In article <jcql95Fqs9bU1@mid.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if
> > that has been granted by the Crown.

> Or if it has a cathedral.

Nope. Guildford has a cathedral, but isn't a city. You need to watch
Pointless more.

--
*Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 27/04/2022 14:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <jcql95Fqs9bU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> That would be Birmingham. In the UK a place can only have city status if
>>> that has been granted by the Crown.
>
>> Or if it has a cathedral.
>
> Nope. Guildford has a cathedral, but isn't a city. You need to watch
> Pointless more.
>
Or even this 5 minute video of how Rochester stopped being a city

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBaLb1C4WAg

--
Chris B (News)

On 26/04/2022 06:28 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 25/04/2022 10:24 am, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
>>>> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>>>>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident
>>>>> parking.
>
>>>> And how would that be ?
>>>> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK
>
>>> Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the latter
>>> claimed to be but in reality may not.
>
>>> A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if the cash
>>> goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.
>
>> Another claimed hypothecation is the so-called "Green Levy" charged upon
>> domestic fuel bills (allegedly used to pay for things such as domestic
>> insulation and other such initiatives). It's a swingeing proportion of
>> the final bill, too.
>
>> It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
>> "resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
>> usually paid. The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
>> though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small contribution
>> to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere near the true
>> economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.
>
> And just how do you value part of an existing road? It can't be built on.
> So any value you care to give it hypothetical.

Anything which needs to be valued *can* be valued.

The ultimate example would be a human life, which has to be valued in
order to arrive at an equitable civil settlement following a fatal
accident or other incident (whether on a highway or anywhere else).

> Different with new build estates, where the roads can be a legal minium
> width.

It is different. That is correct. That does not extinguish the
principles involved.

>> If the parking spaces were correctly valued - especially in Inner and
>> Central London - they might be reserved for "residents" at certain times
>> of day but charged for at meter rates for whatever number of hours per
>> day meters operate within the relevant borough. That is, the price would
>> be equal to the opportunity cost of the lost revenue from public parking.
>
> You seem to know little about how such things work.

Untrue.

I do know how they work.
>
> Some may be residents only. Within certain times and days of the week.
> Both of which vary by area. Some may also allow anyone to pay and park.
> There can also be resident only bays and general ones in the same street.

That isn't relevant. Whether the spaces are reserved unto residents 24/7
or for some fraction of that is a matter which is easily calculated and
factored into the cost of the provision.

On 26/04/2022 06:20 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

[in response to:]
>>> Good to know you live somewhere so cheap.
>
>> Good God, where on earth did that come from?
>> I live about 30 miles from Central London. It's not Notting Hill or
>> Hampstead, but certainly not "cheap". I tripled my mortgage when we
>> moved south, forty years ago.
>> And what does the availability of rented garages have to do with
>> "cheapness" anyway?
>
> Value of land, pet. You can make much more with housing than garages.

But garages can still be sold or rented out and they have a value. All
land has a value.

You might as well compare housing with pavements (footways), or with
parks and gardens.

>> You are irrational.
>
> Yes dear.

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> And just how do you value part of an existing road?

Put a toll gate on it, and see how much you can charge.
You might have to also do this with the surrounding roads,
to avoid avoidance effects, though :-)

#Paul

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 01:52:31 +1000, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 06:28 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 25/04/2022 10:24 am, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 22/04/2022 16:21, soup wrote:
>>>>> On 22/04/2022 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>
>>>>>> BTW, every single parked car which was hit had paid for resident
>>>>>> parking.
>>
>>>>> And how would that be ?
>>>>> Remember no taxes/excise duties are hypothecated in the UK
>>
>>>> Two I can think of are. TV license and National Insurance, the latter
>>>> claimed to be but in reality may not.
>>
>>>> A third may the levy for RTAs paid by drivers, but uncertain if the
>>>> cash
>>>> goes directly to the NHS Trust or Treasury.
>>
>>> Another claimed hypothecation is the so-called "Green Levy" charged
>>> upon
>>> domestic fuel bills (allegedly used to pay for things such as domestic
>>> insulation and other such initiatives). It's a swingeing proportion of
>>> the final bill, too.
>>
>>> It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
>>> "resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
>>> usually paid. The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
>>> though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small contribution
>>> to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere near the true
>>> economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.
>> And just how do you value part of an existing road? It can't be built
>> on.
>> So any value you care to give it hypothetical.
>
> Anything which needs to be valued *can* be valued.

