What they should say / 1: "By making public space available for storing private cars for free, the State is losing a lot of money. Think of all the revenue that you could make by renting out that space at market prices. If we waste money that way, we'll have to cut elsewhere"
What they should say /2: "People who don't have cars would subsidize car users. I don't think that's fair. Especially if we consider that households without cars have lower income - up to 50% of low-income households are without cars"
What they should say /3: "Making so much public space available for free does not cover the costs of providing & maintaining parking spaces. It's "redistribution". Drivers have this #Gratismentalitaet à la unconditional basic income when it comes to parking but that's wrong"
What they should say /4: "Currently the costs of providing, maintaining parking & enforcing parking rules are paid for with general taxation. That includes those who don't own cars, and are forced to rely on public transport & cycling. I don't think that's fair"
What they should say / 5: "What costs nothing is worth nothing. Nowadays people look at parking spaces as something worthless. We can do better with our urban public space. And if you live without a car, you get nothing from free parking, but you have to pay. That will not do".
What they actually say / 1: "We are strictly against parking pricing. These plans unilaterally disadvantage citizens who need their cars and who often have no other parking space available. The parking situation is tight already & will get worse"
What they actually say /2 (from Unna)
What they actually say /3 (from Elmshorn)
What they actually say/3 (from Celle)
What they actually say /4 (from Leverkusen)
[NB all the English-language screenshots are automatically translated from German by Google or Twitter. That's why they sound clumsy] [END]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To me the most striking thing in this chart is how much the Italian saving rate has *declined* over time: from nearly three times as much as the UK in 2000 to less than the UK today
And if you know the Italian social system, you know how much of it is based on household savings. Middle-class parents save their whole life to buy a dwelling for their children one day. Young people stay home & save for said dwelling rather than renting, etc.
Parents (and sometimes grandparents) use their savings to support children & grandchildren who find themselves unemployed - because no, many/most of them have no right to unemployment benefits or minimum guaranteed income.
In Germany as in the rest of Europe, we are reducing emissions in other sectors while not reducing them (and sometimes even increasing them) in the transport sector.
So each year transport accounts for a higher share of total emissions ⬇️
I think this means that the climate debate and the transport debate will progressively become *conflated*. Most of the climate debate will be about cars and planes.
Excuses such as "Let's pick some other low-hanging fruit!" or "Let's do nuclear instead!" won't cut it.
It gets worse: when asked whether they intend to implement measures to prevent such deaths from happening in the future, this is the police's reply. Note that the woman died *on a pedestrian crossing*
The leader of the Conservatives (first in the polls)
3) 05.11.23
A Liberal MP proposes to drastically reduce the rights to political participation, right of assembly / freedom of association for non-EU foreign residents