Fair enough - but in the absence of people paying more tax, if you're funding things in the face of absolute necessity first, then secondary services, surely you fund something that confers the greatest benefit on society as a whole as opposed to a niche service used by far fewer people?
It's a poxy decision to have to make (without wishing to make it political) - but cutting bike lanes in favour of this would be a poor choice.
The bike lane they built from Woolwich to charlton down the woolwich road is total shite though.
Ah - don't get me started on the quality of bike lanes 🤣
A lot of them are so ill thought out that you're often safer without them. Murderstrips that just encourage drivers to pass you too close because you were 'in the bike lane'.
I wonder how many of the people denouncing this actually visited the park more than once, ever.
I’ve never been, didn’t even know it existed. But I signed the petition because I worry about the animals and because children should have access to inner city farms imho (having worked on a voluntary basis at both Mudchute and Vauxhall).
I signed it too but I never knew it existed as well . I don’t even know where it is in Charlton but it if makes people happy it should be supported.
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
Why?
Given that there are millions of private, single car occupancy journeys made each year of less than two miles, gumming up the roads for people who NEED to drive (eg: tradesmen, delivery drivers), when we're at a crisis point with obesity rates, in a city that already has by far the best public transport network in the country, when every survey that's asked quotes 'fear' as the greatest barrier to people cycling more, and that cycle lanes are largely capex rather than opex?
As an example of something I assume likely to cost more than £70k when we need to make compromises.
To stress we can’t have a win win we need to cut back on something.
I’d suggest Greenwich May already have benefited from some schemes to date and deferring more like I thought I read is planned near Woolwich Arsenal could be a compromise. BUT likely the wrong budget pot as I said.
Also when I consider the wasted money on Shooters Hill Road of installing and then removing the barriers / poles to differentiate the cycle lane you can see where some funds are wasted.
Merely an example of an alternate compromise.
Fair enough - but in the absence of people paying more tax, if you're funding things in the face of absolute necessity first, then secondary services, surely you fund something that confers the greatest benefit on society as a whole as opposed to a niche service used by far fewer people?
It's a poxy decision to have to make (without wishing to make it political) - but cutting bike lanes in favour of this would be a poor choice.
Understood. My example could equally have been to forego a few ULEZ cameras and accept some might find a minor route to travel for free or bin off some woefully poor Christmas lights.
It’s just a shame for such a relatively poor sum where rules and regulations and not common sense dictate priority.
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
Why?
Given that there are millions of private, single car occupancy journeys made each year of less than two miles, gumming up the roads for people who NEED to drive (eg: tradesmen, delivery drivers), when we're at a crisis point with obesity rates, in a city that already has by far the best public transport network in the country, when every survey that's asked quotes 'fear' as the greatest barrier to people cycling more, and that cycle lanes are largely capex rather than opex?
As an example of something I assume likely to cost more than £70k when we need to make compromises.
To stress we can’t have a win win we need to cut back on something.
I’d suggest Greenwich May already have benefited from some schemes to date and deferring more like I thought I read is planned near Woolwich Arsenal could be a compromise. BUT likely the wrong budget pot as I said.
Also when I consider the wasted money on Shooters Hill Road of installing and then removing the barriers / poles to differentiate the cycle lane you can see where some funds are wasted.
Merely an example of an alternate compromise.
Fair enough - but in the absence of people paying more tax, if you're funding things in the face of absolute necessity first, then secondary services, surely you fund something that confers the greatest benefit on society as a whole as opposed to a niche service used by far fewer people?
It's a poxy decision to have to make (without wishing to make it political) - but cutting bike lanes in favour of this would be a poor choice.
Understood. My example could equally have been to forego a few ULEZ cameras and accept some might find a minor route to travel for free or bin off some woefully poor Christmas lights.
It’s just a shame for such a relatively poor sum where rules and regulations and not common sense dictate priority.
Be much better if people stopped cutting those cameras down, no?
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
Why?
Given that there are millions of private, single car occupancy journeys made each year of less than two miles, gumming up the roads for people who NEED to drive (eg: tradesmen, delivery drivers), when we're at a crisis point with obesity rates, in a city that already has by far the best public transport network in the country, when every survey that's asked quotes 'fear' as the greatest barrier to people cycling more, and that cycle lanes are largely capex rather than opex?
As an example of something I assume likely to cost more than £70k when we need to make compromises.
To stress we can’t have a win win we need to cut back on something.
I’d suggest Greenwich May already have benefited from some schemes to date and deferring more like I thought I read is planned near Woolwich Arsenal could be a compromise. BUT likely the wrong budget pot as I said.
Also when I consider the wasted money on Shooters Hill Road of installing and then removing the barriers / poles to differentiate the cycle lane you can see where some funds are wasted.
Merely an example of an alternate compromise.
Fair enough - but in the absence of people paying more tax, if you're funding things in the face of absolute necessity first, then secondary services, surely you fund something that confers the greatest benefit on society as a whole as opposed to a niche service used by far fewer people?
It's a poxy decision to have to make (without wishing to make it political) - but cutting bike lanes in favour of this would be a poor choice.
Understood. My example could equally have been to forego a few ULEZ cameras and accept some might find a minor route to travel for free or bin off some woefully poor Christmas lights.
It’s just a shame for such a relatively poor sum where rules and regulations and not common sense dictate priority.
