Brown tourist signs to go up (From Salisbury Journal)

How much for two signs? Meanwhile people are having to pay extra to stay in their homes.

I agree the cost is high. The problem is that when you want to put large signs up on main roads you have got to meet specified standards in case of accidents etc.

Salisbury does not have signs telling people passing through about the Cities tourist assets. Other Cities in the area do, even Westbury does. By putting signs up we make the city a more welcoming place and encourage them to spend time here.

I will leave the issue of spare room subsidies to Westminster.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Clewer

I've always considered brown signs to be a spoon in the mouth of those too feckless to work it out themselves...

If you need help to find the cathedral - try looking up and around and you should be able to home in from there.

Always easy to spend money when it ain't yours

Surely it would be better to do the work on New Canal, the Market Square, redevelop the Maltings/City Centre Car Park and THEN put the Tourist Signs up - for the next two years or more all tourists will see are dust, traffic jams, contra-flows and a building site.

Brown signs are a way of welcoming visitors to a place and showing it both cares and has something to offer. Salisbury has had a tendency to assume that people will come to the city because of the Cathedral. We need to not just get them to come to the Cathedral for two hours but to come for a weekend, spend some time in the other attractions the city has to offer and bring money in with them.

The future of our city centre will depend on more than just retail. We have to sell the experience of the City to locals and toursits alike.

As far as timing, the Maltings work will not start for atleast 2 years and the Market Place will be finished in a couple of months. We could delay taking action until the perfect time arrives for ever. I think we need to get on and start doing what we can to make the City more enticing to tourists at every opportunity.

Grampie wrote:
How much for two signs? Meanwhile people are having to pay extra to stay in their homes.

Exactly!

Richard Clewer wrote:
I agree the cost is high. The problem is that when you want to put large signs up on main roads you have got to meet specified standards in case of accidents etc.

Salisbury does not have signs telling people passing through about the Cities tourist assets. Other Cities in the area do, even Westbury does. By putting signs up we make the city a more welcoming place and encourage them to spend time here.

I will leave the issue of spare room subsidies to Westminster.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Clewer

£5000 a sign. How big are the signs? Someone is on a good number.

They will be fed up when they find they can't park in the city center. When they do find a parking spot, they will moan about how much it costs to park. Old grumbles, but relevant.

Who would vote for a party that forces people out of their homes?

So Grampie (and sometimes I really think Grumpy would be better) you would rather not see anything done to try to bring people into the city because I can't get anything done about parking charges at the moment?

I think we need to take any chance to improve our ability to bring people to Salisbury. Also at the moment our city centre carparks operate at an average of less than 50% capacity. The last time I found any problems looking for spaces was on Saturdays while the Christmas Market was on. Even then there were spaces.

The cost of the signs is in the installation to make them safe for traffic.

The issue of the 'Spare Room Subsidy' or 'Bedroom Tax' depending on your political affiliation is complex and not as simple as you would like to portray it.

I get a constant flow of residents who are in a one or two bedroom house and want to move into something larger. How are we supposed to justify to them a couple living in a four bedroom council owned house whose children have left home and who are paying no more for it than they are. We have a responsibility to house people but that cannot mean people staying in the same Council house for ever if their needs change and their remaining there prevents other people who actually need a larger house getting into one.

There has to be a degree of reality injected into the situation, or would you rather see young families crammed into tiny properties while empty nesters enjoy a four bedroom nest?

Richard Clewer wrote:
So Grampie (and sometimes I really think Grumpy would be better) you would rather not see anything done to try to bring people into the city because I can't get anything done about parking charges at the moment?

I think we need to take any chance to improve our ability to bring people to Salisbury. Also at the moment our city centre carparks operate at an average of less than 50% capacity. The last time I found any problems looking for spaces was on Saturdays while the Christmas Market was on. Even then there were spaces.

The cost of the signs is in the installation to make them safe for traffic.

The issue of the 'Spare Room Subsidy' or 'Bedroom Tax' depending on your political affiliation is complex and not as simple as you would like to portray it.

I get a constant flow of residents who are in a one or two bedroom house and want to move into something larger. How are we supposed to justify to them a couple living in a four bedroom council owned house whose children have left home and who are paying no more for it than they are. We have a responsibility to house people but that cannot mean people staying in the same Council house for ever if their needs change and their remaining there prevents other people who actually need a larger house getting into one.

