Can I ask publicly, that one or all of you clearly and candidly explain the following:
I would hope that the response would not be a direction to the few out-of-date documents available in the public domain. Nor would I appreciate a "we'll be able to tell you soon" response. This thread might be a useful reference for the type of communication we have had to suffer thus far.
Quite. For example, we have a professional events organiser living in the Warehouse District, who's organised some seriously major film events. What if he were invited to shape and contribute? But as I said, it's not even about the results. For me it's the sense that people are authors of their own neighbourhood that matters most to me.
Can I add to what Phil says that some weeks back I asked if anyone could come up with a simple explanation of the purpose of the GLSG and how membership is determined. Would still like to see that.
I think the GLSG is really missing a trick not using HoL to publicise it's activities. I'm sure that this site gets far more hits than the place on the Haringey website that hosts the one copy of GLSG minutes from a year ago. As the major concern of the group is Green Lanes and this site has GL at its core it would make sense to use it. In my day job I'd be jumping for joy at the thought of the opportunities a site like this presents to really get local people involved.
I think most of people's questions have been answered if you read between the lines. The GLSG was set up in the wake of the Battle of Green Lanes. The secrecy and lack of transparency is required because of the area's problems with organised crime, something we as residents are occasionally aware of but I'm sure is a big deal to the shopkeepers.
The trouble is that the GLSG does a lot of other stuff now, stuff that should be out in the open and transparently decided upon (e.g. The Harringay Festival).
If you think things are bad now, wait until after the election.
Not sure if this is what Phil is referring to but Alan Stanton commented last year that technically (the GLSG is) a Council sub-committee so publishing its agendas and minutes is the law... and to keep public minutes secret then they are acting unlawfully.
Have added those minutes to the HoL GLSG wiki page.
Zena, you still haven't answered about us getting the agendas and minutes regularly, despite repeated pestering here on HoL and on email.
I'm not really the right person to ask. It might be an idea to drop a note to Rob Tao at email@example.com. Rob's a trader on Green Lanes, a member of GLSG and has been central in organising the past two festivals. It would be grand to have you guys involved.
Perhaps they should rename it the Green Lanes Secrecy Group ?
You mean Strategy? Think you've just answered my question (for which, thanks!). Bloody abbreviations...
I'll comment on three points - I don't have detailed financial breakdowns.
The current regeneration spend is a merging of three funding streams - OLF2, TFL corridor and 'Pocket Park'. It is run by Haringey Council's major project team, with oversight by the GLSG. TFL and the GLA are obviously overseeing their elements of the overall scheme. The scheme was subject to public consultation.
The change in the terms for the shopfront funding was a negotiation between Haringey Council and the GLA, approved by the GLSG, as there was a real danger that we would not be able to deliver that part of the scheme (other similar schemes in other parts of London are in the same situation).
The GLSG does not yet have a new constitution or Terms of Reference.
If you want to know more, and meet members of the group, please come along to the Area Forum on Monday at Chestnuts School.
Geoff, I'd like the GLA to pay for nice new brick fences all along the passage with special but non-threatening (no broken glass, no razor wire) security measures. This will benefit the lives of the hundreds of people a week who use the passage and not just the 80 odd homeowners along it. The trouble is, I don't have spare time (or the motivation) to formulate bids and speak to all the home owners involved so it won't get done.
This use of public funds to correct the, I hesitate to use the word but hey, vandalism, committed by the traders to their own shop fronts over the years (they wouldn't put up with it in Kensington) still seems wrong. It's like the secret council meetings in TRTP where they keep agreeing that "the corporation can pay for that" when really it is private works to privately held businesses.
While I'm at it, who do you think enjoys the new footpaths more, the pedestrians or the shopkeepers who have incorporated them into the demesne of their shops?
I shudder at the prospect of attempting to get agreement from each of the property owners along the passage to get the work done, let alone the design, finish and security measures. It would take a brave person to take that on! Getting funding would be a breeze in comparison.
I think the pedestrians enjoy the new pavements more - I've had positive comments from friends visiting GL. I doubt some traders mind what sort of pavement they stack their wares on, although those with tables outside must be pleased.
Sorry, but what is the GLSG? Although I'm a Christian and am proud of the good work my parish does in the local community (lunch clubs, Winter night shelter, youth clubs etc), I am also a secularist. It' possible to be both. We should all be treated equally under the law - no special 'opt-out' for religions. Public money should not be spent on religious buildings, either. Haringey Council paid for new gates for the South Tottenham Shul (I have nothing against the shul but why couldn't they fund it? Another example of vote-buying?). I take the sink or swim approach to these matters. Want money for your church, mosque or shul? Get your congregants to cough up, not us, the taxpayer. Justin (Agent and Chair, Tottenham Conservatives)