This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/mar/24/transport-for-london-bill-falls-but-wider-public-land-issue-remains
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Transport for London Bill falls but wider public land issue remains | Transport for London Bill falls but wider public land issue remains |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Last week saw the collapse of the arcane but important Transport for London Bill, a piece of would-be legislation that aimed to give the capital’s transport body greater powers to enter into complex partnerships with property developers in the name of generating cash long term. Londoners weary of over-crowded buses and ever-rising fares might have been inclined to wish them luck, but others had denounced the move as creating as a “speculators’ charter” which risked creating far more pain than gain. | |
| Whatever, it’s bitten the dust. Credit for that is shared between a small group of Londoners who petitioning against it, all of them unhappy about TfL’s involvement with the atrocious Earls Court redevelopment scheme, and a handful of MPs who “talked out” the Bill, principally Labour’s John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn and Andy Slaughter (who represents part of the Earls Court project area) and Respect’s George Galloway. Those watching Labour’s potential future London mayors should note that listed opponents included shadow London minister Sadiq Khan. | Whatever, it’s bitten the dust. Credit for that is shared between a small group of Londoners who petitioning against it, all of them unhappy about TfL’s involvement with the atrocious Earls Court redevelopment scheme, and a handful of MPs who “talked out” the Bill, principally Labour’s John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn and Andy Slaughter (who represents part of the Earls Court project area) and Respect’s George Galloway. Those watching Labour’s potential future London mayors should note that listed opponents included shadow London minister Sadiq Khan. |
| TfL is not impressed. In response, it’s underlined its present approach to exploiting its land assets, which is to retain an interest in them and develop them with a view to helping create more homes and jobs in the capital as well as investing in transport. In a statement, it says it will press for the Bill’s enactment in the next session of parliament. The broader issue, though, is how all London’s public bodies should make use of the large quantities of land they own. | TfL is not impressed. In response, it’s underlined its present approach to exploiting its land assets, which is to retain an interest in them and develop them with a view to helping create more homes and jobs in the capital as well as investing in transport. In a statement, it says it will press for the Bill’s enactment in the next session of parliament. The broader issue, though, is how all London’s public bodies should make use of the large quantities of land they own. |
| Depressing it may be, but one way to mitigate the costs of austerity is to sell someone a bit of your very expensive London real estate. Everyone is at it, from the boroughs, to the Ministry of Defence to the family of functional bodies presided over by the mayor. Neatly reflecting Boris Johnson’s approach, these are all doing whatever they fancy rather than following some overarching mayoral strategy. | Depressing it may be, but one way to mitigate the costs of austerity is to sell someone a bit of your very expensive London real estate. Everyone is at it, from the boroughs, to the Ministry of Defence to the family of functional bodies presided over by the mayor. Neatly reflecting Boris Johnson’s approach, these are all doing whatever they fancy rather than following some overarching mayoral strategy. |
| While TfL has already embarked on building a wider programme of joint ventures with private developers, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) is eagerly flogging off everything in sight, nearly always to the highest bidder. The Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is in the disposal business too, with an instructive split occurring between those of its members who want to raise as much cash as possible from their reluctant sale of fire stations and Johnson who, backed by the Labour leader of Southwark Council, wants the site sold more cheaply so that it can become home to a new free school instead. | While TfL has already embarked on building a wider programme of joint ventures with private developers, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) is eagerly flogging off everything in sight, nearly always to the highest bidder. The Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is in the disposal business too, with an instructive split occurring between those of its members who want to raise as much cash as possible from their reluctant sale of fire stations and Johnson who, backed by the Labour leader of Southwark Council, wants the site sold more cheaply so that it can become home to a new free school instead. |
| This last example is the nearest to what a London mayor should be doing across the board: weighing competing cases, both of which have worth, and making a judgement based on his and others’ appraisal of the greater need. Leaving aside the contentious Bill and the unpromising example of Earls Court, TfL’s approach is preferable in principle to Mopac’s, because it means public land values stand a better chance of being exploited for the public good, especially if a future mayor requires TfL’s estate management to be fully tailored to London’s wider needs - substantial quantities of affordable housing, for example. With Mopac, alas, once you’ve sold Scotland Yard for fat cat flats, there’s no getting it back. | This last example is the nearest to what a London mayor should be doing across the board: weighing competing cases, both of which have worth, and making a judgement based on his and others’ appraisal of the greater need. Leaving aside the contentious Bill and the unpromising example of Earls Court, TfL’s approach is preferable in principle to Mopac’s, because it means public land values stand a better chance of being exploited for the public good, especially if a future mayor requires TfL’s estate management to be fully tailored to London’s wider needs - substantial quantities of affordable housing, for example. With Mopac, alas, once you’ve sold Scotland Yard for fat cat flats, there’s no getting it back. |
| As the Green Party’s Darren Johnson has put it at MayorWatch, Johnson’s failure to apply a consistent, hands-on strategy has been a missed opportunity: | As the Green Party’s Darren Johnson has put it at MayorWatch, Johnson’s failure to apply a consistent, hands-on strategy has been a missed opportunity: |
| A visionary mayor could help meet the growing need for school places, or set-up a network of community-owned housing, or even build a property empire generating a big income each year. | A visionary mayor could help meet the growing need for school places, or set-up a network of community-owned housing, or even build a property empire generating a big income each year. |
| Alas, the vision of this all but departed mayor has for a long time been directed elsewhere. | Alas, the vision of this all but departed mayor has for a long time been directed elsewhere. |