Originally Posted by sandGroundZero

[28/01/2021 07:50 PM] ear01, to pick-up on one (actually, three) of your (sub-)points:

1. "Yes no doubt they are but I'm talking about Southport" you are alluding I believe to: "Southport is becoming (Sorry has become) a very sad picture in terms of retail …"? In what sense does the retail decline you anticipate in Southport differ from other towns?
2. As for business proprietors grasping at straws? — my "grasping at straws" referred specifically to proprietors' assertions regarding the loss of on-street parking to cycle lanes. More general issues about PARKING provision are another kettle of fish!
3. When you have major supermarket chains ie Tesco (And soon to be Sainsbury's taking root), outside of the town centre with free parking, thats one hell of a big straw! Just one of the many obstacles handed down by local government.
   The issue of parking more generally is fraught with complicating factors.
   Historically, (especially urban) municipalities had scope to engage directly in the business functions which supplied their respective residents' services — utilities; transport; housing — which for a variety of reasons central governments progressively curtailed, along with any other potential revenue sources. To put it bluntly: central government has municipalities by the short and curlies. The centre has piled-on statutory duties and reduced municipalities' fiscal room for manoeuvre. It is regularly remarked in the red top print media that municipalities are gouging motorists with parking fees. It appears that that is precisely the way central government likes it. But, as my earlier post reminded you:
   
   There is no such thing as a free lunch.
   
   Parking motor vehicles imposes external costs on the whole community. That is, parking spaces are a valuable commodity. The problems are ALL one way and another the result of excessive centralization. Arguing the impact of parking fees on (notably, retail) businesses is misplaced not least because the solutions require large scale reforms concerning the respective roles of central versus municipal government.
   
   So, Cllr. Pat Keith's quibble with Council Officers
   is another distraction from the real problems
   …and Councillors seem oblivious!
   
   
   Cllr. Pat Keith

Come on I’m not alluding to anything. Just my opinion. Just glad I’m not an independent Southport business owner/investor. It’s the younger generation of Sandgrounders I feel for. The Burscough curves will have to be reinstated to facilitate commuter transport links to other regions providing a wider range of professional career prospects; let’s face it many home grown industrial land has been replaced with housing. All these big plans/manifestos, pipe dreams whatever you want to call them will not come to fruition without a serious shift in the economy or major local investment of ££££ millions.

ear01 says:

…Just glad I’m not an independent Southport business owner/investor. It’s the younger generation of Sandgrounders I feel for. The Burscough curves will have to be reinstated to facilitate commuter transport links to other regions providing a wider range of professional career prospects; let’s face it many home grown industrial land has been replaced with housing. …

Downbeat assessment of Southport's future prospects, but is it warranted? Perhaps because shopping in Lord Street has been a prominent feature in our town's promotional efforts over the years, the general decline in bricks and mortar retailers' fortunes has exaggerated impact here. But empty shops are a general problem not exclusive to Southport's Lord Street. Certainly, PARKING is not the problem!

_______________________________________________________________________________________

…All these big plans/manifestos, pipe dreams whatever you want to call them will not come to fruition without a serious shift in the economy or major local investment of ££££ millions.

Recalling that it was Councillor Pat Keith's quibble that started off this lengthy string of comments, what have we learned? Councillors and candidates to become Councillors are exploiting what they perceive as a useful gripe to gain some attention from voters. But the Emergency Active Travel policy is being discussed from the wrong end.

It all highlights a significant deficiency in the institutional nature of local government. Councillors (& wannabe Councillors) are competing for seats on the Council. Yet, they're offering no solutions to what are in any case superficial features of the real problem.

What is the problem?

The problem is the grossly imbalanced relationship between local and central levels of government. Councils are under performing not least because they are hamstrung by central government. Councillors whose intentions are tied-up with the fates of their respective parties at national level have no particular motivation to deal with it; their focus is elsewhere.

[QUOTE=sandGroundZero;6759164]ear01 says:
Downbeat assessment of Southport's future prospects, but is it warranted?

Asolutlely! As you point out their focus is clearly elsewhere.

Remember Southport pier when Sefton Council held a vote whether to demolish or restore it. It got saved by ONE VOTE yes ONE VOTE, that is what southport is up against.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by ear01

[/FONT]Asolutlely! As you point out their focus is clearly elsewhere.

Remember Southport pier when Sefton Council held a vote whether to demolish or restore it. It got saved by ONE VOTE yes ONE VOTE, that is what southport is up against.
[CENTER]

______________________________________]

Considering Southport councillors only make up a third of Sefton council the fact that saving the pier got more than half the vote suggests there was a fair amount of support for the pier from councillors elsewhere in the borough

That's assuming all Southport councillors voted to save it.

I remember a few of the local lib Dems being against the sea wall being built, describing it as the Berlin Wall.

ear01 says:

"Downbeat assessment of Southport's future prospects, but is it warranted?"

Asolutlely! As you point out their focus is clearly elsewhere. | Remember Southport pier when Sefton Council held a vote whether to demolish or restore it. It got saved by ONE VOTE yes ONE VOTE, that is what southport is up against.

If like many on these Q Local Southport pages you're arguing that Southport is being done down by Bootle Councillors, then I cannot agree.

The problem is not that Sefton is an odd confection as Councils go; 1960s /70s local government reorganization was designed such that deprived areas were linked with more prosperous. In the decades since, the basis of Southport's prosperity has been eroded NOT by Sefton Councillors, but rather by economic and social changes much more broadly.

My emphasis in these comments is on the outdated relationship between local and central government. Councils are severely hedged about by the centre's predilection to control. Electing Councillors whose success is founded upon their party affiliations does not incline them to view the institutional imbalances as the problem. Hence, "their focus is elsewhere".

I have advocated selecting one third of the Council by means of sortition. We seem to agree that there is a problem with local government. We do not (evidently) agree on the root causes.

There is a pressing need for voters resident in each municipality to effectively disrupt the status quo. Whitehall and the Palace of Westminster will never truly decentralize without consistent, determined voter agitation. Local elections scheduled for May illustrate the counter-productive nature of party politicking in the management of local services.

In short:

• Southport's (i.e. Sefton's) PARKING regime including the loss of some on-street spaces, though it generates much comment here and elsewhere, are peripheral issues.
• Resentment at the imagined role of Bootle Councillors is unmitigated distraction!