Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Funding opportunity squandered by Friends of Finsbury Park
Major events in Finsbury Park generate a substantial income for the borough and it is up to the council to direct how the majority is spent.
However, organisers of events also pay an 'environmental impact charge' of up to £10,000 per event, which is supposed to be used to fund priority improvements to the park identified by FoFP. The total so far from the events in 2014-15 probably amounts to around £30-40k.
I asked one of their members about this last week in one of the many threads about Wireless Festival, but got an evasive answer. So I asked the council - their response:
"I can confirm that we have not had a conversation with the Friends about this opportunity this year. In the past they have made it clear that they do not wish to have any involvement in the spending of any income raised from events, let alone what they might prioritise in terms of investment of any money collected as environmental impact fees."
In other words, they are turning down the chance to use money which is already available to make much needed improvements to the park simply because they are unhappy with the policy to host major events there.
Whatever you happen to think of the major events - and please use one of the other threads if you want to continue that discussion - their failure to take advantage of this opportunity is very disappointing and clearly doesn't represent the best interests of all park users. I hope they will reconsider their position.
On a more positive note, perhaps we can use this thread to suggest some small scale improvements for the park which can hopefully be taken forward by the Friends if they can be made to see sense. For example, think about about minor enhancements which would improve the environment or accessibility of the park - perhaps new planting schemes or some more benches which would make visiting easier for people who need to rest at frequent intervals. This funding isn't for general maintenance and repairs, which the council looks after, or about making good damage from events, which is the event organiser's responsibility.
Tags for Forum Posts: finsbury park, finsbury park events, fofp, friends of finsbury park, funding, improvements
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Alan, what a strange comment. If someone has a view that coincides with another viewpoint, in this case you seem to be citing the official council point of view (whatever that may be), why does that matter? Does it make their opinion in someway less valid?
On the issue of anonymity, a quick scan seems to show that people on here use a nickname or not their full name. I choose to use my full name (though my real name may be Claire Kober as far as anyone knows). Is that really an issue? And if it isn't why do you raise it?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Michael when you and I exchange views and comments on HoL my expectation from you is something like: 'hmm-that's-interesting-on-the-one-hand-on-the other-hand-maybe-we-partly-agree-maybe-we-don't-is-there-a-middle way?' I hope you experience the same at your end of the dialogue.
And I hope that across this website, the usual aim really is dialogue. Not parallel monologues which I now experience when most local councillors speak.
You choose to share not just your name but some of your professional background and a small part of your personal experience. (e.g. where you live and how a local traffic problem impacts on you.) So for me your views gain some significant additional weight.
Is anonymity a general issue? As I've explained, it can become relevant when people are also active off-line. And while I've never thought any HoL contributor was astroturfing - other than a couple of rather obvious advertisers - I'm sure you've seen some debate nationally about this.
-
-
-
Tris, it may surprise you, but I while I assumed you were joking about being picked to represent the Group's view, I didn't assume you were being sarcastic. I took what you said at face value - that you intended to join the Friends of Finsbury Park Group.
Other than Clive Carter I don't know the members of the Friends of Finsbury Park who have posted on HoL. So I don't assume every one of its members is "not open to views" which differ from those expressed here. But I assumed you were at least open minded enough to give it a try.
My experience of both our local residents' association and the local Friends of the Down Lane Park Group is that on occasions people have strongly differing views and express them.
As for responding to issues in the same forum they are raised, yes that makes sense. But it doesn't prevent anyone from taking part in other relevant forums as well. Especially forums which are set up for the explicit purpose of presenting and representing residents' views.
I recall, as a councillor, going as a member of a Scrutiny panel to a group of streets in Highgate where we met the chair of the local residents' association. He had strong personal views about possible solutions to their waste collection problems. But he also fairly and openly explained that there were strongly divergent views among residents, with no overall consensus.
Your final paragraph distorts and misrepresents what I actually wrote.
Over the years when I was a councillor, I served on various Scrutiny committees. I can assure you that what appeared on websites was far less influential than when residents or residents groups contacted us or turned up to talk to us. Of course, I can't speak for any of my former colleagues, but if I had to make a guess, it would be that comments from anonymous people did not carry much weight at all.