There has to be a degree of reality injected into the situation, or would you rather see young families crammed into tiny properties while empty nesters enjoy a four bedroom nest?

No wonder you have never found any problem parking in Salisbury, because fewer people are shopping in the City because of the cost of parking.

There will be a few problems finding parking space in the market square soon and as for the cost of parking, I understand that your party voted in favour of it.

At the same time your party on the Wiltshire Council voted to put up the cost of park and ride.

I assume that you voted in favour.

With regard your arguments about the council tax (Or whatever you like to call it)how many four bedroomed houses are there in the former SDC housing stock?

A handful probably, I only know of one, but there may be more.

How many single bedroom houses where people can downsize are in the former SDC housing stock?

They are probably all occupied, so where are people supposed to move to? (Moving house is not cheap either)

A few years ago, there were a number of sheltered housing schemes where older people could downsize and were very popular. In recent years, a number of these houses were given to those with young families, thereby making downsizing difficult for those who wanted to.

As for people looking for four bedroomed housing, housing associations do buy these from property developers and then large families can move in. However, I suppose the money that was given to the housing associations by the last government has been cut by this administration.

How would you like to be forced out of your home where you brought up your children and no doubt paid enough rent to buy the property?

How would you feel if you were on a low income and had to fork out an additional £14 a week (£728 a year) to stay in your home, through no fault of your own.

What sort of political party would support such a community scheme. Grumpy? of course I am grumpy, because I have lived in Salisbury a lot longer than you and can see how callous and stupid those people who get into power and turn the city into a shambles.

I remember the roads to nowhere, the money spent on the Council house, which nobody wanted and now two signs to indicate a world famous city.

I suppose this was the suggested by the same "expert" who recommended we get paving slabs from China.

After watching a recent news item about the proposals in the market square, I would be surprised if anybody would come to the city while the improvements are being made.

I feel better now. Time for a lie down.

Will the signs inform the tourists/visitors about the state of the roads and, the potential risk of damage to their vehicle?
Or, to avoid the Southampton road at all costs unless they want to spend hours of their visit looking at the back of the car in front them in the traffic chaos.

Grampie Says: "How would you like to be forced out of your home where you brought up your children and no doubt paid enough rent to buy the property?

How would you feel if you were on a low income and had to fork out an additional £14 a week (£728 a year) to stay in your home, through no fault of your own."

I have to take issue with his - your home yes, your house NO! History in a building gives you no claim to keep it forever - if you can't afford the house you are living in your move. The same if you are a private owner, private tenant or a council tenant!

So what if you have paid enough rent to buy it - that point is NOT relevant here. Rent is to borrow, not purchase so its a silly point to make!

Moving house doesn't need to be expensive - I have moved home 17 times in the last 12 years - it can't be that expensive as I don't earn huge amounts!

Karl, cynicism has its place but if you are suggesting we should not try to bring people to the City until the Highways Agency can be persuaded to act on Southampton Road I disagree. There are times when it is bad but it is not usual to have delays of anything like an hour. Maybe 20 minutes on a Friday evening at the worst (and it is a road I use a great deal to come into the City).

Pot holes are bad everywhere at the moment (and again I travel all over the UK and Wiltshire is no worse than other areas and better than many) but as soon as the frosts clear we will get back on to fixing them, there is no point in permanent fixes right now as they will not last long if the frost gets in as they are setting. We are making headway against pot holes in Wiltshire and will be spending several million more this year on improving the roads.

Karl, cynicism has its place but if you are suggesting we should not try to bring people to the City until the Highways Agency can be persuaded to act on Southampton Road I disagree. There are times when it is bad but it is not usual to have delays of anything like an hour. Maybe 20 minutes on a Friday evening at the worst (and it is a road I use a great deal to come into the City).

Pot holes are bad everywhere at the moment (and again I travel all over the UK and Wiltshire is no worse than other areas and better than many) but as soon as the frosts clear we will get back on to fixing them, there is no point in permanent fixes right now as they will not last long if the frost gets in as they are setting. We are making headway against pot holes in Wiltshire and will be spending several million more this year on improving the roads.

reasonedhuman wrote:
Grampie Says: "How would you like to be forced out of your home where you brought up your children and no doubt paid enough rent to buy the property?

How would you feel if you were on a low income and had to fork out an additional £14 a week (£728 a year) to stay in your home, through no fault of your own."

I have to take issue with his - your home yes, your house NO! History in a building gives you no claim to keep it forever - if you can't afford the house you are living in your move. The same if you are a private owner, private tenant or a council tenant!

So what if you have paid enough rent to buy it - that point is NOT relevant here. Rent is to borrow, not purchase so its a silly point to make!

Moving house doesn't need to be expensive - I have moved home 17 times in the last 12 years - it can't be that expensive as I don't earn huge amounts!

A house is not a home (A line in a corny song).

A home is where you friends and support groups are. It sounds like you have never settled in one place to know what it is like to have well established family and friends living around you.

Many council house occupiers bought their house at knock down prices. Best of luck to them because I would have done the same thing.

But there are those that may never have been in a position to buy their council house. Nevertheless they have paid for their home over and over and I would have thought some consideration should be made.

I suppose you would be happy to pay that additional £14 a week (That wasn't in any manifesto), but you are quite happy for somebody else to pay for it. Do not spin the tale about larger families on the waiting list. It is not the fault of those who have lived in their homes for many years that there are not enough three or four bedroom houses about.

This tax is a cynical way of paying for the mismanagement of the economy, especially by this latest bunch, described by Teresa may as the Nasty party.

Another lie down coming up.

The political rhetoric really doesn't help this at all.

I can't change the past. The facts at the moment are:

There are not enough Council/Housing Association houses, particularly two, three and four bedroom houses. There are people who live in Council houses that were suitable for them when they had a family but are now too big. They could now live in smaller houses.

There are people who need larger Council Houses because they have growing families.

Council houses are the property of the nation, not the individual. We have an equal responsibilty to house everyone according to their needs if we can. That means that we have got to try to make sure people are in suitable accomodation. That is why the government is trying to encourage people who are under-occupying council houses to move into smaller accomodation. We house people, we do not house them in the same house for life. It would be great if we could but the reality is we can't. It would also be great if we could just build more housing but that means building on lots of green fields, not something I am sure I support.

Also there is the elephant in the room here.

Also as a backdrop the government and thus country is up to its eyeballs in debt and has got to sort it out. That has nothing to do with the current government and everything to do with a mix of previous government borrowing and a banking crisis. Someone has to pick up the pieces. If we don't sort it out then shortly down the line we will be facing Cyprus style bank raids.

JustinSmith wrote:
Surely it would be better to do the work on New Canal, the Market Square, redevelop the Maltings/City Centre Car Park and THEN put the Tourist Signs up - for the next two years or more all tourists will see are dust, traffic jams, contra-flows and a building site.

The traffic jams have been pretty much guaranteed for several decades already.
.
Long-term transport infrastructure strategy, haha
.
In conjunction with the anti car parks plan, any remaining tourists will be truly hardcore.

Richard Clewer wrote:
The political rhetoric really doesn't help this at all.

I can't change the past. The facts at the moment are:

There are not enough Council/Housing Association houses, particularly two, three and four bedroom houses. There are people who live in Council houses that were suitable for them when they had a family but are now too big. They could now live in smaller houses.

There are people who need larger Council Houses because they have growing families.

Council houses are the property of the nation, not the individual. We have an equal responsibilty to house everyone according to their needs if we can. That means that we have got to try to make sure people are in suitable accomodation. That is why the government is trying to encourage people who are under-occupying council houses to move into smaller accomodation. We house people, we do not house them in the same house for life. It would be great if we could but the reality is we can't. It would also be great if we could just build more housing but that means building on lots of green fields, not something I am sure I support.

Also there is the elephant in the room here.

Also as a backdrop the government and thus country is up to its eyeballs in debt and has got to sort it out. That has nothing to do with the current government and everything to do with a mix of previous government borrowing and a banking crisis. Someone has to pick up the pieces. If we don't sort it out then shortly down the line we will be facing Cyprus style bank raids.

How many rooms would you and your wife and two kids need, because they consider three bedrooms is too large?

You never answered my question on how many four bedroom houses there are in Salisbury or how many single bedroom units there are.