But plenty of numbers like the value of a particular
human life, its just a number plucked from the air
with no real basis for that number.

> The ultimate example would be a human life, which has to be valuedin
> order to arrive at an equitable civil settlement following a fatal
> accident or other incident (whether on a highway or anywhere else).

But the number is just plucked from the air and they don't even bother
to include whether the individual is a smoker, drug addict etc etc etc.

>> Different with new build estates, where the roads can be a legal minium
>> width.
>
> It is different. That is correct. That does not extinguish the
> principles involved.
>
>>> If the parking spaces were correctly valued - especially in Inner and
>>> Central London - they might be reserved for "residents" at certain
>>> times
>>> of day but charged for at meter rates for whatever number of hours per
>>> day meters operate within the relevant borough. That is, the price
>>> would
>>> be equal to the opportunity cost of the lost revenue from public
>>> parking.
>> You seem to know little about how such things work.
>
> Untrue.
>
> I do know how they work.

No you don't with car parking in villages.

>> Some may be residents only. Within certain times and days of the week.
>> Both of which vary by area. Some may also allow anyone to pay and park.
>> There can also be resident only bays and general ones in the same
>> street.
>
> That isn't relevant. Whether the spaces are reserved unto residents 24/7
> or for some fraction of that is a matter which is easily calculated and
> factored into the cost of the provision.

The cost is irrelevant when deciding what to do in a particular street.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 01:54:39 +1000, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 06:20 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> [in response to:]
>>>> Good to know you live somewhere so cheap.
>>
>>> Good God, where on earth did that come from?
>>> I live about 30 miles from Central London. It's not Notting Hill or
>>> Hampstead, but certainly not "cheap". I tripled my mortgage when we
>>> moved south, forty years ago.
>>> And what does the availability of rented garages have to do with
>>> "cheapness" anyway?
>> Value of land, pet. You can make much more with housing than garages.
>
> But garages can still be sold or rented out and they have a value.

> All land has a value.

That is bullshit with very remote and unused crown land.

> You might as well compare housing with pavements (footways), or with
> parks and gardens.
>
>>> You are irrational.
>> Yes dear.
>

In article <jct75vFbaieU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
> >> "resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
> >> usually paid. The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
> >> though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small
> >> contribution to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere
> >> near the true economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.
> >
> > And just how do you value part of an existing road? It can't be built
> > on. So any value you care to give it hypothetical.

> Anything which needs to be valued *can* be valued.

> The ultimate example would be a human life, which has to be valued in
> order to arrive at an equitable civil settlement following a fatal
> accident or other incident (whether on a highway or anywhere else).

Only you would move on to 'ultimate' example. As a true Tory who follows
his leader by throwing as many red herrings into the pond as possible.

We're talking about a parking bay on a public road.

As with a garage - as you pointed out before - land value depends on what
sort of planning permission you could get for development.

--
*Do paediatricians play miniature golf on Wednesdays?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/04/2022 03:40 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>>>> It's unfair to challenge Mr. Plowman's claim of the payment for
>>>> "resident parking". I am sure he is right in that it is charged (and
>>>> usually paid. The charge usually *is* made as part of such schemes,
>>>> though in reality, the charge is simply a relatively small
>>>> contribution to the cost of administering of the scheme and nowhere
>>>> near the true economic cost and/or value of the parking spaces.
>
>>> And just how do you value part of an existing road? It can't be built
>>> on. So any value you care to give it hypothetical.
>
>> Anything which needs to be valued *can* be valued.
>
>> The ultimate example would be a human life, which has to be valued in
>> order to arrive at an equitable civil settlement following a fatal
>> accident or other incident (whether on a highway or anywhere else).

> Only you would move on to 'ultimate' example.

Only so that you cannot wriggle out of accepting that things with no
obvious monetary value still sometimes - and even regrettably - have to
be valued in monetary terms.

> As a true Tory who follows
> his leader by throwing as many red herrings into the pond as possible.

Red herrings? Are you still trying to insist that a parking space on a
highway cannot be valued? Or is this just the wriggle I predicted?

> We're talking about a parking bay on a public road.

*Public*, you say?

So you accept that it is *not* a private road and that by extension, it
belongs as much to every other citizen of the UK as it does to you.

That helps and now we're getting somewhere. Thank you.

> As with a garage - as you pointed out before - land value depends on what
> sort of planning permission you could get for development.

The value of a stretch of highway would be valued according to different
criteria. One way for it to be valued would be by considering how much
could be raised by charging for parking on it and extrapolating from
that income. You *must* have seen such streets, equipped with parking
meters or with a ticket-issuing machine. Even in streets which have
residential buildings in them. There are even such streets with double
yellow lines all the way along.

In article <jcvu8jFras9U1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > As with a garage - as you pointed out before - land value depends on what
> > sort of planning permission you could get for development.

> The value of a stretch of highway would be valued according to different
> criteria.

Thank gawd you've now got that. Without introducing the value of a human
life or other such distractions.

> One way for it to be valued would be by considering how much
> could be raised by charging for parking on it and extrapolating from
> that income.

Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking, the
amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely not even
cover the admin costs of doing so. Does that mean it has zero value?

> You *must* have seen such streets, equipped with parking
> meters or with a ticket-issuing machine. Even in streets which have
> residential buildings in them. There are even such streets with double
> yellow lines all the way along.

Since you need to state this, I take it you live on a different planet
somewhere?

--
*I want it all and I want it delivered

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 29/04/2022 02:48 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>>> As with a garage - as you pointed out before - land value depends on what
>>> sort of planning permission you could get for development.
>
>> The value of a stretch of highway would be valued according to different
>> criteria.
>
> Thank gawd you've now got that. Without introducing the value of a human
> life or other such distractions.

That's interesting. You now accept that there is such a thing as the
value of a human life, whereas earlier, you resisted that as a notion.

>> One way for it to be valued would be by considering how much
>> could be raised by charging for parking on it and extrapolating from
>> that income.
>
> Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking, the
> amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely not even
> cover the admin costs of doing so.

Rubbish on tall stilts.

If that street has a "resident's parking scheme" that has come about
because there is demand for parking there by other people as well as by
residents.

Where there is competition for parking, charging for it (whether by
meter or ticket-issuing machine) is a well-established route, especially
in that there London.

You already know that (see below) but choose to act daft.

> Does that mean it has zero value?

It means the opposite.

If it had zero value, you wouldn't complain about other (ie,
non-resident) people parking there. After all, you would not be deprived
of something with a value, would you?

You can't have that one both ways.

>> You *must* have seen such streets, equipped with parking
>> meters or with a ticket-issuing machine. Even in streets which have
>> residential buildings in them. There are even such streets with double
>> yellow lines all the way along.
>
> Since you need to state this, I take it you live on a different planet
> somewhere?

You do come up with some astounding non-sequiturs, don't you?

Do you practice?

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 00:21:55 +1000, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On 29/04/2022 02:48 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>>> As with a garage - as you pointed out before - land value depends on
>>>> what
>>>> sort of planning permission you could get for development.
>>
>>> The value of a stretch of highway would be valued according to
>>> different
>>> criteria.
>> Thank gawd you've now got that. Without introducing the value of a
>> human
>> life or other such distractions.
>
> That's interesting. You now accept that there is such a thing as the
> value of a human life, whereas earlier, you resisted that as a notion.

No he did not. He JUST rubbed your nose in the fact that it is just
a number plucked out of the air with no relationship to reality.

