Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The Park
Tags for Forum Posts: appeal, court, finsbury, finsbury park, finsbury park events, of, park, ruling"
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Protheroe O'Shea on
-
Fingers crossed FoFP will campaign for more jobs. The park is an effing rubbish tip at the moment. And not a traveller in sight....
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1 on
-
Arguably if the income was ring-fenced for FP that would mean that they'd cut down on the number of events at FP and spread the burden to other areas.
I think it is quite easy to see why those around Finsbury Park would look to areas such as around Lordship Rec and wonder why they have to suffer the pain to fund parks that could hold their own events.
-
-
It is arguably a selfish move.
On the other hand, if I lived around Finsbury Park where the larger parts of the disturbance are there's a pretty good chance that I'm not in Haringey. As such, I'd be wondering why I'm expected to suffer all of the disruption so that parks in a different borough an hour's walk away can be subsidised.
Or is the income split between Islington, Hackney and Haringey?
-
-
All the income and outgoings for Finsbury Park are for Haringey. You could equally argue that the rest of the year Islington and Hackney residents benefit from the use of the park without making any contribution to it.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Of course the knock on is much bigger. Income from Brockwell Park will not be able to be used in other Lambeth parks. Income from Victoria Park can’t be used on improvements to Clissold Park. It’s a bloody disaster.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I certainly couldn’t see it on a quick skim. But if, as the Enf Ind reported, it was raise at full council, I wonder if it’s there but I missed it.
-
-
-
Correction - a closed shop bunch of nimbys. I’m sure they read this but that they can’t even try to defend themselves - says it all really.
anyway had a long chat with one of our new councillors about this - their moves are clearly counter productive as they aren’t listened to as they aren’t seen as constructive. Which is a real shame for the residents around as I’m sure things can be improved (can’t they always) In fact the counter arguments made against them on here and elsewhere seem to hold much more sway.
i wouldn’t be surprised in the council signed a long term contract with wireless just to kill the issue
-
-
You may be right DTW. My real worry is that now the funding stream for parks other than FP has effectively been shut off there will be pressure to start handing over to the private sector to run some of them- anywhere they can turn a profit from renting out facilities, holding corporate events and so on. It’s either that or the gates to some of them shut.
Some of the parks in the borough just don’t lend themselves to making money - they are either too small or too far from public transport (Lordship Rec comes to mind) to make them viable as event and income generating facilities. The future looks decidedly shaky.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
If all you say is true Tris then it maybe time for a new 'friends' group to be started up that's more inclusive & responsive
-
-
Good ideas Peter.
Interested to hear what Tris thinks as well, since Tris talks a lot about wanting change. Best not to wait for others to delivery it, esp if they aren't actually delivering, which has been pointed out for a very long time now.
-
-
-
I originally picked up on this when I reproduced an Enfield Indy report. I hadn't looked at the judgement.
On a quick skim of the judgement (attached) I didn't see this issue referenced. However, since it's been in the newspaper and raised in the full council, I assume it's in there somewhere
- Attachments:
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