In other words, how can these people downsize when there is nowhere for them to go?

It is a bit much talking about how much this country is in debt when they gave the highest paid a tax break of thousands of pounds and the amount a certain Member of Parliament claimed for accommodation recently. Don't forget who relaxed the banking legislation and if the banks had gone broke many people would have lost their savings.

The present government is borrowing more than ever, so you cannot blame the last government.

Social housing belongs to everybody and if someone, usually women, have brought up kids in a two bedroomed house, surely they should be permitted to see their lives out in that property. It is called compassion. All of those people were on the council list in the past and now they are being kicked out or told to pay up. Heartless.

People cleansing so that those who bankroll a certain party can get tax breaks. Disgusting.

I don't know about "picking up the pieces" somebody is breaking up the pieces.

As for WC's slogan that" everybody matters", it does not apply to those in social housing.

I am trying to get the numbers on houses and vacncies by bedroom size.

Talking about the upper tax bracket is interesting. Logically there are people who want to see the rich targetted (and lets not forget that aprox 80% of all tax is paid by those people already) and want to retain the 50% tax bracket (which Labour only brought in as an election gimic at the 11th hour of their last government).

When you look at how much the tax brings in you get a very different picture. The 50% tax bracket is at a level where people start paying tax lawyers lots of money to try to legitimately avoid it. The evidence suggests that a 45% tax rate will bring in more money than a 50% one. It may not be politically acceptable but it will bring in more revenue. I konw which I would rather see the Government do.

Personally I like the idea of a single flat rate tax, where that has been tried it greatly increased the amount of tax from the wealthy as they don't resent paying what is seen as a reasonable tax while reducing that paid by the poorer. Again it is not politically acceptable and so is not introduced.

What is more important, getting more tax out of the richer people in society or setting a punative tax rate that looks good but encourages them to pay lawyers and accountants to reduce the amount of tax they pay?

We are a bit off topic from the Brown Signs here but hey.

We already have brown signs connected to the public car park space indicators telling people they're arriving in a medieval city...and really, if someone has made it as far as being here to read them, they don't need them anyway.

It sounds like you have never settled in one place to know what it is like to have well established family and friends living around you.

Nice assumption but totally wrong! I lived in two houses in Salisbury for the first 21 years of my life. I then joined the forces - with this comes numerous addresses!

I have then since leaving the forces lived in Salisbury but lived in everything from 1 bedroom flats to 3 bedroom detached houses depending on my circumstances. All either privately rented or owned.

I changed my housing as both my family and financial circumstances dictated - why should people in social housing be any different?

I have worked on Minimum wage also - so please don't assume that I have no idea how its like to earn poor levels of money - and before you make the next assumption about who I vote for, as you would be wrong - this is just one policy I agree with!

Richard Clewer wrote:
I am trying to get the numbers on houses and vacncies by bedroom size.

Talking about the upper tax bracket is interesting. Logically there are people who want to see the rich targetted (and lets not forget that aprox 80% of all tax is paid by those people already) and want to retain the 50% tax bracket (which Labour only brought in as an election gimic at the 11th hour of their last government).

When you look at how much the tax brings in you get a very different picture. The 50% tax bracket is at a level where people start paying tax lawyers lots of money to try to legitimately avoid it. The evidence suggests that a 45% tax rate will bring in more money than a 50% one. It may not be politically acceptable but it will bring in more revenue. I konw which I would rather see the Government do.

Personally I like the idea of a single flat rate tax, where that has been tried it greatly increased the amount of tax from the wealthy as they don't resent paying what is seen as a reasonable tax while reducing that paid by the poorer. Again it is not politically acceptable and so is not introduced.

What is more important, getting more tax out of the richer people in society or setting a punative tax rate that looks good but encourages them to pay lawyers and accountants to reduce the amount of tax they pay?

We are a bit off topic from the Brown Signs here but hey.

I only hear that argument from people who pay the tax, like George Osborne.

To say that 80% of all tax is paid by those on the higher rate of income tax is rubbish spouted by those with vested interests, without any evidence.

Cameron will not say how much better off he will be with this tax reduction.

Stop being an apologist for the mega rich, Richard.

Surely it would be better to get the tax dodgers than people who live in council houses.

