Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty
So it’s all our fault for having the temerity to get above our perceived station, own a car and have the gall to actually use it for our own convenience.
It seems to me that this excuse for a government and local authorities are in cahoots to turn the clock back some 70 years, where only business managers, doctors and the wealthy had cars and the rest of us had to use public transport or bike or walk.
It also seems to me that if this scheme gets widespread use it will free up land for other purposes.
If a large business suddenly announced that the company car park will be closed down and then sells the very expensive land, the workers would not be happy.
|
Have reverted back to my 'source' for further thoughts Jambutty, reply herewith :-
"Well, he's sort of right but it's all about the spin. There is an
incentive to business through the sale of car parking for profit and
subsequent development. However, in a crowded city, short on space, car
parking is not the most efficient or appropriate use of land. Of course
there will always be a minority of persons who refuse to consider
alternatives to the private car; have no other realistic option or value
time/perceived convenience over money and can pay the charge. This is
not about taxing the poor and middle class 'off the road' but it is
about incentivising people to consider alternatives. The argument that
the charge is linked to discrimination against income groups and/or
class is nonsense. Unfortunately people only consider the impact of
their decisions in monetary terms and quite sensible arguments will fail
against less sensible arguments if there is no financial dis/incentive.
The days of government spending billions to provide new road capacity
for car users are gone - it is quite simply too expensive."
I'm not for/against at the moment, just trying to understand it all.