But at least this council is doing something to deal with a crisis.
As someone who enjoys my allotment, I'd still favour giving it up so that we could have some cheap housing.
Plots for allotments would be easier to find than plots for affordable houses.
I'd be in favour of building on the Garden Terrace site which should provide good foundations and extending the plot down at South Ulverston which is good soil for growing but unacceptable for building.
But can you ever think of our Town Council coming up with such a scheme.
No way.
That lot of wimps wouldn't have the balls.
( This could be more 'politely' be expressed as 'Those weak and unadventurous people are too emasculated'. Is this more acceptable?)
These are tough times needing tough decision makers.
I can see the councillors already running for cover.
16 comments:
The Allotments Act 1925 provides that the Secretary of State must be asked for consent before a 'statutory' allotment site can be disposed of by a local authority.
This is far above our councils remit Geoff
Empty houses and accomodation should be confiscated first and empty brown field sites developed.
lets develop the Glaxo site I hope they still pay the same rates as they did I suspect not.
What is killing the Ulverston shops is high rents and greedy landlords also property should not be allowed to be empty it is imoral "No room at the Inn"
We need a squatter action group which would stop the greed The "Squatters Handbook" gives usefull lawfull actions
JAK
The Squatter's Handbook
The real issue is the difficulty of getting housed, its due to profiteering through privatisation and gentrification, which leads to unaffordable rents
The days of "Rachman" are back due to "Buy to let mortgages."
The priest from St Mary's Ulverston lives alone ?
Room for a poor family ?
Are churches fully utilised NO and no wonder.
Merry Xmas.
"No room at the Inn "
JAK
This is a stupid idea even by your standards. I'm not moving from garden terrace allotments to the south ulverston site and our council can't dispose of allotments even if they wanted to and they are not the housing authority SLDC is. They gave up a load of allotments to build larch grove so you are totally out of order. Apart from the disgusting way you chose to express yourself. Shame on you
The language is extreme I grant you. But it's the way a large number of people think in Ulverston.
The difference is that I come out and say it.
Having watched them in action at the cabinet meeting the other day, a lot of people would agree.
Maybe the Grange Councillor, Tom Harvey, will show the rest how to fight their corner.
This is a stupid idea does not win an argument in my book.
I'd like to hear why THE IDEA is mistaken.
Saying that it would be difficult to achieve is not an argument against THE IDEA.
Here is my logic:
1. Ulverston I understand needs 300 (let's say 'a lot') affordable houses.
2. If there is land that is suitably placed in the town where houses could be built well, then there have to be good reasons, not to do so. In my list of priorities affordable comes high up the list. So do Parks which allow all of us to enjoy vegetation - flowers,shrubs trees and uncluttered SPACE.
3. Allotments should be primarily on land that is good for growing, it does not have to be in town centres as the time taken to get there can be small compared with the time spent there (it takes me less than ten minutes and I spend three hours there at a time). This land does not have to be good building land.
These three statements provide a strong argument for my IDEA.
Practicality is another matter altogether.
Furthermore I am not saying that our Town Council has the authority to interfere but the councillors could invest their time to finding out how this idea could be put into practice. They could then lead the battle to make it happen - if that is what we decided we wanted.
As I consider the present councillors I can hardly see one who would be willing to take this on as a project.
After all for three years now they haven't been able to even get a sign put up in the Market Square to tell tourists that there's and empty car park round the corner at Stockbridge Lane (when what's needed is for this car park to be made free again - the present usage is dismal). This is at a time when our streets are clobbered up with cars and we are trying to encourage people to shop in our town.
I don't see why there has to be a choice of allotments or houses. Surely space can be found to build affordable housing without sacrificing that which gives pleasure and meaning to many gardeners.
As for taking over empty houses, be careful what you are advocating. Maybe one day you will have a property for sale and find it hard to get a buyer. It could be your only asset and maybe needed to pay off a mortgage or whatever. But squatting in premises that have been gathering cobwebs for years is a different matter. But do those waiting for a house or flat want that sort of hassle?
Yes, there are profiteers — as has become apparent in London where property is rented at ridiculous rates with the tax payer picking up the bill.
Where are these people waiting for housing living at present? Has anyone done a study?
And Geoff, it is very off-putting to hear you forever ranting on about our councillors. Can't we just accept your views of them and concentrate on the point you are making. maybe more folk would be willing to listen?.
You may have a point Gladys.
You may not.
It's one way I relieve my frustration at being led a merry dance by these . . . . .
....
gentlemen.
Some people prefer to convey exactly the same message but are equally insulting with flowery 'polite' language that when it is analysed means "you idiot".
I prefer to come out with it in my 'plain English'.
They have regularly insulted me and ignore very reasonable requests in the past. Are you surprise I have a go at them.
I am not surprised that you do, because it is obvious that is the way you vent your feelings. But you may never know how many people you have angered without real cause.
You seemed to be much more reasonable at the Council meeting of some months ago. Or is it harder to say to people's faces the things you write about them here?
There are subtle ways to get answers, but you can't always expect the answers that you want. But first you need people to truly listen. Respect and courtesy costs nothing. Hard-headed points are made more palatable if the one listening knows that you are aware of the problems that they themselves face.
But I haven't the slightest doubt that you will continue as normal for that is you.
And, of course, if people like me don't like it, we don't have to visit here or leave comments, do we.
Gladys says:
"But you may never know how many people you have angered without real cause. "
If I have angered them it is with very good cause.
My opinions have changed.
Remember I went to the trouble of going to the cabinet meeting at Kendal and listened to three of our main councillors arguing with Graham Vincent from the opposition bench in the chamber.
There I listened to pathetic speeches they made on the car parking issue when they had some very strong points they could have made over the way Graham Vincent is dealing with the Stockbridge Lane Carpark.
They thoroughly let down Ulverston people and traders when they did not make a potentially strong point at the meeting. Instead they made some oblique references to the issue.
Their performance was pathetic.
With councillors like that Ulverston can look forward to becoming a ghost town.
Ulverston should be clamoring for better representation . . . but they don't.
and
"Or is it harder to say to people's faces the things you write about them here?"
I do have a problem saying things directly to people. But I do it.
I find your suggestion insulting.
I'm disappointed that you don't like the way I speak but you weren't with me at the cabinet meeting.
Had you been there you too might call our councillors wimps.
I said 'might'.
I doubt very much that you would as your not confrontational the way I am.
I prefer to call a spade a spade.
When I see poor behavior I say so.
I have already written to James Airey, the one I most respected, and told him what I thought.
I am genuinely sorry you feel insulted, I was doing just what you do — saying what I feel and think. As it happens I hold you in high regard otherwise I would say nothing. I simply saw you as being quite reasonable at that particular Council Meeting. You did not speak like you sometimes talk here. That's all.
Believe me, I can be openly confrontational if the situation demands it. I always try to avoid inflammatory language as being unhelpful.
However, since you take exception to my honesty, I'll leave you to it. I will not come back here again to upset you, after all, it's your blog, not mine.
I'm sorry you feel this way.
I value your contributions.
I certainly don't "take exception to your honesty".
I wasn't upset - I just said that I found your suggestion insulting.
For me this is what friendship is all about.
I suspect that we'll survive! Even if it's through contact outside this blog.
This kind of communication is the worse for good relationships to develop.
Face to face is far better.
Dont go Gladys
We love you.
Ditto Galdys,
Though I balk at the word love.
We're very fond of you!
Look what you've done now upset one of the only posters on here i liked reading from.You'll never do any good as if people don't agree with you then there wrong,there's only ever one person right in ulverston and thats you Geoff
Let's keep to the facts please.
Above I stated, starting with a quote from Gladys:
""Or is it harder to say to people's faces the things you write about them here?"
I do have a problem saying things directly to people. But I do it.
I find your suggestion insulting."
If Gladys is upset by this then I'm sorry, but this is to do with her, not me.
People here, are very keen to criticise.
In this case I am talking about how I feel and this is the way I believe we should relate to people - what they do as a result is their business.
Post a Comment