic are getting mixed up here.

There is experimental scheme in the City- only electric vehicles can use it.

Pollution can be reduced by making zero emssion vehicles mandatory in certain areas.

This is different issue to traffic reduction.

A zero emission zone is not about road closures/ road filtering.

 

[newbie]

In my LJ neighbourhood the things required to make it less "Shit" are properly funded youth services.

There is an agreed plan with local community for improving the Loughborough road /CHL junction. One that all the community support.

This would improve LJ. Make it less "shit" in way that community support.

Now community has been told it wont happen. So stuck with Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood bollocks.

Apparently the scheme was to "expensive".

Despite being what the community wants.

wow! I didn't know that. Puts it all in perspective.

 

[Gramsci]

wow! I didn't know that. Puts it all in perspective.

After the LJ road closure debacle a whole new round of detailed consultation/ planning went on and then the Council sat on their hands and didnt do the agreed scheme.

Its infuriatating

Some thing with LJ works. Not finished yet. Been dragging on for months.

Louughborough Park- Council spent thousands on security to keep the community building empty. Local pressure and they have found a group to manage it.

Im sick of it. Was acccused by local Labour Cllr at recent meeting of being "unrepresentative" of the community and being "one of the same old faces" who turn up to criticise Council.

Im still livid about that.

 

[teuchter]

In my LJ neighbourhood the things required to make it less "Shit" are properly funded youth services.

There is an agreed plan with local community for improving the Loughborough road /CHL junction. One that all the community support.

This would improve LJ. Make it less "shit" in way that community support.

Now community has been told it wont happen. So stuck with Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood bollocks.

Apparently the scheme was to "expensive".

Despite being what the community wants.

You seem to be saying that because Lambeth have failed to deliver other things, therefore we shouldn't have this thing. It doesn't follow, as far as I can see.

As I think you know, the funding for the LN stuff comes from TfL. So I don't think it's exactly the case that money is being spent on this instead of other things. Abandoning the LN schemes would not suddenly make a load of cash available for other stuff.

The LN schemes should be judged on their own merits. As someone who lives here, we are stuck with Lambeth Council. We can all complain about Lambeth. I myself resent Lambeth for making a hash of the earlier LJ scheme, and various other things. Nothing can ever happen if people oppose something because Lambeth are involved. Because nothing like this can happen through any other means. The alternative is simply for nothing to happen - that is the pragmatic view.

Some people might be of the view that it would be better for nothing to change. That these schemes are so terrible, that they will create something worse than doing nothing. Fair enough if they think that, in which case, say that. But talking about how things could be better if they were better, ie if we were in some hypothetical parallel universe where Lambeth were marvellously competent and there was decent funding for everything, doesn't get anyone anywhere, and seems just serve as a diversion from discussing what's actually on the table.

Isn't there a lot of whataboutery going on here? What about if Lambeth funded the adventure playground properly (from a different funding pot)? What about if this scheme involved something even more politically contentious and basically nuts like increasing council tax bands for houses within LNs?

Also, when arguments against are relying on Lambeth's bad implementation of these schemes - that's reasonable to criticise their implementation, I've no problem with that, but also worth bearing in mind that what is being "imposed" is not actually some hairbrained project thought up by Lambeth - it's implementation of London-wide, long term transport planning policy, developed by the Mayor's office and TfL. I fully expect various aspects of the way it is put in place to be messed up by lambeth but the basic principles are fairly well thought through and documented in TfL policy. And NB that the funding from TfL seems to be conditional on the actual results of the changes being monitored and reviewed.

 

[newbie]

What about if this scheme involved something even more politically contentious and basically nuts like increasing council tax bands for houses within LNs?

I fully accept it's contentious but what makes it nuts exactly?

Please explain in detail why some property owners should be given not only an improved environment or quality of life but also free money as extra capital gains. When others, as Gramsci has said, get worse traffic and no such gain?

 

[Gramsci]

You seem to be saying that because Lambeth have failed to deliver other things, therefore we shouldn't have this thing. It doesn't follow, as far as I can see.

As I think you know, the funding for the LN stuff comes from TfL. So I don't think it's exactly the case that money is being spent on this instead of other things. Abandoning the LN schemes would not suddenly make a load of cash available for other stuff.

The LN schemes should be judged on their own merits. As someone who lives here, we are stuck with Lambeth Council. We can all complain about Lambeth. I myself resent Lambeth for making a hash of the earlier LJ scheme, and various other things. Nothing can ever happen if people oppose something because Lambeth are involved. Because nothing like this can happen through any other means. The alternative is simply for nothing to happen - that is the pragmatic view.

Some people might be of the view that it would be better for nothing to change. That these schemes are so terrible, that they will create something worse than doing nothing. Fair enough if they think that, in which case, say that. But talking about how things could be better if they were better, ie if we were in some hypothetical parallel universe where Lambeth were marvellously competent and there was decent funding for everything, doesn't get anyone anywhere, and seems just serve as a diversion from discussing what's actually on the table.

Isn't there a lot of whataboutery going on here? What about if Lambeth funded the adventure playground properly (from a different funding pot)? What about if this scheme involved something even more politically contentious and basically nuts like increasing council tax bands for houses within LNs?

Also, when arguments against are relying on Lambeth's bad implementation of these schemes - that's reasonable to criticise their implementation, I've no problem with that, but also worth bearing in mind that what is being "imposed" is not actually some hairbrained project thought up by Lambeth - it's implementation of London-wide, long term transport planning policy, developed by the Mayor's office and TfL. I fully expect various aspects of the way it is put in place to be messed up by lambeth but the basic principles are fairly well thought through and documented in TfL policy. And NB that the funding from TfL seems to be conditional on the actual results of the changes being monitored and reviewed.

I dont now where to start with this.

Lambeth are presenting this Liveable Neighbourhood project as their project.

So this is not about local schemes?

Its part of London wide project that is well thouught out by TFL and Mayor and the Council are just the contractors getting it done?

So why the pretence of consultation if that is the case?

 

[Gramsci]

You seem to be saying that because Lambeth have failed to deliver other things, therefore we shouldn't have this thing. It doesn't follow, as far as I can see.

As I think you know, the funding for the LN stuff comes from TfL. So I don't think it's exactly the case that money is being spent on this instead of other things. Abandoning the LN schemes would not suddenly make a load of cash available for other stuff.

The LN schemes should be judged on their own merits. As someone who lives here, we are stuck with Lambeth Council. We can all complain about Lambeth. I myself resent Lambeth for making a hash of the earlier LJ scheme, and various other things. Nothing can ever happen if people oppose something because Lambeth are involved. Because nothing like this can happen through any other means. The alternative is simply for nothing to happen - that is the pragmatic view.

Some people might be of the view that it would be better for nothing to change. That these schemes are so terrible, that they will create something worse than doing nothing. Fair enough if they think that, in which case, say that. But talking about how things could be better if they were better, ie if we were in some hypothetical parallel universe where Lambeth were marvellously competent and there was decent funding for everything, doesn't get anyone anywhere, and seems just serve as a diversion from discussing what's actually on the table.

Isn't there a lot of whataboutery going on here? What about if Lambeth funded the adventure playground properly (from a different funding pot)? What about if this scheme involved something even more politically contentious and basically nuts like increasing council tax bands for houses within LNs?

Also, when arguments against are relying on Lambeth's bad implementation of these schemes - that's reasonable to criticise their implementation, I've no problem with that, but also worth bearing in mind that what is being "imposed" is not actually some hairbrained project thought up by Lambeth - it's implementation of London-wide, long term transport planning policy, developed by the Mayor's office and TfL. I fully expect various aspects of the way it is put in place to be messed up by lambeth but the basic principles are fairly well thought through and documented in TfL policy. And NB that the funding from TfL seems to be conditional on the actual results of the changes being monitored and reviewed.

BTW Im not saying "we shouldnt have this thing"

A whole lot of debate here had been one side saying the other are opposing all measures.

From what Ive seen this is not the case.

I keep saying Im CRITICALLY SUPPORTIVE of some aspects of this scheme and not others.

This appears to be taken as opposing the scheme.

Or its put as if one does not support all of it then a amended scheme is just as bad as it will not filter the traffic effectively. As the "experts" have worked out plan in its entirety.

 

[teuchter]

I fully accept it's contentious but what makes it nuts exactly?

Please explain in detail why some property owners should be given not only an improved environment or quality of life but also free money as extra capital gains. When others, as Gramsci has said, get worse traffic and no such gain?

Because council tax ought to be based on ability to pay (using house value as a proxy for this, in theory). If you are someone who bought their house in Brixton 30 or 40 years ago, then a change in value of your house only really affects your wealth if and when you sell it and move to a different area. If you cash in on this increase in value, then that's what capital gains tax is for. You are suggesting that someone like that should suddenly be taxed more, when none of their financial circumstances have changed, and because some improvements have been made to their local environment. If anything that sounds like accelerating gentrification - make some improvements, then crank up the cost of living there through increasing taxes.
Of course in your caricature version of gentrification Brixton, all houses within LNs are owned by blow-in yuppies who've bought them with loands from their wealthy parents, and everyone living outside of them is... something else, so these concerns wouldn't arise.

 

[teuchter]

Its part of London wide project that is well thouught out by TFL and Mayor and the Council are just the contractors getting it done?

