Sunday, 8 August 2010

The folly of the well-meaning bungler

Janet Daley, writing in the Telegraph this morning, opines
Where new-build estates are needed they should be small and they should be run and managed, to as great an extent as possible, by their own residents as quasi-independent co-operatives.
No doubt she sees neat flower-packed gardens, painted picket fences and neighbours chatting amiably about charities' tax status as they polish their cars, a little model community where members come together in the evenings to debate letting the communal sewage contract.

Janet, dear, wake up. Citizens with any of those abilities long ago fled the welfare housing sector. Those now being allocated to welfare housing are largely savvy immigrants, an underclass that can't be socialised and girls with their bastards. Within weeks of getting their tenancies, many will have sub-let. Some will be petty drug dealers, some will own pit bulls that bark into the night as the babies wail and some will have been burgled by others. It's been well-meaning bunglers like Daley that have given us all the problem estates we have now - taking a massively disproportionate tax cost in police and criminal justice, social work, health, education and the whole panoply of 'social protection'.

Welfare housing of the future needs to be integrated with private housing to an extent that allows the ethos of the private tenure to regulate the behaviour of the welfare tenants, and this means not more than about one dwelling in six. What's more, it needs to be managed not by a remote housing department, but by those who live in the private tenure sector around it; welfare tenants need to know that both letting and eviction decisions are made by the people who live around them. Many will thus have the chance of becoming valued members of the neighbourhood, and progressing from welfare housing to private rental or ownership, freeing up the welfare dwelling for another.

If it's our taxes that pay for the houses, they must conform to our standards and mores. No pitbulls. No noisy drunken disturbances. No sub-letting. No gardens filled with putrescent waste. No immigrants' dormitories or skunk factories. Let's flatten the rookeries of welfare estates and give our people a real chance of social salvation - alongside us.


Anonymous said...

No - the cheapest and cleanest solution by far is to get rid of those "savvy immigrants" back to their countries of origin.

But we won't, because as a nation, we are stupid.

Coney Island

Anonymous said...

I see these savvy immigrants around me all the time, they laugh and spit in our faces, taking the piss. How Southern Asians love it here, selling drugs, importing tenants to fill their houses our government has generously bestowed and driving their taxis, taxless.
Dunno who to feel sorry for, the poor people who are trafficked or the white Brits on the council waiting lists.
Sink estates are the bane of our society, where anti social skills are learnt and passed on.
To move 'em all and place them 1-6, is some massive scheme but I've thought that (placing people in private housing areas and stopping subletting) for years, this can be the only solution.

Ed P said...

There are "incomers" in my suburban, dormitory town road now. Whether they own or rent the houses, or are welfare recipients, is not obvious. How would anyone know? I don't really care, they are nice enough people.
So, although I can see merit in the 1 in 6 proposal, as a Libertarian it is going away from laissez-fair and towards more interference in the lives of others, well-meant or not.

Blue Eyes said...

"Citizens with any of those abilities long ago fled the welfare housing sector."

Fancy coming to one of our management committee meetings? Thought not, might dash your ridiculously simplistic views.

Ever lived in council housing? I would offer you a cuppa at mine but you wouldn't turn up for fear of village girls.

Raedwald said...

Didn't realise you were a welfare tenant, BE - but now you're on benefits, I'd better bring my own tea, eh?