Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Finsbury Park - blocked drain by road barrier near New River
The drain in the road gutter has been blocked for at least two years (South side of road). The drain on the opposite side (North) is free - except when blocked by leaf fall which is always the case in autumn. This gives us the additional amenity of a small lake at the bottom of the road - perhaps this is deliberate landscaping!
Couple of issues here. No doubt staff shortages will be cited but autumn leaves have only just been partially swept which accounts for some of the blockage. Given that millions have been spent in the park it's a pity that such a basic thing as drainage appears to have a non existent priority. Grateful if somebody could post the contact details for whoever is the head honcho who can be contacted over this seemingly permanent condition.
Tags for Forum Posts: finsbury park, new river
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
There's no money in the budget for that.
Alan I appreciate your interest in this matter.
(BTW, the problem is equally as bad at the southern corner of the park. Or as the council is keen on the term 'Gateway', they might cast it, from the FP railway station, the Gateway to Haringey).
However, your generally helpful comment shows how easy it is for even the most independent-minded councilor to slip into council-'officer'-speak, viz. work needed for which there's no budget.
From the council's mammoth budget, there is always money to be found for fabulous manager salaries – and lots of them – for gigantic Compromise Agreements and gagging clauses, for defending all legal actions (no matter how much or whether the council is right or wrong) and for one-offs like the One Borough One Future Fund, for which £1,500,000 was magically found last year at a time of austerity.
By contrast, there is never money in any budget for any thing the council does not wish to do. It just sounds more professional to refer to a budget, as if these things are carefully calculated, rather than to say we don't want to do 'x'.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
What can I say, Clive?
That your LibDem colleagues in Government have not colluded in any cuts? That not only - to top Mark Twain - are reports of cuts greatly exaggerated, but the Council's coffers are brimful?
Yes, those of us invited to the Koberbunker in River Park House can hardly get in without tripping over bags of fivers and stacks of tenners. Haven't we all been reading on HoL about trucks driven by Eric Pickles himself, full of bundles of used fifties, rumbling day and night over the speed bumps of Ladder roads en route for the Council's vaults? (Chased by John McMullan with a video camera.)
Of course there are some possible cuts and savings. I've been saying that for several years. Repeated it at the last Council meeting. Nobody takes any notice. Not the faintest curiosity.
You're partly right about Joe Goldberg's vanity projects. But only partly, because some of the projects seem very worthwhile. Even Joe Goldberg can't get everything wrong day-by-day, month-by-month.
That special power - suspending the Laws of Probability - is reserved for the Dear Leader herself.
You know what? If only one fine day in the future we had an effective opposition party in Haringey. You haven't by any chance got a few friends who might do the job?
-
-
Alan I don't mean to deny that there're real cuts but I believe the municipal phrase there's no money in the budget for that, pre-dates the Coalition Government.
At a recent Community Forum I asked the council finance officer the source of the OBOF fund £1,500,000 and he gave a perfect non-answer: it was from budgets underspent from last year. At a time of undoubted austerity, I find it surprising that so much could be underspent from a council budget (or budgets), especially when the council had already made savage cuts especially to the young and old. There wasn't really time to explore the remarkable OBOF windfall further, but suffice it to say that I don't find "underspent budgets" entirely satisfying.
My next question about the near-late accounts that are currently subject to an independent inquiry, was said to be unfair, but then I didn't really expect an answer to that either (I merely asked for comment, if he felt able).
By 'vanity project' I imagine you're refering to OBOF fund. "Vanity Project" is I think a little inaccurate: political patronage might be nearer the mark.
-
-
Clive, it seems we're both sceptical about Cllr Joe Goldberg's possible motivations for the OBOF projects. But for the sake of fairness can I suggest we separate this from the projects themselves. The funding decisions have been made and the people planning to run the projects appear genuinely concerned to achieve something positive. Let's consider them with an open mind.
If more Goldberg variations appear with unexpected new pots of money, I hope that your party's councillors will start doing a better job of looking behind the curtain.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
