Camden: for community facilities not corporate monolithes

I don't know what has got into the Camden New Journal. I've been extremely impressed with it when I've had the chance to read it, but this week they printed a clearly deranged letter from someone protesting against a new development in Somers Town.

Now this development is actually very unpopular and, due to a recent consultation in the area I happen to know a number of local residents wrote in on the subject. However, the CNJ chose to print just one letter on the subject (from NW6, well out of the area) from someone who, from the letter, appears to have mental health problems.

I'm in no way suggesting that the CNJ is obliged to take sides in any way, it's just for a normally very high quality paper it seems to have taken a conscious decision to represent the local opposition to the developers with a single letter that none of them could possibly agree with. I'll show you;

"So London’s lab-land is to get another vivisection laboratory. The “cathedral of science” we are told (December 10) will cost £520million... and what will be the reason for the existence of this exciting project? Bogus medical research, that is, thousands of animals being poisoned and cut up by an army of people pretending they are doing vital life-saving, cures for cancer etc.

"The reality? It’s a job-creation game. The animals will be sacrificed; only rodents will be used. Tell that to the marines.

"Putting a drug into an animal in the pretence that it will tell us how that drug will act in the human body is nonsense. Anyone who believes such a thing is either a criminal or deranged. Also veterinary research does not truly tell us how animal diseases develop in the wild.

"So you want to be healthy? Stop eating meat. Avoid aspartame. Give up cows’ milk and never accept any more vaccines.

"Vaccines do NOT protect against any disease.

"But try to be kind to doctors. They have been conditioned only to prescribe synthetic drugs."

Now, I've the greatest possible respect for people who have specific arguments against the utility of animal testing but the idea that vaccines do not protect against any disease, well, to say it was a fringe idea would be to insult fringe ideas. It's blatant nonsense of the strangest kind and the CNJ knows this. So why print this letter over other, more representative, ones?

Camden Green Party put a far more rational case, for example here, here and here. That case is based on the community concerns that this space should be used for housing and community facilities. The consortium propose building a tower block right next to this residential area that will be far higher than the neighbouring St. Pancras station and British Library, literally blocking out the light for those who live beneath it's shadow.

Now it seems to me that the letters sent to the CNJ that this land should be used for the good of the local community and not to ruin local residents' quality of life seem far stronger arguments to print than some balls about rejecting vaccines. What a curious editorial decision.

Question: how do we reduce traffic?

As I stared forlornly at the horror that is Brockley Road at peak traffic a question was peculating in my mind. If we wanted to cut traffic, say, in half... how would we do it? It's not my field but busy roads divide communities physically and psychologically, pollute the air and their constant roar is like taking a sledge hammer to your quality of life.

I don't think I have the answer although I tried to come up with three ways that would help cut down the traffic.

First of all: superb public transport.

It seems to me that the only way we'll ever get top class public transport is under public control. Taking the rail and buses back into public hands will allow a focus on quality, reliability and cheapness of tickets that is just impossible whilst there are rotund felines taking their cut.

If we have a decent alternative that we can rely on to get us where we want with the minimum of hassle it will take us out of our cars. And by us I mean you because I don't have a car.

Second up: tackling rush hour

Rush hour occurs because our working hours are so set. If we could develop more flexible hours to spread that out we might reduce the amount of time people are sitting in traffic, which means the vehicles spend less time on the road which makes them clearer.

Thirdly: reducing the need for journeys

Out of town supermarkets and those good awful shopping centres are, by design, only reachable by car. We should be looking to having most things we need within walking distance. Cities should be perfect for this because people live so close together but often they aren't. Really attempting to tackle why people make journeys could drastically reduce traffic.

However, having said all that I'm not sure my solutions would halve the traffic. Cycle lanes, pedestrianising town centres and the like are all good things but how much of an impact on traffic do they really make?

What am I missing from my plans that could really take this issue on? Bearing in mind I'm not up for punishing people but just encouraging good behaviour I'd be happy to hear what else we'd need for my plan.

Derelict ideas

I spotted this little news story on the Scottish section of the BBC site about how a group of people decided to improve their local community and Glasgow council has decided to take them to court for the pleasure.

It seems a patch of land had lain fallow and unused for more than 25 years, so all credit to the locals who had the get up and go to turn it to good use, growing vegetables, planting flowers and essentially empowering the community without doing a single person in the world the least bit of harm.

Glasgow council has seen things differently and issued a 'get off my land' notice to the North Kelvin Meadow Campaign which has been operating for some months improving the area.

According to the Beeb; "Douglas Peacock, who chairs the group, said the idea was to transform a derelict piece of land into community use. The campaign began with a few people volunteering to plant flowers and clean up the site".

"It's now a wild flower meadow and on the back of this some local people wanted to grow vegetables - hence the raised beds which we have installed. We now want to do something bigger and install a raised bed which will grow herbs and lettuce for the whole community".

It sounds bloody marvellous to me. People who care about where they live are the backbone of the community. They should be supported by the council not taken to bloody court.

It's also good to see that MSP Patrick Harvie is supporting the cause saying "The city council has seriously misjudged popular feeling about the North Kelvin Meadow, and it will regret this absurd legal action... Local people are being taken to court for improving their public space, for working together and for growing their own fruit and veg, something which Glasgow needs to do much more of.

"The North Kelvin Meadow Campaign is Glasgow at its finest, and the council should be listening to it, not prosecuting it."

Which is exactly what I just said. Bloody plagiarist.

Whilst the council may say that if you transgress the letter of the law you have to be punished, I'd say that natural justice dictates that if the council left the land to go derelict when others have a use for it - why should we leave it in the hands of those who'd squander an ideal opportunity to grow something with roots?