OK to ask motorists to change their behaviour/life choices, but not those who chose to live in polluting buildings?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
We need a Scottish Parliament election thread
(1355 posts)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
@Baldcyclist That kind of assumption is exactly why vapid moralizing is a silly basis for policy - I'm on ESA, I only own this flat - which was bought in the early 80's when prices weren't ridiculous - outright because when my mum died, she structured her will to make sure the mortgage was fully paid off to ensure I wouldn't be left to the mercies of what's left of the social housing sector, the only "choice" involved in this policy, should it come to fruition as written, is the one I would be *prevented* from making to sell the place to people who actually could afford to upgrade it and buy a small, modern, energy-efficient home outside the city. A choice I would already have made, incidentally, if not for the fact our building was the victim of one of ECC's old statutory notice job creation schemes(wherein some minor repairs to a couple of pieces of stonework that could have been accomplished with render suddenly became 30K+ per-flat of mason-cut stone replacement after the builders got on site, though mysteriously the only stones that seemed to need replacing were the ones at convenient height to be worked on from the already-erected scaffold...) which they have been trying to screw us with without even a shred of good faith for *10 years*.
So in my case, a policy intended to ensure the housing stock is upgraded to be more energy efficient would ensure this flat is *never* upgraded within my lifetime because I'd be stuck here.
And while my situation isn't going to be commonplace, it's hardly unique either. Plenty of people who live in old tenements around here are retired - and not "owns four SUVs and holidays in Monaco" retired either, state pension retired - and many would likely wish to downsize soon, why should they be punished for the mere fact that they started paying off their mortgages when house prices were still vaguely reasonable? This idea that owning the single home that you live in makes you "wealthy" just because society has gotten bad enough that a lot of people are worse off than that is utter farce.
If you want just outcomes, you must design just policies - if the government wants the entire housing stock upgraded, then the government should pay for it and reclaim the funds through taxation where the burden can fall on those most able to pay it. If they expect private owners to fund upgrades, then the decision over whether to upgrade should be left to those owners.
Posted 3 years ago # -
to require home and building upgrades at the point of sale, change of tenancy, and refurbishment to meet at least EPC C standards or equivalent, on a mandatory basis, from 2025 onwards.
Crikey, I reckon a whole bunch of landlords just choked on their Chivas Regal!
However:
To ensure the approach is fair, and to avoid unintended consequences, this will be subject to a detailed consultation...
If the permanent cycle schemes are anything to go by action on this will be taken on the far side of "never". Mister Sweater and friends can rest easy.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Resting easy on this issue would be denial - all the stuff in there that costs money like the grants, the additional social housing etc, that's the stuff that will vanish into the ether after a few angry op-eds. Mandating other people do things - especially when the people it will impact are landlords that most people don't care for and people on low incomes that most people don't care about - is easy and costs them very little.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Doesn't really work like that though, as recent debacles locally involving extended footways, cycle lanes and LTNs demonstrate. Mandate that folk either have to not do something, or have to do something, and they tend to kick of a stink if it doesn't suit them.
Reckon @MediumDave is on the money here. It will be consulted/filibustered into the never never...
Posted 3 years ago # -
The deal between the Scottish Government and Scottish Greens states:
increase the proportion of Transport Scotland’s budget spent on Active Travel initiatives so that by 2024-25 at least £320m or 10% of the total transport budget will be allocated to active travel.
This is great. I do have a couple of concerns though:
1. Do we have the mechanisms in place to distribute these funds? The "Councils bidding for project funding from Sustrans" surely doesn't cut it.
2. Can we actually spend it? The Scottish Government has allocated over £100m for active travel in each of the last two years. I don't see £200m worth of cycle infrastructure, projects etc. I suspect only a fraction of this cash has ben spent. Given all the SfP hoo-haa, who thinks that without a wholesale revision of the TRO system and top-down direction from the Government that we will see cycle lanes popping up all over the place?Posted 3 years ago # -
@morningsider the Scottish govt does not expect this money to be spent and has done nothing to aid it being spent re TROs
The same party in charge in Edinburgh has no interest apart from lesley
See also Boris V Mad John EEN
Posted 3 years ago # -
Perhaps an easier spend of that active travel budget would be to re-pave and add in missing bridges on abandoned railway lines.
Eg Several of the closed Highland and Spey lines have much of the old track bed still available and long distance safe cycling routes could be a new boost to leisure tourism.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@14Westfield sounds good.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@Morningsider, IIRC the Sustrans funds have been oversubscribed for applications. So the money has been awarded to various councils. £200 million spread quite thinly, starting from a low base of infrastructure turn too. Whether the cycle lanes have actually been built is, as you say, in the hands of the TRO/RSO process. Certainly Edinburgh seems to have been dragging its heels on the various permanent routes it has been funded to build.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Some analysis of Sturgeon's green washing.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Greens have voted in favour.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Patrick Harvie will be the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights
Lorna Slater will be the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity
Posted 3 years ago # -
Will be interesting to see whether "Active Travel" covers being empowered to do things that actively discourage motor vehicle use rather than just trying to encourage AT.
Posted 3 years ago # -
SNP retain control over road building, public transport, etc. Harvie has lots of responsibility but little real power over transport policy or spending (c.10% of budget). Housing oversight only partial - minor planning remit. Slater may have more influence given industry brief?
Posted 3 years ago # -
There’s a surprise.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Tories in general going full-on QAnon alt-right conspiracy theorist these days. Not just the youth wing or "fringe" elements either - elected reps spouting fake news populist BS all over the show. Almost as if they don't have any actual rational arguments any more.
Posted 3 years ago # -
those portfolios feel like such grab-bags.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@crow, is Effect known as Weberonics.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@gembo, you mean Cllr Susan Webber MSP? Or Dr Maximilian Weber, Durkheim, et al?
Posted 3 years ago # -
@SRD, all the bits the SNP don't fancy or cannae be bothered with.
Posted 3 years ago # -
These look like Ministers with Shiny Green Portfolios as a PR exercise. Though totally cynical about the SNP's greenwashing I thought having Active Travel in the mix was something where there could be budgets, policy and implementation as distinct from Biodiversity, which sounds like Feelgoodness as a department. Nice posters of wildlife?
Posted 3 years ago # -
“Biodiversity, which sounds like Feelgoodness as a department“
Except that it shouldn’t be.
Rather important area of (potential) policies involving (natural) carbon capture, land use, food production/farming, agricultural runoff/flood reduction, landscape, tourism etc. etc.
Whether a Green sub-minister is allowed to do much remains to be seen.
Posted 3 years ago # -
That's going to be the big question isn't it. If the two of them are to be genuinely included in decision making when their briefs overlap with those of other ministers they could have a real and lasting impact, but if they're just going to be "kept in the loop" and then left to tinker around the edges it'll be a shambles.
You'd *hope* that they would at least have the self-preservation required to see why signing up to the latter kind of deal would be career suicide and hugely damaging to both the green and indy movements. I do think the "optics" would have been a bit better if both posts hadn't gone to the co-leaders though.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Meanwhile, if you want to read about the demise of the LibDems in Scotland, this is an interestinf read about their demise and how they won't breakout from their few remaining strongholds.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Angus McNeill amongst those particularly annoyed that Gretas BBC interview was not suitably glowing about Scotland:
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/status/1432587847039651841
BBC Scotland News is "Not a world leader of reflecting truth in headlines."
https://twitter.com/AngusMacNeilSNP/status/1432612829128011776?
Edit- well that’s not come out right!
ADMIN EDIT
hope I’ve kept what you were trying to post!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Tenants' Rights would have been a good gig for Andy Wightman, if he had stayed in the party. However I doubt Sturgeon would give anyone of his calibre and independence of mind any power.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Good article by Joyce MacMillan in The Scotsman about whether the words of the Scottish Programme for Government will be matched with deeds.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
