Should there be a fee for vehicles at Nest yet?
Context - How the conversation started and where it has got to
This conversation was initiated by Simon 'Cheese'. Initial comment posted at the bottom of this Context. Anyone can edit this Context to keep it up to date.
Simon raised a concern about the fact that the core team have been discussing the implementation of a new vehicle pass charge of £10.
Several community members raised concerns around this, particularly considering those who are on a low income, have accessibility requirements or are bringing art/camps, etc.
Siren responded on behalf of the Core Team to outline that the new vehicle pass was proposed to reduce the number of cars on site, increase car sharing and reduce environmental impact, increase funding for art grants and to ensure we have a buffer for next year's event which may be larger than this year's.
Responses to this include suggestions that if there is financial requirement, that this should be attained through higher ticket prices overall and that any vehicle pass charge should have been made clear at the point of ticket sales.
At this point, proposals have been raised to implement the charge, but to exempt those with low income tickets, those with accessibility requirements and those bringing art/theme-camps.
The current plan is to continue the conversation here on Loomio and make a decision at the community meeting this Sunday.
Simon's Initial Comment
OK, so let's try out Loomio for something....
Last year we didn't have any charges for vehicles at Nest. My understanding is that the Core team would like to introduce a charge for vehicles this year.
My question is, to what end? If it's to reduce the number of vehicles (in the way BM's vehicle pass fee is) then I don't think that's particularly relevant (yet) for Nest as we don't have too many vehicles for the space or an Exodus issue.
The attendee numbers and site/size is the same as last year. I know we did back in Wales but there was much more limited parking there. And the train station was a LOT closer - public transport to the Nest site involves quite a taxi ride.
I'm not sure what any money taken for vehicles would be used for.
What does everyone else think?
Paul Phare Fri 29 Mar 2019 1:29PM
Nobody was suggesting a means test, low income tickets are issued on trust. Nor was it being suggested that people who own cars shouldn't get a low income ticket. I'm questioning whether it's worth making such a policy if there is no need for it given the extra admin. Anyway it's a discussion so if everyone is in favour of making it a policy then we'll do it
Deleted User Fri 29 Mar 2019 11:53PM
How about a compromise, £10 vehicle pass and £5 for those on the inclusion rate, families bringing children under 17 free and those attending who are differently abled, also free? Just an idea
Alex Macklen Sat 30 Mar 2019 8:04PM
I have a real problem with this.
A car pass is a random tax on the members of the community. Why not pick a random selection of members and say, hey now you owe us 10 quid? Equally unfair, guaranteed to enrage. People own cars for all sorts of reasons many good examples in this discussion. Owning a car makes you considerably poorer, but sometimes essential to a job or quality of life. This event cannot exist without lots of us driving stuff and people there.
The community pays a ticket price that is set so the people who can afford to, assist the people who don't have the means to buy a ticket. I'm good with this.
If the Nest community wants to have more funds, add it to the ticket price. It's shared equally across the community and not some entirely arbitrary subsection. (Ah I see you own a car you must be rich, give us money)
There cannot be a worse example for the introduction of car passes than the Burning Man. Their car pass has been the biggest money grab in festival ticketing history. From $10 to $100 in a few years. Who does BM without access to a car? Who goes to BM or Nest for that matter on their own? I had the entire camps gear and a lift share in both directions.
So in answer to the core teams points:
If you want to know if a car is allowed tell people to print out their tickets in the window or give them a small sticker at gate.
If you don't want cars driving about then put 2 bales of hay and a No Entry sign in the way.
If you want more money, charge more for the tickets.
Fair and simple. Running these events is complicated enough without making the whole process subtly unfair and complicated.
Paul Phare Sun 7 Apr 2019 4:11PM
As stated by Siren above, we had a discussion at the community meeting today on car parking. There were four proposals made. These were:
1. scrap parking charges this year
2. charge £10 per car except for people on low income and bringing camps
3. Put an additional charge on remaining tickets sales
4. Ask people bringing cars to donate £20 (also suggested sliding scale from £10 to £30)
Option 4 was the most popular choice and will be implimented this year.
We have been asked to review whether to charge for car parking next year.
Deleted User Sun 7 Apr 2019 4:18PM
So is the sliding scale option going to be included in the decision?
Paul Phare Sun 7 Apr 2019 6:44PM
I think it's a good idea. I'm running it by the finance team
Hilda Breakspear Sun 7 Apr 2019 7:33PM
That is NOT my understanding of option 4. As far as I was aware, it was to ask all ticket holders to make a voluntary donation of £20, and specifically NOT just car drivers as it was felt it was unfair to just target them.
How did other people there interpret this?
Lexy Sun 7 Apr 2019 7:49PM
Yes I agree this was my understanding of 4. Also that it was to make it a general £20 suggested donation (and not related to car parking).
The "sliding scale" was not discussed in the main meeting and was not part of what was voted on.
It could be worded as "Suggested donation of £20, or any extra contributions welcome."
Remember also that many people have already either made explicit donations or bought more expensive ticket types too.
Hilda Breakspear Sun 7 Apr 2019 7:50PM
Yes, agree that sliding scale wasn't discussed or voted on. Just a voluntary donation of £20 from every ticket holder.
Claire McAllen · Fri 29 Mar 2019 12:25PM
People have a hierarchy of needs and these are different for everyone.
Before someone can address their environmental impact they need to address their basic needs.
For people with mobility issues threes are things like being able to access the event, have food, water and a safe space where they know they will be able to fully engage in the event or leave at any point because of health issues. All of these things are very important requirements that need to be considered before even deciding to come to the event.
And the reason for this is that people with health issues have to maintain that health in very stressful physical situations.
At both burns I have attended at Nest I needed medical care.
Many people with mobility issues on low incomes rely on having a vehicle to get the basics they need and attend hospital appointments.
Being able to address environmental impact is the privilege of people who have their basic needs met.
This doesn't mean that those on a low income do not address environmental impact, just that many of the ways to address it cost more money, money they don't have.
Attending an event like Nest is a huge expenditure, and involves as you know, far more than the ticket price and the travel costs.
But people choose to attend even though they do not have the finances because of the benefit of the community.
I have said it before but I will emphasise if again, radical self reliance is based on privilege. The privilege to buy the gear you need, to have food and water delivered, or bought at a supermarket. To have transport to take you there, money to buy outfits.
None of it is actually your own hard work, unless you grew the food your self, or wove the fabrics, or built your bus or car.
You bought the goods and someone else made them for you, made it possible for you and all you had to do was throw money at it and then talk about environmental impact.
Completely forgetting the impact you have on the lives of the people in poorer countries who work them selves to death working long hours for pittance or die smuggling illegal drugs into the UK that you use with abandon.
If you can judge those who are poorer for using cars that they rely on and need, that impact on the environment you firstly need to address the consequences of your own excess.