£10,000 on two signs? You are having a laugh.

Putting up more signs will not bring any more people in the city.

Make parking cheaper and you would. Nobody ever attracted more people to come to a city because they put up the price of parking.

Grampie, if your approach to tax is that we should make gestures to hit the wealthy that bring in less money I am not going to agree.

I am a realist. We need to bring in enough money from taxation to run the services we need without being so punative we reduce the actual tax we recieve. It may not make for good headlines but it is good financial management.

Without realism we get into the brain drain of the 1970's. You only have to look at the number of wealthy French people currently living in London to avoid the taxation policy in France.

Political dogma of any party is not a good basis for tax policy.

Richard Clewer wrote:
Grampie, if your approach to tax is that we should make gestures to hit the wealthy that bring in less money I am not going to agree.

I am a realist. We need to bring in enough money from taxation to run the services we need without being so punative we reduce the actual tax we recieve. It may not make for good headlines but it is good financial management.

Without realism we get into the brain drain of the 1970's. You only have to look at the number of wealthy French people currently living in London to avoid the taxation policy in France.

Political dogma of any party is not a good basis for tax policy.

We will beg to differ, but as an old mate of mine says "Why do they have to let the rich get richer to make them work harder, yet let the poor, poorer to make them work harder?".

It is not a gesture. Your leader says we are all in it together, yet his disposable income is going up.

We need to get people working in meaningful work and that includes both private and public sector. Both are linked.

Your signs will give work for a few, but whoever is at the top of the service providers will get a decent whack out of this exercise.

All I ask for is that everybody pays their fair share. Having £million bonuses with a tax break compared to those on £71 a week JSA is obscene.

Sir Philip Green advised the present Government on procurement and spending. He claims to own nothing and pays no taxes and his wife lives in Monte Carlo and "owns" the Arcadia retail group.

I suppose you approve of his methods of tax dodging.

Meanwhile you have not said how you fancy living in a three bedroom house with two children and be told you have to pay extra because millionaires like Cameron (he refused to admit that he benefits from the tax breaks for millionaires again today) are getting a tax break?

Meanwhile you are spending £10,000 on two signs and your MP gets £24,000 for accommodation and an older lady that I know is being told to pay up or get out.

Richard Clewer wrote:
Grampie, if your approach to tax is that we should make gestures to hit the wealthy that bring in less money I am not going to agree.

I am a realist. We need to bring in enough money from taxation to run the services we need without being so punative we reduce the actual tax we recieve. It may not make for good headlines but it is good financial management.

Without realism we get into the brain drain of the 1970's. You only have to look at the number of wealthy French people currently living in London to avoid the taxation policy in France.

Political dogma of any party is not a good basis for tax policy.

Richard.

I suppose you will cheer when you read this about somebody who works for a state owned company http://www.huffingto
npost.co.uk/2013/03/
20/barclays-announce
-18m-win_n_2916827.h
tml?utm_hp_ref=uk

Realism or monopoly money.

Grampie sometimes you make some sensible points - but you can't compare people living on JSA and bankers, infact you can't compare someone on JSA and someone who earns around the average wage - its just not the same.

JSA is to support someone out of work not to give them the same life style as someone in work

That is the main problem with this country, people believe that they are entitled to a nice life style without working for it!

Benefits are a fall back, a stop gap, not a permanent fix!

Employment is the only real fix!

If your lucky enough to find a job that is...Jobs don't grow on tree's, and please don't try telling me there's jobs out there if you look hard enough. I haven't found one yet!

I never said living on JSA and other benefits was easy - and it shouldn't be easy, or people will stay on them because life is too easy!

I am not saying there are jobs around either, but I repeat my point, if living on benefits is comfortable then that is wrong.

Yes it is wrong, but many people don't have a choice. I have written many CV's, and got not one reply! Why? Because age really does matter in the job world.

I know - I am not some evil heartless idiot. I know its hard.

I also know that people older than me will also find it harder to find new employment - even though age discrimination is supposed to prevent that!

I don't know what the answer is - we can't afford to pay more, we can't afford to create more public sector jobs without radical changes to the whole system and that is not practical!

I would happily pay an extra 5% income tax across the board (above the thresholds) if it fixed everything here and now!

reasonedhuman wrote:
I never said living on JSA and other benefits was easy - and it shouldn't be easy, or people will stay on them because life is too easy!

