Forum Replies Created
There are thousands of factory workers and others in the Wrexham catchment area who daily and annually receive free parking at there place of work for carrying out there own job of work, so why not council staff they work and provide a service the same as everyone else receiving free parking at there place of work. Seems to me we have a crowd of complaining ninnies here with sour hearts and heads. Long live free parking for all council staff, or to please everyone lets charge them plus all workers in all local factories and elsewhere. So beware you agitators—stop your sabre rattling or you may find yourselves paying out if you receive freeparking.!!!
Herein lies the problem/crux of the debate:
Factory workers etc… have bespoke car parking on private land owned, leased by or communally purpose-built to serve the businesses in question – they are not taking from a finite pool of local authority revenue generating car parking spots allocated in the centre of town where space for parked vehicles is limited and multiple user bases are all competing for the same spots and by the laws of economics should dictate that they have to pay for them based on need PLUS also benefiting the community/town in general as revenues generated can be reinvested back into the town.
The parking at factories/places of work at out of town locations isn’t needed by any other vehicle users so by charging people to turn into work by car, there’s no public interest or business benefit for charging said users. These workers would just end up finding alternative less convenient means of coming into work, e.g. busses, walking, cycling which are all at higher risk of delays and being late for work than getting into a car and parking up. So there would be an economic cost to businesses to charge their staff to park at work in lost productivity. PLUS if we were at a state where ALL businesses charged their workers to park up, then if just ONE business decided to swallow the costs and then allow free parking, it would immediately have a perk advantage over all the other businesses (to the tune of hundreds of pounds annually in parking fees) and it would become the most desirable business to work for and would attract all the best staff, meaning other businesses would be forced to offer the same perk until all parking went free again.
It’s not even like everyone is demanding all public sector workers pay for their parking, it would make very little sense to start charging teacher to park in a school car park, but they fall into the same purpose built parking category as the private commercial cases described above and would face the same issues.
Now, we fall back round to the middle of town parking and councillors/TOP managers etc… This has been discussed and debated to death about the reasonings back and forth as to why free parking is deserved and not deserved, but in a way they have pushed the argument onto themselves.
a) Difficult Decisions consultation and resulting budget dictates that the council is forced to make vicious cuts across all areas to save millions. This as we know includes schools and welfare provision. So they are claiming that money must be found at all costs to help minimise the impact on the worst affected due to these austerity measures.
b) A council owned car-parking space has been identified as a unit of revenue generation within the town centre (but also now at country parks) and plans are in place to fund Ty Pawb via parking revenues (issues on this discussed in Ty Pawb thread). So this means that every single car parking space that is not being utilised in a paid manner is losing revenue to go towards the budget and running of the town in austere times.
c) The council have decided that disabled blue-badge holders parking spaces must now become revenue generating spaces. They have also decided that spots in country parks must also become revenue generating spaces. So people’s arguments AGAINST councillors/council workers having free parking is that if we are in such dire straits that all other parking spaces must now generate revenue, why should a large slice of spaces occupied by those affiliated to WCBC not be generating revenue. Everyone should be seen to tighten their belts and deal with the austerity together or chip in and help pay to get the town moving towards being back on its feet.
Personally, I’ve nothing against the council offering the FREE parking as part of a transparent perk as part of a council-related salary if they are then paying per FREE PARKING PERK offered an annual fee into the same fund that the rest of the parking revenues go into, so we are not losing out. Of course, they’d have to actually find a way to fund that perk that didn’t impact on budgets anyway.
Likewise, exploring a subsidised cycle to work or using public transport scheme for workers (possibility of applying for WAG funding to pay for) would encourage less council workers to use spaces and that would free up the bay for paying customers, thus increasing overall gained revenue.
So from where I stand the thought process is a wholly rational economic issue where we can maximise car parking revenues going back into the public coffers.
At the moment, the need to charge other previously exempt people (or locations) from paying to help deal with a deficit but not charge another set makes no sense. The matter gets more muddied when there is a huge conflict of interest from the decision makers. Who in their right mind would vote to take their own free parking away AND all the workers who they represent as part of their management structure? – the few Councillors who want to do it in the public interests have faced attacks both on a political and personal basis. Perhaps it is something that needs an impartial and independent review.
I’m also all for the option of going completely the other way and making all council owned car parks free for all to use (or perhaps free at certain times – e.g. evenings and weekends) in order to boost economic stimulus and get lots of people into the town centre to spend money and therefore generate an uplift in commerce setting up within the town. Of course we’d actually have to find a way to pay for that – council tax increase above current proposed levels would be unpopular. So it’s all just about numbers juggling in tough economic times.February 27, 2018 at 3:51 am in reply to: Wrexham Schools budgets almost down by £1m at financial year end #145350
The war of words continues….
Clr Wynn obviously unimpressed by the blame game, but whilst this political back and forth goes on about who is to blame, not a single additional £ has been found for Wrexham schools.
A greater emphasis seems to be about rowing about who is accepting what additional pay instead of the task in hand.
You know what, councillors, AMs and any politicians & public servants in general, instead of rowing about who gets paid what, how about you actually earn that £££ by doing your jobs properly, one of which is safeguarding the future welfare, social development and employability of Welsh children.
Until that goal is met, or we have a genuine solution working towards turning around this dire situation then none of those responsible deserve their pay and they should all be forced to consider their positions.