Pretty much yes.

So why the pretence of consultation if that is the case?

Because it's part of the policy to carry out consultations as part of the process.

 

[Gramsci]

Pretty much yes.


Because it's part of the policy to carry out consultations as part of the process.

So the consultation is bollox really.

TFL and Mayor Sadiq have asked Labour Council to get there plans for transport done.

TFL and Mayor really want the scheme ( which is part of london wide plan) put in place.

Kind of makes local democracy redundant.

 

[newbie]

Because council tax ought to be based on ability to pay (using house value as a proxy for this, in theory). If you are someone who bought their house in Brixton 30 or 40 years ago, then a change in value of your house only really affects your wealth if and when you sell it and move to a different area. If you cash in on this increase in value, then that's what capital gains tax is for. You are suggesting that someone like that should suddenly be taxed more, when none of their financial circumstances have changed, and because some improvements have been made to their local environment. If anything that sounds like accelerating gentrification - make some improvements, then crank up the cost of living there through increasing taxes.
Of course in your caricature version of gentrification Brixton, all houses within LNs are owned by blow-in yuppies who've bought them with loands from their wealthy parents, and everyone living outside of them is... something else, so these concerns wouldn't arise.

There isn't any capital gains tax on main homes, as you well know, nor are Council Tax bands based on ability to pay, as you also know. So apart from some pointless distraction about a tiny subset of the local owners, the ones who've bucked all the trends and stayed around for a long time, you haven't said anything.

Do you want to try again and explain why some property owners should get both publically funded environmental improvements and enhanced capital gains yet not pay any extra Council Tax?

It's not me caricaturing: the proposed Victorian street LTNs are a patchwork of social housing, private landlords (who are by definition wealthy) and owner occupiers the majority of whom are well off people who did not grow up in the area. I've said all this before. That's how it is and has been for a long time. Other parts of the borough, of London, of the country have very different profiles.

 

[teuchter]

There isn't any capital gains tax on main homes, as you well know, nor are Council Tax bands based on ability to pay, as you also know. So apart from some pointless distraction about a tiny subset of the local owners, the ones who've bucked all the trends and stayed around for a long time, you haven't said anything.

Do you want to try again and explain why some property owners should get both publically funded environmental improvements and enhanced capital gains yet not pay any extra Council Tax?

It's not me caricaturing: the proposed Victorian street LTNs are a patchwork of social housing, private landlords (who are by definition wealthy) and owner occupiers the majority of whom are well off people who did not grow up in the area. I've said all this before. That's how it is and has been for a long time. Other parts of the borough, of London, of the country have very different profiles.

My mistake on Capital Gains Tax, I'm no tax expert.

And I know that council tax is based on a supposed value in 1990 or whatever, which is a crude way of relating it to the likely wealth of the occupier, and it doesn't seem like a very good way to me, but it's never been micro-managed according to take into account specific changes in the way you suggest. That would just open a massive can of worms; there'd be endless arguments about whether this or that affected value and whether it affected certain people more than others, and how would you ever quantify that value? Would council tax be adjusted when a bus route was changed or a new station opened or a hospital closed or a school built? It would be completely impractical and no-one would ever agree on what was fair. That's why I think it's nuts.

I don't disagree that if people make huge financial gains through property increasing in value, whether through the luck of the market or through public investment in local infrastructure, then this should be taxed. But this is not even easy to do fairly at point of sale, because of the massive disparities between areas. Someone who's lived in Brixton all their life might find themselves in posession of a property with a very high value, but they can only really benefit from that if they move out of the area, cashing it in and buying somewhere cheaper. There's all sorts of problems related to property value, and I'd support all sorts of things like discouraging buy-to-let, and maybe rent controls, but fiddling with council tax on a hyper-local level seems completely unworkable to me.

And if I think about the various houses I've lived in in and around Brixton, who the landlords were, and who the neighbours were, it doesn't match your picture where the majority of owners are recent arrivals and wealthy. I can't provide any hard evidence, but I doubt you can either. I think your picture is massively over-simplified.

 

[teuchter]

So the consultation is bollox really.

TFL and Mayor Sadiq have asked Labour Council to get there plans for transport done.

TFL and Mayor really want the scheme ( which is part of london wide plan) put in place.

Kind of makes local democracy redundant.

I think the TfL conditions include something about the schemes having sufficient local support.

But yes, that's generally how planning policy operates - you have wider strategies which are implemented at a local level, by local authorities, tailored to some extent to the particulars of the area. And (ideally) you have consultation which takes into account local preferences and is used to implement the policy in the best way. But throughout the planning system, larger scale policy can't be entirely over-ridden by local opinion. That always causes problems and there's always development that people don't like, but it also wouldn't work if everything was simply decided locally (for example, pretty much nobody wants mass housing built next door to them, yet mass housing needs to be provided somewhere). Well, I guess there are people who would disagree with that, but that's the way most stuff works and the implementation of this particular transport strategy follows that pattern.