>>> One way for it to be valued would be by considering how much
>>> could be raised by charging for parking on it and extrapolating from
>>> that income.
>> Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking, the
>> amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely not
>> even
>> cover the admin costs of doing so.
>
> Rubbish on tall stilts.
>
> If that street has a "resident's parking scheme"

It wouldn't if there was PLENTY OF OFF STREET PARKING.

> that has come about because there is demand for parking there by other
> people as well as by residents.
>
> Where there is competition for parking, charging for it (whether by
> meter or ticket-issuing machine) is a well-established route, especially
> in that there London.
>
> You already know that (see below) but choose to act daft.
>
>> Does that mean it has zero value?
>
> It means the opposite.
>
> If it had zero value, you wouldn't complain about other (ie,
> non-resident) people parking there. After all, you would not be deprived
> of something with a value, would you?
>
> You can't have that one both ways.
>
>>> You *must* have seen such streets, equipped with parking
>>> meters or with a ticket-issuing machine. Even in streets which have
>>> residential buildings in them. There are even such streets with double
>>> yellow lines all the way along.
>> Since you need to state this, I take it you live on a different planet
>> somewhere?
>
> You do come up with some astounding non-sequiturs, don't you?
>
> Do you practice?

In article <jd2ak3FardrU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking, the
> > amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely not even
> > cover the admin costs of doing so.

> Rubbish on tall stilts.

> If that street has a "resident's parking scheme"

Yet another red herring?

You don't like a level playing field, do you?

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/04/2022 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <jd2ak3FardrU1@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking, the
>>> amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely not even
>>> cover the admin costs of doing so.
>
>> Rubbish on tall stilts.
>
>> If that street has a "resident's parking scheme"
>
> Yet another red herring?
>
> You don't like a level playing field, do you?

Only because some irresponsible bastard will park on it.

On 30/04/2022 12:33 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>>> Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking, the
>>> amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely not even
>>> cover the admin costs of doing so.

>> Rubbish on tall stilts.
>
>> If that street has a "resident's parking scheme"
>
> Yet another red herring?

Your street, so far, has been described as so in-demand for parking that
the local council has found it expedient to initiate a "resident's
parking scheme".

> You don't like a level playing field, do you?

What are you talking about?

It has been an accepted factor here that your street has a "resident's
parking scheme".

That didn't come about by accident. The council must have had reason
(good, bad or indifferent) for it and that would mean that there is not
sufficient on-street space for all of the potential demand for parking
(including parking by visitors, people not living in the area but
working in it, etc).

If your claim now is that your street either:

(a) does not have such a scheme or

(b) has such a scheme but doesn't need it because no-one else would seek
to park there anyway...

....it's a bit late to volunteer that important information now, isn't it?

If, on the other hand, you are claiming that because it would not be
worthwhile for the council to charge for on-street parking in a "quiet
residential area with plenty off street parking" (somewhere else,
obviously), please explain the relevance of that to your street, which
has been described in rather different terms in respect of the available
parking facilities and the implicit potential demand for space by people
who don't live there.

There is no "resident's parking scheme" here (despite the fact that
there are a number of terraced houses, not all of which have land for
parking). But perhaps you are arguing that there *should* be one, in
order to create a "level playing field".

If one were implemented (here) it wouldn't affect us. We have sufficient
space for several cars in excess of the number we actually have. So do
most of the other local residents.

In article <jd4ne5FonhvU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 30/04/2022 12:33 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> >>> Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking, the
> >>> amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely not even
> >>> cover the admin costs of doing so.

> >> Rubbish on tall stilts.
> >
> >> If that street has a "resident's parking scheme"
> >
> > Yet another red herring?

> Your street, so far, has been described as so in-demand for parking that
> the local council has found it expedient to initiate a "resident's
> parking scheme".

> > You don't like a level playing field, do you?

> What are you talking about?

You seem to want to give the value of a bit of land based on any premise
you like at the minute. And in another breath accept there are a multitude
of factors which determine this.

I'll give you an example. You could buy the bit of land outside your house
that is currently road. But have zero rights over it. No possibility of
doing anything with it, other than using it as a road, same as anyone
else. What market value do you think it would have?

> It has been an accepted factor here that your street has a "resident's
> parking scheme".

> That didn't come about by accident. The council must have had reason
> (good, bad or indifferent) for it and that would mean that there is not
> sufficient on-street space for all of the potential demand for parking
> (including parking by visitors, people not living in the area but
> working in it, etc).

I'm surprised as a good Tory you've missed the main one. Which is to make
money from something which was previously 'free'.

> If your claim now is that your street either:

> (a) does not have such a scheme or

> (b) has such a scheme but doesn't need it because no-one else would seek
> to park there anyway...

> ...it's a bit late to volunteer that important information now, isn't it?

You really have no idea about how such things work, do you? Must be living
in that tiny village all these years.

> If, on the other hand, you are claiming that because it would not be
> worthwhile for the council to charge for on-street parking in a "quiet
> residential area with plenty off street parking" (somewhere else,
> obviously), please explain the relevance of that to your street, which
> has been described in rather different terms in respect of the available
> parking facilities and the implicit potential demand for space by people
> who don't live there.

> There is no "resident's parking scheme" here (despite the fact that
> there are a number of terraced houses, not all of which have land for
> parking). But perhaps you are arguing that there *should* be one, in
> order to create a "level playing field".

> If one were implemented (here) it wouldn't affect us. We have sufficient
> space for several cars in excess of the number we actually have. So do
> most of the other local residents.

Has the penny dropped? A council won't introduce a resident parking scheme
where they can't make a profit from it.

--
*All generalizations are false.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/04/2022 02:44 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 30/04/2022 12:33 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>>>> Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking, the
>>>>> amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely not even
>>>>> cover the admin costs of doing so.
>
>>>> Rubbish on tall stilts.
>
>>>> If that street has a "resident's parking scheme"
>
>>> Yet another red herring?
>
>> Your street, so far, has been described as so in-demand for parking that
>> the local council has found it expedient to initiate a "resident's
>> parking scheme".
>
>>> You don't like a level playing field, do you?
>
>> What are you talking about?
>
> You seem to want to give the value of a bit of land based on any premise
> you like at the minute. And in another breath accept there are a multitude
> of factors which determine this.

The choice of valuation method is not mine. And not yours. All land has
a value, nevertheless. If the street outside your house had absolutely
no value (as you keep claiming), it would do you no harm to be banned
from parking on it. After all, according to your very ow logic, you
would not be deprived of anything with value.

But hey... I expect you'll see that differently.

> I'll give you an example. You could buy the bit of land outside your house
> that is currently road. But have zero rights over it. No possibility of
> doing anything with it, other than using it as a road, same as anyone
> else. What market value do you think it would have?

I wouldn't buy it. Would you?

But if the local authority were proposing to sell it to someone else, my
immediate suspicion would be that the proposed buyerhad found a way to
use it, do the disadvantage of those who need to use it as a highway
(upon which to pass and re-pass). So I might be tempted to bid.

But it won't happen, because your "example" is a bit fanciful, as you
are well aware.

>> It has been an accepted factor here that your street has a "resident's
>> parking scheme".
>
>> That didn't come about by accident. The council must have had reason
>> (good, bad or indifferent) for it and that would mean that there is not
>> sufficient on-street space for all of the potential demand for parking
>> (including parking by visitors, people not living in the area but
>> working in it, etc).
>
> I'm surprised as a good Tory you've missed the main one. Which is to make
> money from something which was previously 'free'.

The council makes no money from RPSs.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that the scheme should be
abolished and the street made available for any citizen to use as the
free car-park you say it used to be, I will 100% support you in that
aim. You can rely upon it.

>> If your claim now is that your street either:
>
>> (a) does not have such a scheme or
>
>> (b) has such a scheme but doesn't need it because no-one else would seek
>> to park there anyway...
>
>> ...it's a bit late to volunteer that important information now, isn't it?
>
> You really have no idea about how such things work, do you? Must be living
> in that tiny village all these years.

I do know how these things work.

[ ... ]

> Has the penny dropped? A council won't introduce a resident parking scheme
> where they can't make a profit from it.

Councils don't make a profit from residents' parking schemes. If they
wanted to make money, they'd install parking meters or a ticket machine.
That's where the money is: £1.60 an hour or more.

Alternatively, they could sell a resident's parking permit to anyone who
asked for it and paid the money. That they don't do either of those
things surely must tell even you that making money is not the reason for
the scheme.

You are a beneficiary of the scheme, at the expense of those who are
banned from using it but still have to pay for the maintenance of the road.

In article <jd4ua4Fq0i2U1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > You seem to want to give the value of a bit of land based on any premise
> > you like at the minute. And in another breath accept there are a multitude
> > of factors which determine this.

> The choice of valuation method is not mine. And not yours. All land has
> a value, nevertheless. If the street outside your house had absolutely
> no value (as you keep claiming), it would do you no harm to be banned
> from parking on it. After all, according to your very ow logic, you
> would not be deprived of anything with value.

Forgot you were a Tory. Only value things in monetary terms.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <jd4ua4Fq0i2U1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > I'm surprised as a good Tory you've missed the main one. Which is to make
> > money from something which was previously 'free'.

> The council makes no money from RPSs.

You are utterly mad. That must come from living in a village.

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/04/2022 04:38 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>>> I'm surprised as a good Tory you've missed the main one. Which is to make
>>> money from something which was previously 'free'.

No paved road has ever been provided "free". They have to be constructed
and that costs money.

The road wasn't just found there by the Victorian builders.

>> The council makes no money from RPSs.

> You are utterly mad. That must come from living in a village.

No, the "utterly mad" (or perhaps "utterly deceitful") tag belongs to
those who "think" that the few quid a year for a permit pays for the
costs of provision and cleaning, maintenance, etc, of the highway.

It doesn't.

The permit fee is nothing but a contribution to the administrative costs.

On 30/04/2022 04:37 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>>> You seem to want to give the value of a bit of land based on any premise
>>> you like at the minute. And in another breath accept there are a multitude
>>> of factors which determine this.
>
>> The choice of valuation method is not mine. And not yours. All land has
>> a value, nevertheless. If the street outside your house had absolutely
>> no value (as you keep claiming), it would do you no harm to be banned
>> from parking on it. After all, according to your very ow logic, you
>> would not be deprived of anything with value.
>
> Forgot you were a Tory. Only value things in monetary terms.

It's already been explained to you - but doesn't seem to have sunk in -
that everything has to be given a monetary valuation so that its value
in relation to other things and other alternatives may be calculated,
for various reasons. This even - as you know - applies to human lives
lost via accident or negligence.

But your view seems to be that bereaved families aren't due any
compensation because human life cannot be valued. You have rejected the
possibility of monetary compensation in several posts, including the
very post I am responding to.

But... if you don't accept that the highway outside your house (on which
you are allowed to park and everyone else is forbidden to do so) has any
value, then you could not possibly complain if the scheme were
abolished. After all, if you lose something with no value, you cannot be
said to have lost anything. Can you?

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 23:44:44 +1000, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <jd4ne5FonhvU1@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 30/04/2022 12:33 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> >>> Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking,
>> the
>> >>> amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely
>> not even
>> >>> cover the admin costs of doing so.
>
>> >> Rubbish on tall stilts.
>> >
>> >> If that street has a "resident's parking scheme"
>> >
>> > Yet another red herring?
>
>> Your street, so far, has been described as so in-demand for parking that
>> the local council has found it expedient to initiate a "resident's
>> parking scheme".
>
>> > You don't like a level playing field, do you?
>
>> What are you talking about?
>
> You seem to want to give the value of a bit of land based on any premise
> you like at the minute. And in another breath accept there are a
> multitude
> of factors which determine this.
>
> I'll give you an example. You could buy the bit of land outside your
> house
> that is currently road. But have zero rights over it. No possibility of
> doing anything with it, other than using it as a road, same as anyone
> else. What market value do you think it would have?
>
>> It has been an accepted factor here that your street has a "resident's
>> parking scheme".
>
>> That didn't come about by accident. The council must have had reason
>> (good, bad or indifferent) for it and that would mean that there is not
>> sufficient on-street space for all of the potential demand for parking
>> (including parking by visitors, people not living in the area but
>> working in it, etc).
>
> I'm surprised as a good Tory you've missed the main one. Which is to make
> money from something which was previously 'free'.
>
>> If your claim now is that your street either:
>
>> (a) does not have such a scheme or
>
>> (b) has such a scheme but doesn't need it because no-one else would seek
>> to park there anyway...
>
>> ...it's a bit late to volunteer that important information now, isn't
>> it?
>
> You really have no idea about how such things work, do you? Must be
> living
> in that tiny village all these years.
>
>> If, on the other hand, you are claiming that because it would not be
>> worthwhile for the council to charge for on-street parking in a "quiet
>> residential area with plenty off street parking" (somewhere else,
>> obviously), please explain the relevance of that to your street, which
>> has been described in rather different terms in respect of the available
>> parking facilities and the implicit potential demand for space by people
>> who don't live there.
>
>> There is no "resident's parking scheme" here (despite the fact that
>> there are a number of terraced houses, not all of which have land for
>> parking). But perhaps you are arguing that there *should* be one, in
>> order to create a "level playing field".
>
>> If one were implemented (here) it wouldn't affect us. We have sufficient
>> space for several cars in excess of the number we actually have. So do
>> most of the other local residents.
>
> Has the penny dropped? A council won't introduce a resident parking
> scheme
> where they can't make a profit from it.

That's bullshit. Some will just recover the cost of it and some won't even
charge for it, just consider that it is just another service they provide.

On Sun, 01 May 2022 00:10:12 +1000, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On 30/04/2022 02:44 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 30/04/2022 12:33 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely
>>>>>> not even
>>>>>> cover the admin costs of doing so.
>>
>>>>> Rubbish on tall stilts.
>>
>>>>> If that street has a "resident's parking scheme"
>>
>>>> Yet another red herring?
>>
>>> Your street, so far, has been described as so in-demand for parking
>>> that
>>> the local council has found it expedient to initiate a "resident's
>>> parking scheme".
>>
>>>> You don't like a level playing field, do you?
>>
>>> What are you talking about?
>> You seem to want to give the value of a bit of land based on any
>> premise
>> you like at the minute. And in another breath accept there are a
>> multitude
>> of factors which determine this.
>
> The choice of valuation method is not mine. And not yours. All land has
> a value, nevertheless.

Nope, the land in Antartica doesnt.

> If the street outside your house had absolutely no value (as you keep
> claiming), it would do you no harm to be banned from parking on it.
> After all, according to your very ow logic, you would not be deprived of
> anything with value.
>
> But hey... I expect you'll see that differently.
>
>> I'll give you an example. You could buy the bit of land outside your
>> house
>> that is currently road. But have zero rights over it. No possibility of
>> doing anything with it, other than using it as a road, same as anyone
>> else. What market value do you think it would have?
>
> I wouldn't buy it. Would you?
>
> But if the local authority were proposing to sell it to someone else, my
> immediate suspicion would be that the proposed buyerhad found a way to
> use it, do the disadvantage of those who need to use it as a highway
> (upon which to pass and re-pass). So I might be tempted to bid.
>
> But it won't happen, because your "example" is a bit fanciful, as you
> are well aware.
>
>>> It has been an accepted factor here that your street has a "resident's
>>> parking scheme".
>>
>>> That didn't come about by accident. The council must have had reason
>>> (good, bad or indifferent) for it and that would mean that there is not
>>> sufficient on-street space for all of the potential demand for parking
>>> (including parking by visitors, people not living in the area but
>>> working in it, etc).
>> I'm surprised as a good Tory you've missed the main one. Which is to
>> make
>> money from something which was previously 'free'.
>
> The council makes no money from RPSs.
>
> On the other hand, if you are arguing that the scheme should be
> abolished and the street made available for any citizen to use as the
> free car-park you say it used to be, I will 100% support you in that
> aim. You can rely upon it.
>
>>> If your claim now is that your street either:
>>
>>> (a) does not have such a scheme or
>>
>>> (b) has such a scheme but doesn't need it because no-one else would
>>> seek
>>> to park there anyway...
>>
>>> ...it's a bit late to volunteer that important information now, isn't
>>> it?
>> You really have no idea about how such things work, do you? Must be
>> living
>> in that tiny village all these years.
>
> I do know how these things work.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> Has the penny dropped? A council won't introduce a resident parking
>> scheme
>> where they can't make a profit from it.
>
> Councils don't make a profit from residents' parking schemes. If they
> wanted to make money, they'd install parking meters or a ticket machine.
> That's where the money is: £1.60 an hour or more.
>
> Alternatively, they could sell a resident's parking permit to anyone who
> asked for it and paid the money. That they don't do either of those
> things surely must tell even you that making money is not the reason for
> the scheme.
>
> You are a beneficiary of the scheme, at the expense of those who are
> banned from using it but still have to pay for the maintenance of the
> road.

On Sun, 01 May 2022 02:54:06 +1000, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On 30/04/2022 04:37 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>>> You seem to want to give the value of a bit of land based on any
>>>> premise
>>>> you like at the minute. And in another breath accept there are a
>>>> multitude
>>>> of factors which determine this.
>>
>>> The choice of valuation method is not mine. And not yours. All land has
>>> a value, nevertheless. If the street outside your house had absolutely
>>> no value (as you keep claiming), it would do you no harm to be banned
>>> from parking on it. After all, according to your very ow logic, you
>>> would not be deprived of anything with value.
>> Forgot you were a Tory. Only value things in monetary terms.
>
> It's already been explained to you - but doesn't seem to have sunk in -
> that everything has to be given a monetary valuation

That is completely silly. No need to put a monetary value
on me leaving dog turds in my back lawn and mowing over
them instead of collecting them before mowing the lawn.

> so that its value in relation to other things and other alternatives may
> be calculated, for various reasons.

Only the pathetically anal do that with everything they do.

> This even - as you know - applies to human lives lost via accident or
> negligence.

But the "value" of a human life is a complete wank
when no regard to the age of the human, whether
it is a smoker or drug addict, let alone a domestic
violence perp etc etc etc.

> But your view seems to be that bereaved families aren't due any
> compensation because human life cannot be valued.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ? When the individual
dies of old age, or even after doing something stupid, it makes
no sense to compensate them.

> You have rejected the possibility of monetary compensation in several
> posts, including the very post I am responding to.

Bullshit he has.

> But... if you don't accept that the highway outside your house (on which
> you are allowed to park and everyone else is forbidden to do so) has any
> value, then you could not possibly complain if the scheme were abolished.

Even sillier.

> After all, if you lose something with no value, you cannot be said to
> have lost anything. Can you?

Wrong, as always.

In article <jd57jbFrp0rU1@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 30/04/2022 04:38 pm, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> >>> I'm surprised as a good Tory you've missed the main one. Which is to make
> >>> money from something which was previously 'free'.

> No paved road has ever been provided "free". They have to be constructed
> and that costs money.

> The road wasn't just found there by the Victorian builders.

> >> The council makes no money from RPSs.

> > You are utterly mad. That must come from living in a village.

> No, the "utterly mad" (or perhaps "utterly deceitful") tag belongs to
> those who "think" that the few quid a year for a permit pays for the
> costs of provision and cleaning, maintenance, etc, of the highway.

> It doesn't.

Ah - right. So by your logic this wouldn't be done anyway?

> The permit fee is nothing but a contribution to the administrative costs.

Again, the village mentality. Wandsworth council are Tory controlled.
Pride themselves on low CC. Parking enforcement is privatized. If resident
parking and policing that didn't make an overall profit, it would never
have been introduced all those years ago. There never was a problem
parking in this street or surrounding ones. Unlike those close to
stations, etc.

Wandsworth were clever though. Made up zones which include parts where
parking was difficult and those where it wasn't. With the majority in that
zone being in favour of it. Not street by street, where the results would
have been very different.

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.