Be much better if people stopped cutting those cameras down, no?
So... is the conclusion here that the (good old British values) animal park is being closed due to immigration?
Worrying how this mindset has really taken hold.
I truly value this insight into the mindset though. It's good to be aware of it (again, I think)
No I didn’t read it that way.
I think the observation was that if it only saves £70k per year there might be other expenditure that could be cut to mitigate - an example possibly being expense of multiple languages support.
But you'd like to think there are other things that could also be identified.
I’d have suggested cutting back on cycle lane schemes but believe that may be all or part funded by TFL. Which in itself is another example of bureaucratic and complex financial control where we lose sight of total spend and relative priorities.
Seems a (not the only) root cause might be temp accommodation costs which come from existing residents if i understood correctly. I don’t know what drives that mostly - possibly private landlord rent rises?
Easy to identify issues hard to find the least painful compromises. It’s a sorry sacrifice to have to make because if it goes it likely would never return even with a different political party in Greenwich.
Why?
Given that there are millions of private, single car occupancy journeys made each year of less than two miles, gumming up the roads for people who NEED to drive (eg: tradesmen, delivery drivers), when we're at a crisis point with obesity rates, in a city that already has by far the best public transport network in the country, when every survey that's asked quotes 'fear' as the greatest barrier to people cycling more, and that cycle lanes are largely capex rather than opex?
Walk past each morning heading to work, it would be a real shame if they get rid of it. if anything funds should be increased for it to provide more for the animals there!
I think I read somewhere that the hotel bill alone for housing people in temporary accommodation was £800k per month back in 2023. The increase in the electoral role in the last year is circa 10k. As others have mentioned, parks are not statutory for councils to provide. Not too long ago quite a few of the councils parks had bowls greens, seasonal bedding schemes, paddling pools, putting greens, play attendants and site based keepers and grounds maintenance staff. Over the years they’ve had to face cuts because other services are statutory and the animal park is just the latest to be added to the list.
which once again highlights the insanity of fixing council tax agsinst whatever it is, 1991 house price values and also mandating services to come from local resources what should be managed centrally and funded from a central pot.
If society wants stuff it has to be resourced. There is an argument that says huge amounts of money is wasted on nuclear weapons that could be spent on improving the lived experience of citizens.
If society wants stuff it has to be resourced. There is an argument that says huge amounts of money is wasted on nuclear weapons that could be spent on improving the lived experience of citizens.
an argument that has been regularly lost. If NATO didn't have nukes Putin may already have used them on Ukraine. Anyways isn't Greenwich already a nuclear free zone?
If society wants stuff it has to be resourced. There is an argument that says huge amounts of money is wasted on nuclear weapons that could be spent on improving the lived experience of citizens.
an argument that has been regularly lost. If NATO didn't have nukes Putin may already have used them on Ukraine. Anyways isn't Greenwich already a nuclear free zone?
I would say it is an ongoing argument rather than a finally lost one. At the moment those who are in favour of Nuclear Weapons are winning.
If society wants stuff it has to be resourced. There is an argument that says huge amounts of money is wasted on nuclear weapons that could be spent on improving the lived experience of citizens.
an argument that has been regularly lost. If NATO didn't have nukes Putin may already have used them on Ukraine. Anyways isn't Greenwich already a nuclear free zone?
I would say it is an ongoing argument rather than a finally lost one. At the moment those who are in favour of Nuclear Weapons are winning.
so would you give them up unilaterally, now, with Putin threatening to use them?
If society wants stuff it has to be resourced. There is an argument that says huge amounts of money is wasted on nuclear weapons that could be spent on improving the lived experience of citizens.
an argument that has been regularly lost. If NATO didn't have nukes Putin may already have used them on Ukraine. Anyways isn't Greenwich already a nuclear free zone?
I would say it is an ongoing argument rather than a finally lost one. At the moment those who are in favour of Nuclear Weapons are winning.
so would you give them up unilaterally, now, with Putin threatening to use them?
I am afraid to say that yes I would. If Putin vaporises me there is no comfort to be gained at that microsecond knowing I am vaporising him and leaving the planet to thousands of years of nuclear winter. I am in the minority.
Comments
You won't get far in a bike lane for £70k. https://bikebiz.com/dft-publishes-report-outlining-typical-costs-of-cycling-interventions/ at 2018 prices.
A lot of them are so ill thought out that you're often safer without them. Murderstrips that just encourage drivers to pass you too close because you were 'in the bike lane'.
if anything funds should be increased for it to provide more for the animals there!
As others have mentioned, parks are not statutory for councils to provide.
Not too long ago quite a few of the councils parks had bowls greens, seasonal bedding schemes, paddling pools, putting greens, play attendants and site based keepers and grounds maintenance staff. Over the years they’ve had to face cuts because other services are statutory and the animal park is just the latest to be added to the list.
There is an argument that says huge amounts of money is wasted on nuclear weapons that could be spent on improving the lived experience of citizens.
‘We’ll stand for election if you try to close our animal park,’ councillors warned
https://greenwichwire.co.uk/2025/01/28/maryon-wilson-animal-park-charlton-greenwich-council-election/If Putin vaporises me there is no comfort to be gained at that microsecond knowing I am vaporising him and leaving the planet to thousands of years of nuclear winter.
I am in the minority.