 

[newbie]

I don't disagree that if people make huge financial gains through property increasing in value, whether through the luck of the market or through public investment in local infrastructure, then this should be taxed.

Right. And yet, you're pushing forward a plan that clearly rewards some already wealthy insider property owners for doing nothing except put me me me pins on a map, and that makes no provision for any sort of mechanism by which anyone other than those property owners gains any material benefits, though some outsiders will lose, both materially and environmentally.. And you and your fellow campaigners have pushed back against any mention of gentrification, inequality and so on. Benefits are for all you've kept saying because that's what's in the script, when it's obviously not so.

And if I think about the various houses I've lived in in and around Brixton, who the landlords were, and who the neighbours were, it doesn't match your picture where the majority of owners are recent arrivals and wealthy. I can't provide any hard evidence, but I doubt you can either. I think your picture is massively over-simplified.

Of course it's simplified, but it's well established.

I didn't say recent, you did.


Lambeth
Look how few teenagers there are, how many in their 20s and 30s, how few elderly. This has been the repeat pattern in census figures.


I did say wealthy, which you seem to be doubting, which is a bit strange.


Rightmove, current




Yahoo November 2109

 

[thebackrow]

So the consultation is bollox really.

Not really - but it's not going to be a 'do you like this or not' consultation. There is a strategic objective that Lambeth need to deliver against - increasing walking cycling and public transport and reducing private car use. There is flexibility in how they achieve that but theres a general consensus about what works and that's what TfL will give money for - cycle tracks on main roads, Low traffic neighbourhoods. Some councils put in bids for stuff that was crap - we're going to paint some white lines and call it a cycle route - and TfL and the DfT nationally rejected those.

There can be consultation about details of schemes - has this thing been put in the right place, are there any local considerations that might have been missed. Not 'we still want to be able to drive short trips to Herne Hill' but maybe 'this is the route the kids walk to school on - it needs a crossing here'.

edit [missed Tuechter's post which basically says the same thing]

 

[snowy_again]

Talking of which, new crossings are going into Milkwood Road, where Jessops school already has phased : timed road closures.

 

[newbie]

So the consultation is bollox really.

looks like it. Both the replies have patted you on the head and told you that it's going to happen whether anyone likes it or not.

There also won't be any follow-up or detailed understanding of the effects before the next few LTNs are rolled out under cover of 'Covid response'. Isolating the effects of the Railton LTN will be too complex anyway since Network Rail have closed half of central Brixton because they're too incompetent to look after their station properly.

 

[teuchter]

makes no provision for any sort of mechanism by which anyone other than those property owners gains any material benefits,

You are for whatever reason focused on material benefits. I am focused on all the other benefits, which apply to loads more people than the property owners you keep going on about. Those other benefits are more important in my opinion. You keep claiming that the driving force behind the scheme is primarily monetary gains for property owners who happen to be inside the LNs. I do not believe that is what is motivating this. Clearly we'll never agree on that. I don't deny that an effect of some of these schemes may be that some people make an (unquantifiable) monetary gain. I don't have a problem in principle with things that might try to adjust that - although I don't really have any workable ideas for quite how you achieve that.

It seems that even if you didn't think these things were driven by the material interests of property owners, you'd still object to them on the grounds that they had side effects that might include some already privileged people having their property values increased. You'd write off the whole thing because of this. That doesn't make sense to me. You have to look at the wider benefits (and obviously we don't agree about those). Through this kind of approach, it seems that you can do virtually nothing to make people's general environment better, because there are not many things you can do at an urban planning level that can be so specifically targeted that they only have an effect on one section of the population. I did the Keeping Brixton Crap thread on this subject a few years ago. A city is not something you can just tidily section up and then do things that have no effects that extend beyond the thing you are primarily trying to deal with. There are certain aspects of gentrification that I would accept arguments against. If there is some proposal that wants to use public money to do something that really only provides a benefit for people that are already well off, then there is a case there. Things like reduced congestion, road danger and air pollution benefit pretty much everyone. I don't accept your picture of these schemes where the benefit is purely to "insiders" and where you pretend there are "outsiders" who are virtually barred from the areas in question. I look at the bigger picture and transport strategy that they are part of, and that bigger picture is of something that doesn't limit the benefit to those living inside the LN areas. And you don't accept that, I know.

 

[Winot]

Not really paying attention but have we got to the stage on the thread yet where we aren’t allowed to put in a planter until we have achieved full communism?