You ask me if there are things this Council leadership says and does which I agree with. There are.
But I strongly and angrily reject the Orwellian Newspeak which pours out of Haringey's propaganda machine. The Code of Practice for Local Authority Publicity is quite clear that Council publicity should be objective and even-handed. It should not use public money for publicity campaigns with the main aim of persuading members of the public to agree with its policies. In my view, that is what this Council routinely does.
I may have overlooked some of its publicity material, but I find it hard to recall something I've recently read or seen which takes an even-handed, on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand approach. With even a basic and rigorous SWOT approach - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats involved in a Council project or proposal. Everything is endless upbeat SO-SO.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Konrad B on
-
Tris,
you write "everything posted here by their members, whether on behalf of FoFP or in a personal capacity, suggests that they are not open to views which differ from their own."
Please see my post dated 23 July - copied below and tell me how you can say that I (as a declared FoFP member) am not open to other views, how do you come to this conclusion?
"Tris, the policy regarding the environmental impact charge and addressing immediate priorities was not part of the main Outdoor Events Policy document which went to the Council Cabinet in December 2013. All that that document said was
8.4 “Environmental Impact Charge – All applicants will be charged a flat rate fee dependent on their event to cover the cost of the environmental impact on the park.”
How the fee was to be used was left to Appendix A (8.2.6).
It is not surprising if people, Including the Friends of Finsbury Park (FoFP), did not spot the reference in the Appendix as the nowhere in the consultation document for the 2013 consultation on Finsbury Park events was there any mention of this Environmental Impact Charge. The reality of these meetings and the documents produced for them is that those attending skim through the text. Councillors have the advantage that they are briefed by Council officials but no one briefs other attendees on what items they should be looking out for.
Once the policy is passed it is incumbent on the Council officials to inform all of those affected by the policy. So, in this case the Council should have written to the FoFP and informed them that the policy allowed them to identify funding priorities. Perhaps you should ask your Council contact when they wrote to the FoFP.
Regarding the Council not raising this issue with the Friends over the last year, over the last eighteen months FoFP has participated in Haringey Council’s Finsbury Park Events Stakeholder meetings which consider the implementation of the Council’s Outdoor Events policy in Finsbury Park. These meetings are attended by event organisers, Councillors and Council officials and FoFP and other local organisation representatives. As far as I am aware, at none of these meetings did the Council side invite involvement in the spending of any income.
I write as an ordinary member of FoFP (and not afraid to give my name!)"
-
-
-
Tris
Are you going to respond to my Tuesday posting in particular my comment -
"Please see my post dated 23 July - copied below and tell me how you can say that I (as a declared FoFP member) am not open to other views, how do you come to this conclusion?"
I think that an apology is due.
-
-
-
So Tris,
lets get this right I am being accused of not being open to views which differ from my own because the piece I wrote on 23 July did not reflect the views of the pro-event lobby. The piece was very much an explanation of how I saw the position regarding the Environmental Impact Charge and I don't see how you can reasonably expect me to have included the pro-event lobby views in that piece.
Incidentally in that piece I suggested that " Perhaps you should ask your Council contact when they wrote to the FoFP." Did you ask your Council contacts, because I would certainly like to know, but I don't have the Council contacts which you apparently have.
It is certainly not the case that the Friends of Finsbury Park do not listen to other views. For instance, there was a well attended meeting (100+ people) back in March at which Councillor McNamara spoke, we didn't bite his head off. He didn't get much support, but we were civil.
So If you really want FoFP to hear your views why don't you join and come to the next meeting in September and argue the Council and event promoter case.
-
-
-
Konrad, can I take issue with one point in your otherwise fairly presented comments.
Residents who think there can legitimately be some commercial or semi-commercial activities in public parks are not simply or inevitably arguing "the Council and event promoter case".
It seems to me perfectly possible to favour what we might call a 'mixed economy' in public parks. In other words, aiming for a successful blend and balance of Council-run; voluntary-sector-run and commercially-run activities. Though without the dominance of the latter. And - in my view - always within a framework of public ownership and accountability to the community.
-
-
Permalink Reply by HoL Site Admin on
-
On the issue of pseudonymity, HoL allows members to sign up using any name they wish. Whilst we will always keep an eye on member behaviour, we have no intention of controlling members' online identity. There are positives and negatives to using a pseudonym and the issue is complex (see 'the internet' for more!), but as far as HoL is concerned as long as we feel that a member is behaving in accordance with our house rules, pseudonyms are acceptable.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
we have no intention of controlling members' online identity.
Hugh, allowing anonymity is a boon for whistleblowers and for those who genuinely fear persecution, or at least, retribution for any opinions they might express. There are countries in the world with oppressive regimes where such anonymity is valuable.
Unfortunately, HoL's current policy also facilitates trolls and sock-puppets.
I haven't on every single post make the fullest disclosure in terms of Membership of the Council, Ward and party affiliation, but it hasn't always been relevant.
More importantly, I've never made any attempt to conceal my identity.
I've always posted with my real name and I have never had any other account on HarringayOnLine with an assumed name or an obviously false name.
If someone does use an assumed name, it could be a reason for questioning their motive and why they appear not to wish to take responsibility for their posts.
Does HoL have any equivalent to the good journalist practice whereby Letters to the Editor are sometimes published with the note, Name and Address Supplied ?
Highgate Ward Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Martin on
-
Hi Clive. Just catching up with the latest posts on this one. Not much that's new, other than a couple of internet terms I had not come across. You could now add Dictionary Corner to your list of affiliations. How about "environmental impact charge" as an example of "greenwashing"?
-
-
Hi HeatherOne post that does post-date your's, is former Councillor Alan Stanton's thoughtful one above (that is indented to level eight).
Alan writes about what he sees as a propaganda machine. I've made similar remarks about its most obvious and widespread manifestation, Haringey People magazine, copies of which dropped through my mail slot yesterday.
It does seem that in a time of austerity, the last thing that the Council would cut is their commitment to PR, including commitment to their full-colour multi-page megaphone. Why is it sent in its present form to anyone and still less, to every household in the Borough?
Genuine information from the Local Authority could fill a page or two. The supposed 'news' could be left to the pressured and dwindling local press.
The focus by Council high command on appearance and media presentation, disguises a moral vacuum (I worry that the media-monitoring that is performed, could lead to astroturfing).
This concentration aids and abets poor choices the Council makes in how it chooses to spend the reduced monies available. It's both cynical of itself and promotes wider cynicism.
It is not The Friends of Finsbury Park who squander money, public or otherwise.
£90k for a new corporate image (and implementation) is a small example of misplaced Council priorities but it's symptomatic of broader superficiality. I don't know at what point a moral-compass was lost in the New Labour project but now, there's little sign of one in Haringey. Public Consultations too often appear as opportunities for policy-marketing.
-
If Jeremy Corbyn MP wins leadership of the Labour Party, it is my hope that he might try to reverse the extent of spin and media-management that passes for "Communications" in some Labour-run Councils.
I say that because I heard him address The Friends of Finsbury Park (of which he is Patron) at the last AGM. Mr. Corbyn spoke with sincerity, using plain simple English whose meaning everyone could understand. That is something that has almost become a foreign tongue for this Council. Mr Corbyn did not hide his views or obfuscate. Although I'm unlikely to agree with much of his politics, nevertheless Jeremy could be good influence locally.
Plus, he's a real park advocate!
CDC
Councillor (Highgate Ward)
Liberal Democrat Party
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Clive, as far as I'm aware, our practice is pretty standard for any forum or indeed newspaper site (Do you have to prove ID to comment on The Guardian website for example?). The only option is for us to do some sort of ID check. There's a commercially run nationwide 'neighbourhood' outfit in the US that requires credit card info to confirm address and ID. Even if you could offer us the funding to do that, Clive, without having thought it through, I'm not sure it would be the way to go.
If you have any more affordable or practical suggestions, I'm very willing to consider them.
Does the Lib Dem party have any stand on identity checking on forums and the web? It doesn't sound like something they'd be naturally predisposed towards.
For further thoughts on the issue, Clive, have a look at Section 3 of this paper, written by my colleague Kevin Harris.
As to your comments in para 3 to 6, it sounds like you're chafing at the bit for having to make your declaration of your status as an elected representative. Is that correct?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