I am not saying there are jobs around either, but I repeat my point, if living on benefits is comfortable then that is wrong.

I have never lived on benefits, but was always lucky enough to find work.

I too am happy to pay extra tax to keep people in their own homes.

The first thing to have in life is good health. The second is food. The third is a shelter. With good food and good shelter leads to good health. Kicking people out of their homes or telling them to pay more because some rich people messed up the economy by gambling thousands of miles away is wrong.

This mantra about the country being broke is also wrong when they can afford to put up two signs for £10,000, which is unlikely to bring in a single tourist or to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on imported granite stones from China.

That is how broke we are.

Meanwhile members of parliament claim thousands of pounds for accommodation when they already get paid £62,000 a year and then claim to sleep outside to support the homeless. Please explain that Mr Clewer.

AuraTopp wrote:
If your lucky enough to find a job that is...Jobs don't grow on tree's, and please don't try telling me there's jobs out there if you look hard enough. I haven't found one yet!

They do if you're a fruit picker!!

And back to topic we go? Has any research been conducted to find out if a brown sign actually contributes to increased tourism or is this tactic being implemented on a whim? If it has and indeed it does then surely that is a win win scenario for the City!

Haydon LaPlante wrote:

AuraTopp wrote:
If your lucky enough to find a job that is...Jobs don't grow on tree's, and please don't try telling me there's jobs out there if you look hard enough. I haven't found one yet!

They do if you're a fruit picker!!

What in this weather? :))

Grampie wrote:

reasonedhuman wrote:
I never said living on JSA and other benefits was easy - and it shouldn't be easy, or people will stay on them because life is too easy!

I am not saying there are jobs around either, but I repeat my point, if living on benefits is comfortable then that is wrong.

I have never lived on benefits, but was always lucky enough to find work.

I too am happy to pay extra tax to keep people in their own homes.

The first thing to have in life is good health. The second is food. The third is a shelter. With good food and good shelter leads to good health. Kicking people out of their homes or telling them to pay more because some rich people messed up the economy by gambling thousands of miles away is wrong.

This mantra about the country being broke is also wrong when they can afford to put up two signs for £10,000, which is unlikely to bring in a single tourist or to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on imported granite stones from China.

That is how broke we are.

Meanwhile members of parliament claim thousands of pounds for accommodation when they already get paid £62,000 a year and then claim to sleep outside to support the homeless. Please explain that Mr Clewer.

What's wrong with good Chilmark stone from round here! Why has it got to come all the way from China?

Haydon LaPlante wrote:

AuraTopp wrote:
If your lucky enough to find a job that is...Jobs don't grow on tree's, and please don't try telling me there's jobs out there if you look hard enough. I haven't found one yet!

They do if you're a fruit picker!!

What fruit is there to pick this time of the year?

Seems to be a few issues being discussed here.

£10,000 for two signs?!! you are having a laugh. What a total waste of tax payers money don't know how Richard Clewer can even try to justify that one! Don't try to answer with more drivel unless there is a proper justification being given.

Thinking you can shift people out from their homes where they may have lived all of their married life and brought up their families in and have become part of that particular community is nothing short of disgraceful. Agreed larger families need more space but this policy is not the way to go about it.

Council tenants consider their houses as their home especially after paying rent for years and looking after the gardens and decorating to keep up the standard.

Dictatorial comes to mind > what sort of people have we elected to run not only WC but the country as well.

Two brown signs...

My one observation is that whatever is written on them....make sure it adds value and purpose to the journey or don't bother cluttering the streetscene.

The signs are to help unknowing visitors. I find it pitiful that the existing brown signs highlight the car parks by naming them "Brown Street" Culver Street" etc. That is meaningless to the very people you are trying to help.

They should say things like...shoppers and Cathedral (Culver Street is ideal Cathedral parking with a walk through St Ann's area and gate - fantastic part of Salisbury. No one knows that though! That's why they go private in New Street...labelled 'Shoppers'.

It tough being a tourist!

Quote from my old schoolfriend who moved to New Zealand years ago, visiting me in Salisbury. After a trip around the city in the car and, stopping off at the main car park...

"whats happened to your roads?"

What could I say?