The Leader managed to show an accurate representation of the state of Wrexham’s schooling system today by doing such a dreadful print run that the majority of pictures for Mother’s Day from the children were invisible with none of the names and ages even showing up.
Our children are being completely alienated and let down.February 26, 2018 at 1:21 pm in reply to: Plas Coch & Bro Alun Schools are now broke due to budget [letter] #145316
If you look on the Council site under Declarations of Interest for the last 12 months and select Personal and Prejudicial and then Ctrl+F search school you will see entries relating to several councillors with a conflict of interest relating to an education discussion taken place at council meetings.
The entries go along the lines of: ” Councillor [Name] – Personal and Prejudicial – by virtue of being a School Governor, but claimed the exemption as contained in paragraph 12(2)(a) of the Member Code of Conduct and remained in the room for consideration of this item taking part in the discussion and voting thereon.”
This means that several of them are able to bypass their conflict of interests and effectively vote against the best interests of their own schools with this GET OUT OF JAIL CARD listed in the code of conduct.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), you will not be regarded as having a prejudicial
interest in any business where that business(a)
relates to –
(iv) your role as a school governor (where not appointed or nominated
by your authority) unless it relates particularly to the school of which
you are a governor;
As long as they are punishing all schools in the area and not just their own then it seems to be permitted. Still completely baffling, like a doctor voting to withhold vital medical treatment to everyone in a hospital even if it means several of his/her patients will end up suffering as a direct result.
My guess is that due to the fact that commercial units in town selling products are struggling to remain open with stark competition from the usual online, supermarket and dedicated shopping destinations that services which can’t be procured elsewhere (and need people to be physically there) are popping up in the spaces instead.
Naturally haircutting (salons/barbers) is probably the easiest to set-up – the majority of people have hair (sorry bald people) and the majority of people need to pay someone to have their haircut. With a 60,000 strong head-count (pun intended) there’s a big market there for the taking and like Council Watcher pointed out, each hairdresser only needs scores of customers in numbers of 10s (all paying), rather than the hundreds per day (not all paying – some browsers) that retail units need to sustain a profit. This means a relatively easy ability to remain solvent and pay the main hairdresser and staff, with a small level of ongoing product costs (built into the price of a haircut) and a relatively low set-up cost – a (chair, a mirror and some scissors and a sink – I know it’s more than that, but not much – as mobile barbers are very easy to set-up).
Obviously there will be a critical point when there are too many of this type of shop, but at the moment it seems this is not the case. I know most blokes of certain generations will just go to their favourite barber they went to as a kid and never deviate from the same low-cost haircut – helps keep the likes of Henry’s staying in trade after all these years. However, there is a more open and competitive market for ladies who want to get the latest style in and may be drawn in by special offers on highlights etc… there’s a lot to compete on. Likewise, a lot of these young lads want to pay daft sums of money for the “Meet me at McDonald’s haircut” hence the rise of higher-end barbers, hairdressers for lads etc…
Something must be going right for them as you take somewhere like Cefn Mawr high street – most other shops struggle to stay open there, but there’s about 5 different places you can get your haircut when I last walked through there.
Surprised there aren’t more other types of personal beauty service providers not springing up too – nail bars, professional make-up, treatments etc… Just no fish foot nonsense please!February 25, 2018 at 8:53 pm in reply to: Minimum price for alcohol has dangers as people may move to drugs #145289
Also if they are going to have falling sales in the cheap end of the market due to minimum pricing, firms are going to more aggressively target the middle and higher income drinker set, to encourage them to drink more, which will ironically lead to an increased number of alcoholics in that cohort. They can’t promote drinks with cheap special offers? No problem – drinks promotions turn to prizes and freebie giveaways instead.February 25, 2018 at 8:44 pm in reply to: Minimum price for alcohol has dangers as people may move to drugs #145287
I think the findings of the report are very eye opening and there are some genuine concerns. I mean I find it astonishing that just 3% of the population is responsible for drinking just over a quarter of all the alcohol. I thought the Scots had a bad reputation!
What that’s saying is if you eliminated alcoholism from Wales – alcohol sellers would see a massive 1/4 drop in sales. I have serious doubts that the likes of Bargain Booze/Wetherspoons and the supermarkets are going to feel like they 100% want to get behind this. But then they are effectively profiting from addiction there.
Dick scoffed as he heard there was another Wrexham Tory with an amusing name, and boldly declared ‘Don, hold my beer.’
I wonder if Tony Partridge Conservative Chairman is still knocking about down in Clwyd South?
Does that mean Labour do not have a Chairman?
Haven’t a clue Dick & quite frankly couldn’t care less. Unless you’re in/were in the chairman business not an awful lot of people view them as important in terms of political parties. If I need to get in touch with someone important in Labour I’ll speak to Susan Elan Jones my MP who actually has the ability to go to Parliament & advocate for her constituents.
No I don’t know or care who the Clwyd South Labour chairman is either.
Unlike the local Tories who insist on needing a load of pomp and circumstance locally by inflating their presence with a series of appointed officials to fill a glaring hole in the distinct absence of any senior politicians, the Labour party doesn’t need a vocal and visible chairperson to do the dirty bidding of local officials too scared to actually break their nice-guy images and speak out against those they disagree with directly.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .