13/4/2007

Your Letters

Make easy cuts to pay for CCTV

I wonder in disbelief at the soul-searching by Hart District Council regarding the necessary funding of the CCTV cameras.

The people involved have obviously never run a profitable company nor been employed by a company seeking to achieve/maintain profitability by having to make cutbacks, staff reductions etcetera.

From time immemorial the standard solution for council overspending is to charge taxpayers more rather than to find an alternative solution.

While my pension increased by approximately 2% per annum council tax increases are in the order of 5%.

How could Hart District Council raise the necessary £25,000 needed for the CCTV cameras? Well, if the powers that be had a modicum of intelligence, they could have found several solutions.

Hart, as we all know, is a ‘green’ council. This is proved by the numerous publications that keep coming through the letterbox extolling its green virtues.

But while it is discouraging us from using our cars by increasing parking charges, the council seems to have a different set of ‘green’ rules for its employees.

It could help the environment by encouraging our council employees to go green by imposing car parking charges on them if they choose to drive to work.

Bearing in mind that the council offices and car park are owned by us, why should we subsidise free parking for our employees when we, the residents of the town, have to pay for the privilege of parking? How much revenue would be realised if Hart District Council employees were treated in the same way as other people working in the town?

As far as I am concerned my monetary obligation to them ends after paying their salaries.

The parking permits issued to council employees seem to be seven-day permits. Why, if their working week is five days, is a seven-day permit issued? Several Saturdays I’ve parked in the council offices car park, paid my fee, only to see a car/cars pull up and park, the driver(s) and the various occupants alight, and they all just walk off. A closer inspection reveals that this/these cars have Hart District Council parking permits. Again, an instance of the residents subsidising our employees’ shopping trips.

Other cost-cutting measures could be made by withdrawing the privileges of the free use of our sports and leisure centres, and the private health scheme memberships given to most of our council employees. Why should we, as council tax payers and pensioners, like my wife and I, subsidise our employees’ use of facilities, paid for and maintained by us, facilities which we cannot afford to use ourselves? We have to pay £22 per month just to obtain dental treatment, which we thought we’d paid for over the past 40 years in national insurance.

If the above suggestions are too mind-boggling for our council whizz-kids, consider what would be the simplest method of making savings of £25,000 for the CCTV system without raising car parking charges. Why not dismiss two traffic wardens? Their loss would probably go unnoticed as there are so many of them patrolling the streets. Problem solved, at nil cost to the council tax payer.

Name and address supplied

First printed in: Aldershot News and Mail