Home   Forum   Help Media Centre Search Calendar Shop Gallery Login Register   *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 19, 2017, 01:14:13

Login with username, password and session length
Recent
[Yesterday at 22:23:02]

[July 07, 2017, 13:48:54]

[July 07, 2017, 13:43:55]

[July 07, 2017, 13:30:03]

[July 07, 2017, 13:24:22]
Twitter
Permissions

Last 10 Shouts:
July 30, 2017, 18:36:43
DEFINITIVE NEW NAME CITIZENS!!!!
THE IMPERIAL KINGDOM OF THE FREE LOVELY LOVELAND!!! SHORTENED AS LOVELYLAND!!!
July 20, 2017, 18:51:10
(Freelove just didn't feel right.)
July 20, 2017, 18:50:37
(yeah new name...)
July 20, 2017, 18:50:18
HEIL LOVELAND!
July 20, 2017, 18:49:56
AS OF THE DENONYM IT SHALL BE LOVEDICS( NO BAD PUNS).
July 20, 2017, 18:48:59
THE CITIZEN WITH THE FUNNIEST/EPICEST/WTF-EST/POPULAREST( EXCUSE MY SO RUBBISH EXPRESSIONS) SHALL BE ELECTED GREAT COUNT, ALL BY LOVELIANS/FREELANDICS!!
July 20, 2017, 18:47:04
I THEREBY SUGGEST THE COUNT AND DE FACTO RULER OF LOVELY/FREELAND SHALL BE CHOSEN BY LOVELIANS/FREELANDICS !
July 20, 2017, 18:44:58
OUR CONSTITUTION! MOTIVATED BY OUR GOODWILLED AND FRIENDLY VALUES SHALL ALWAYS PROTECTS POPULAR POWER!!
July 20, 2017, 18:43:32
WITH ABSOLUTELY NO GOVERNMENTAL INFLUENCE ON IT!
July 20, 2017, 18:42:46
OUR EMPIRE IS TRULY MONARCHIC YET DEMOCRATIC AND FREE! OUR COUNT SHALL BE ELECTED BY POPULAR POLLS!
Members
Total Members: 563
Latest: Allonsy182
Stats
Total Posts: 244580
Total Topics: 5053
Online Today: 16
Online Ever: 137
(July 20, 2014, 20:19:05)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 15
Total: 15
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Ghettos, Social provision of housing, greedy developers, and a lack of jobs?  (Read 921 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
He loves the cock...
Manager
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 740
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 28972


View Profile
« on: June 04, 2010, 03:03:42 »

They're building houses amongst the fields I walk my dog. This has been happening for a while now but now they want to build more houses. They won't use a bigger area of land (oh no) instead of making bigger, detatched houses that supposedly market for more they're going to do smaller, cheaper semi/terraced houses. The justification given in the literature they're sending out as part of the "lets hope everyone ignores the leaflets and we get away with it" is that more houses to sell will help them cover the rising costs in the infrastructure required for the new estate due to the credit crunch. I looked at the road, the school and the local centre that is being built and was confused, surely the public transport, street lighting and costs of running a school and such would only be increased by having more people. Then I realised it wasn't the infrastructure for the community that will form in that estate that was bothering the developers, it was the fact that they had to build the roads and lay all the mains for gas, electricity and phone cabling and connect the school up and what not that was the main issue.  Mostly because houses are cheaper now and now everyone is unemployed the demand for buying big fancy houses that are overinflated in price on massive mortgages has dropped off a bit.

This brings me to the second point, social housing. There will be amongst the 800+ houses proposed under the new scheme 6 areas of social housing. These however cannot number more than 15 houses in an area for some reason (I'm betting some government person thinking it'd stop ghettoisation when really that has to do with the entrenched nature of poverty rather than the old style farming the poor off to live together policy) this means at this time of heightened unemployment when the developers may have to sit on houses that aren't selling for a while a maximum of 90 houses will be socially provided to those who need it. That's a shade over 10% of the full houses available. That seems a bit tight, though I understand that many people are prejuidiced against social housing and wouldn't want to buy near social houses and thus it can devalue the other properties more.

All of this is being done with little in the way of new jobs being provided for. A new school is being built but an existing one is moving in so many of the jobs will continue from there, there is a local area where doctor surgeries, dentitsts shops and the like can supposedly take up practice but the town Centre of the town is full of empty lots, it wasn't brimming with trade before the credit crunch and it's taken a bit of a kicking since. Will the jobs come there quickly? Will they come to provide work for the up to 90 social houses who presumably might need some more money, or the other 800 households?

I know it's farmland at the moment and the farmers have done better selling their fields then farming them in the short term but providing houses where there are no jobs (the tyre factory that is the main employer in the town has reduced hours drastically in the past year) seems short sighted especially when the government is cutting the schemes to support people getting into work and encouraging employers to employ and no one is investing.

I dunno it just seems like a mismanaged piece of action by the local government and everyone, surely some more joined up thinking about the social impact of the communities and the formation of strong socities that are self-sufficent with work being in the area to meet the demands of most people should be paramount. Or better provision for widening the area for work by improving public transport. Houses alone do not a town/community make.
Logged

steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2011, 04:32:30 »

If people were to move from 1 area to another, they must have a reason to do so. I can think of the following reasons:
  • They do not have a job where they currently live, and they will be moving into an area where they have been offered employment.
  • There is no housing which they can afford in their current area (or they are currently homeless/living in council housing) and they are moving to a cheaper area (or the council has told them that this is where they will be housed, move to here or sod off).
  • They are moving to an area which they like/is near family/has nice weather or whatever, and these factors are more important to them than being near to a job

With these factors in mind, either the people who are moving to your area are moving into a job, or they don't care about having a job, or they will be jobless where they live? The point that I'm making is that I don't think that anyone would move into your area if they currently have a job wherever they live and will not have a job if they move.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.132 seconds with 29 queries.