City grot shame of tycoon
Jul 26 2007
by Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo
THE owner of Liverpool’s three worst grotspots was today threatened with legal action.
The Edge Lane sites topped a list of the city’s top 100 eyesores last year.
But talks to sort out the grotspots have so far failed.
More...
I think you've quite missed Howie's point.Originally Posted by kat
Snappel, I dont think I have, with due respect. I have in the past sat on housing association and council meetings regarding regeneration projects. Homes of today have to adhear to very stick standards. Your lucky your not over here on wirral where they take a very tough stance on housing disrepair in the private sector. You may or maynot recall, the problems faced by the council in the past was lack of central funding, that is how social housing stock fell into disrepair. Councils could not bid for money in the same way in which private sector social housing associations could. The council use such terms as "our prefered working partners", meaning working in partnership with private investment. Right so, this is what is done over here, your a private home owner and your property falls into disrepair, the council warns you and asks you to make good the property, if you fail to carry out the works then the council carry out the works on your behalf, if you fail to pay for the works done, then the council can take legal action to recover the costs of the works done. if you still fail to pay then the council can sell your home to recover the cost and give you what ever is left.
The biggest Majority of home owners on the edge lane project have already sold up. In a democracy majority rule and that is how this will be judged. Eventually councils will get a bigger say locally rather than appeals to white hall.
The days of being held to randsom are coming to an end (thankfully).
If there are areas where no body wishes to live but a small minority that cannot be good for not only that area but from the councils point of view of trying to collect revenues from those sites. Sites that do not collect revenue due to low council tax banding only create a bigger problem of council tax increases.
If our victorian for fathers took the same attitude as some do today, we would be stuck in mud hut villages.
kat
the bright side
The number of people in the cities is rising and rising dramatically; but not in Liverpool. The population was over 800,000 in 1937 and is now 432,000. It has stopped falling; but only just, and is creeping up in the hundreds not in the thousands. Our birth rate is no less than elsewhere which means people are still leaving Liverpool in droves.
We need excellent places to live to keep those who are born here and even better places to work. We need to get people back and attract new people. We won't do it with lashed up Victorian houses without boilers and a refusal to contemplate any kind of change for the better because what we've got is what we're used to.
Even if you have worked hard enough to own your house outright, it's only worth what it's worth. If it's got no boiler and costs a fortune to heat, don't be surprised if it's not that much. To then get a chance for a new and comfortable home in pleasant surroundings at a price you can afford without risk, even if rented (and maintained by someone else) plus a bit of cash to enjoy it - then great!
We're a long time dead, so we may as well enjoy these great times for Liverpool while we can. Look at the positives. New homes that are comfortable and affordable in a thriving and prosperous city.
As little as ten years ago, nothing was being done and this great city was withering away. People moaned then, they should stop now.
All this fuss over Edge Lane did highlight the selfishness of a certain group of people...those who signed a petition to have other citizens thrown out of their homes. They are the lowest of the low in my opinion.
I wouldn't take any lessons from the Council or their lackeys regarding housing repair or regeneration, when they neglected their own housing stock for decades. I've yet to discover a more disreputable organisation.
As is stated above, they didn't purposely neglect the housing stock, there was simply no funding from central government and the people who signed the petition didn't sign to get people thrown out, it was a petition to ask LLDC to push ahead with demolition of existing derelict properties and press ahead with the regeneration of the area.
On a different note, to see the plans for the Rocket Junction, go to http://www.edgelane.net and click on 'M62 Rocket Junction'.
This doesn't really apply to the Edge Lane area as they're mainly private, but...The Council took rents for many years and didn't spend enough of this income on repairs. That's the simple fact. They also mismanaged their housing stock (many empty properties/no income). If it were a private landlord who acted in this manner, everyone would say they were either corrupt/useless or purposely neglectful. The 'no funding from central government' excuse has been used by politicians for every cash shortfall I can ever remember. I'll predict that I'll hear the phrase used again and again in the future. I suppose it all comes down to whether one trusts the financial competency of politicians to set proper budgets.
The petition was part and parcel of the route to shifting everyone out, whilst they would be sitting pretty.
So, if the council doesn't have enough money to maintain houses because there is not enough money coming in, they are corrupt. But if an individual householder doesn't replace a boiler for the same reason, he is a saint and a paragon of thrift!
An individual, who owns their own house, is free to maintain it in a manner which is acceptable to themselves (within certain legal limits). The Council, on the other hand had a statutory duty, just like any other landlord, to maintain their properties to an acceptable standard. Whatever the reason, the Council clearly failed in this duty, and that's an undeniable fact.
Last edited by marky; 07-28-2007 at 02:11 PM. Reason: spelling
I think alot of people are forgetting that the mistakes made in the past where made by a different council and this council is doing all it can to fix them. This council has done alot in terms of regeneration in residential areas. Countless houses have been refurbished and brought up to modern standards, but on some occasions it is best to demolish, and if that means having to remove a few residents then so be it. We can't let the sometimes selfish minority scupper regeneration plans that are vitally needed.
The policies underpinning New Heartlands were set in motion when Liverpool was in terminal decline. Things have changed. A rethink is called for.
Has there EVER been a case where people were offered refurbishment of their existing community and instead voted for modern housing?
Manchester is just about to introduce congestion charges to keep cars out of the city centre and in exchange receive hundreds of millions of pounds to further build up their public transport infrastructure. What are we doing? Building a dual carriageway into the city centre! No one else does that anymore - it's the mindset of the 80s. And you say LCC has it's finger on the pulse. Whose pulse is that - Derek Hatton's?
Congestion charging will come here eventually, but Liverpool doesn't need it yet because its not as busy as places like Manchester. In order to use cogestion charging you must have the infrastructure to support such as dual carriageways etc. Things like the edge lane project happened in Manchester years ago, and Liverpool is having to play catch up before we even think of congestion charging.
I think your missing the point regarding housing and in particular the council, what I said was true and valid from somebody that worked in many different council departments across the UK. Each year councils were forced to make cut backs sadly all too often and I know because I worked for a time in stock control we had regular tenants smashing things like toilet pans, baths, new plaster scrapped off the walls, it didnt take many of these to make cash in demand, oh and every time we didnt do something rest assured we were taken to court. More often than not it turned out tenants smashed up their own property to get rehoused. "FACT". If tenants maintaine their homes to a reasonable standard it should only require minimal maintanance. it doesnt take much to financially cripple a council, thank goodness they got out of the housing stock game. How dis heartening it was to see plumbers get a repair sheet for toilets smashed only to have to go back a few weeks later to replace them.
Common things, broken windows (regular) broken doors (lost keys), broken toilet pans, all adds up.
Regarding the motorway or rather edge lane widening plane, dont forget if they are increasing the citys capacity and business infa structure then transport is a key part of this redevelopment, and yes, I think the council do have it about right. People feel safer travelling in their own cars (sad but true fact). It was just sad that Liverpool never had a suitable motorway link directly in to the city center years ago. And lets not forget it wasnt that long ago that manchester got its final links in its ring road, not to mention princess park way which was a dual carriage way but is now part of the M602.
if your going to attract busness they want viable transport routes, be that rail road or by air.
kat
Last edited by kat2; 07-28-2007 at 07:40 PM.
quite so! For every 'right' there is an obligation. You can't have the freedom to wilfully neglect or destroy your property and the right to a decent standard of accommodation. If you do exactly what you like then don't be upset if you have to live with the consequences.
A minimum standard of roads is needed. The city is obliged to make coming to the city attractive and to provide reasonable access including for those who want to drive. As it happens, roads are very limited but trains and other forms of public transport move more people and move them in a greener fashion.
It was believed we had a 'right' to a government grant for trams. We didn't feel obliged to make them pay and that's why we lost them.
If there's one thing the 80s reminded us then it is that you have to pay your way.
I agree, if you wish to have better facilities and services then like everything in life you have to pay for them, in this case via your housing tax.
kat
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks