Demolishing housing estates

A great deal of Gransnet posting comes under that heading, thatbags

I do think one would have to be pretty well armour-plated to be such a superintendent nowadays. Did people actually take any notice back then? Did the 'supers' make any difference? If they didn't perhaps that's why that job died a natural death.

Interestingly, I just saw a tweet saying how someone hadn't realised when they were younger, how much of debate and discussion consists of showing people you didn't actually say things they interpolate from what you did say. That was an amusing moment since I'd just been reading this thread

Did anyone say people should be able to treat their rented property however they like? I certainly didn't because I don't think that either, but the examples given of how estate superintendents bossed people struck me as possibly over the top and over-interfering.

Not at all, gillybob, I was just making a comment about overgrown gardens in general. I agree that those containing trash and other disagreeables are not nice and that, ideally, one shouldn't have to see them. But I made my comment because many people are over-tidy-minded when it comes to gardens and very intolerant of purposeful difference.

If a private house is in need of repair, the owner/occupier is responsible for getting it done. If the reason for that repair is that they have trashed it, then it is fair enough that they bear the cost. If it is storm damage or wear and tear, that is different - they will claim on the insurance that they have been paying for years.

The same is true of a rented house (whoever owns it) Reasonable maintenance is the responsibility of the owner.
The owner of a privately rented house will have taken a deposit from the tenant when they moved in, and when they move out he will subtract the cost of any UN reasonable repairs when he returns that deposit.

How are repairs to a local authority house paid for? Is there any difference between fair wear and tear, storm damage, and damage caused by trashing? What is the tenant responsible for? (This is a question, not an accusation)

Responsibility is the other side of rights. You can't have one without the other.

Also I disagree with the fact that anyone should be able to treat their rented property however they like and I think the idea of regular inspections is a good one. Most people do look after their home and surroundings whether it be rented or private however there are others who do not.

Oh thatbags your romantic idea of an overgrown "wildlife" garden is so different to the reality of weeds, prickles, empty pop cans, pizza boxes, car parts, the odd pieces of sodden clothing and dog shit, that make up the unkempt gardens to which I refer.

Anniebach please read/re-read the last paragraph of my post.

Are there no privately owned houses in need of repair or with untidy gardens , and I am horrified that children were given a curfew in the fifties, I
I lived in a mining valley in Wales when a child and the freedom was wonderful , no curfew , just home when told by parents, I don't think very long rows of houses , street after street, are different to housing estates but it was a warm, close knit community, people cared , I wish children on these sink estates lived in a caring community

I suspect the practice of paying estate superintendents to boss people around stopped when the contents of pay packages increased to the point where it was too expensive. You'd have to pay someone a hell of a lot nowadays to do a job like that, especially as a lot of people would probably tell him (and be well within their rights to do so) to fuck off and mind his own business.

I wish to argue in favour of overgrown gardens. They are good for wildlife. It's not immoral to have a wild garden, even if it looks untidy. Nature is untidy.

Just saying.

My late grandparents were the first tenants on a brand new estate back in the early 50s owned by the William Sutton Trust. My grandma lived there in that same house up until 1990 when she moved into a bungalow.

My grandma said that when she first moved onto the estate there was a superintendent that patrolled the estate every day. Anyone found to have an untidy garden etc. would be reprimanded and they would be given a short time to put it right. Likewise there were regular internal inspections. My grandma even said that any children found playing outside after a certain time were escorted home and their parents given a "talking to".

In latter years the estate went down hill. The rules were relaxed to the point of there being none and several problem lazy families brought down the area with overgrown gardens, rubbish, cars jacked up etc.

I drove through the estate a few days ago on my way to see an old neighbour of my grandma with whom I keep in touch. I was happy to see some lovely, well kept houses but very sad to see some that were in a bad state of repair. Perhaps that will always be the case on large council/charitable trust/housing association estates.

Having said all that there are some beautiful Victorian properties not far from where I live. Most are maintained to a very high standard and very well kept with the odd ones in very bad repair looking filthy and spoiling the rest.

ab, has anyone said people on housing estates shouldn't take recreational drugs? If so, I didn't spot where. There is an argument that I've read in various places that acquiring and taking recreational drugs shouldn't be illegal. I think the idea is that fighting the drug cartels has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective and a great waste of police time and resources.

However, that's a separate issue from housing estates and rotten landlords.

Change of subject? If you read all the posts you will find drugs spoken of in several

Why the sudden change of subject on this thread? Did Any Winehouse live in an area of deprivation?

And, when Amy Winehouse died fans left flowers and bottles of alcohol at her home as tributes !

Yes the death of Amy Winehouse was a tragedy just as the death of a person found dead from taking drugs in an back ally is a tragedy.

So people on estates buy drugs from traffickers, do pop stars buy theirs from Harrods?

People on drugs in housing estates and the homeless on drugs -

Are Individuals

ab admiring someone's musical ability or output is not the same as condoning their use of illegal drugs. It is possible to think that someone has great talent, but at the same time thinking that they are setting a terrible example to impressionable young people. Rather like living your grandchildren, but disliking their unruly behaviour.
Where have you got the idea that people think it's ok for anyone, whether they're a pop star, or an inhabitant of a sink estate, or a middle class lawyer, to ruin their life and the lives of those around them with addiction to drugs or alcohol?
Do you think anyone thought that Amy Winehouse's death was 'acceptable'? You astound me. No-one with any empathy at all could regard it as anything but a tragedy.
In any case, the problem with drugs in communities is far more wide reaching than the tragic effects on individuals. It is the crime associated with the trafficking which has a deeply pernicious effect.

This is brilliant. Cameron's own thinktanks know and demonstrate that the way out of poverty is to get rid of the bedroom tax.

www.24dash.com/news/housing/2016-01-15-Opinon-David-Cameron-makes-a-great-case-for-abolishing-bedroom-tax#.Vplnht-t38A.twitter

Loads of links in here to evidence that the bedroom tax is the cause of poverty.

I bet next week/month when he's thought through his new housing policy, he will announce the abolition of the bedroom tax, and all the right wingers will say what a good idea he has had.

Elegran my apologies for misunderstanding your post.

durhamjen I have no argument with any of the figures in the link you put up, regardless of its political leanings, but this thread is about solutions. The Policy Exchange suggested solutions and ones that are proven to be effective. My argument has always been that demolition solves nothing and social problems are answered by social solutions. There was nothing in your link that contradicted that.

I didn't look for any particular type of think tank. I just googled on solutions to deprivation. In fact when I read these two reports I assumed Policy Exchange must be left of centre. But surely this is one of the big problems, we put the political views of any person or corporate body ahead of reading and assessing the validity of their arguments or solutions. I read the reports first and if they appear well reasoned and valid I really do not give toss whether they are from a right wing or left wing organisation. Neither of them has a monopoly of truth - or untruth.

Thank you Jen, I so dislike it's fine for some but not for all

Good post, Annie.

Why should people on housing estates not take drugs when many pop singers on drugs, been on drugs, died from drugs are admired? Was not that singer Lemmy hailed a genius and praised heaped upon him whilst his drug taking was put forward as amusing, Amy Winehouse - may have the surname wrong, following her death her drug addiction wasn't criticised , sympathy poured forth that she had battled with drugs , either it's acceptable for all or not to be tolerated no matter the fact the addict is famous.

Same with alcoholics, if famous their addiction is accepted, if not they are drunks and a waste of space.

Drink and drug addiction is fine if you don't live on a housing estate , if you do you are a problem

npi.org.uk/files/8314/4827/0203/Final_MPSE_Findings_2015.pdf

Monica, I think you should read this, as I have just read your links.