|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 Posted by: emma, Glasgow on 12:22pm Wed 13 Aug 08 A choice??? Like the choice the people who are being moved out of the areas that they like staying in but cant because of the demolitions and that the housing being put in its place will be 70% private ownership. Thats not choice. A higher mix of public/private is needed here. Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 1:18pm Wed 13 Aug 08 Emma, Much as I'd like to agree with you, with the current economic climate, the last thing the city needs is yet more overpriced, and yuppified private flats for the far more wealthy in society. Yes, the taxation and money collected from them can be re-invested into other areas. But, the way in which that divide is clearly getting wider between rich & poor is not going to be improved by building yet more upmarket flats in innappropriate areas, outzized, and out of scale with surrounding tememental properties. Far more rented, and affordable properties are clearly needed in a wider range of areas in the city, not just outlying, and cheaper areas. The balance needs to be struck more carefully between the number of private/public flats in each area of the city. As part of it are now so high in private, and overpriced apartments that local people cannot get a look in at ever being able to buy one. People having to pay up to 6 X their salary on a mortgage must be wondering where the point is, when the value of their property goes down the pan as is happening just now. Some private property developers are struggling to sell their new builds as it is. And, no doubt the idea of inside insurance jobs, and torching some developments will be in the back of developers minds. The siutation is far from positive. And, the priority of who these new social houses are given to must be made clearer. So many people have been displaced from sighthill and areas where the 40 year old high rise eyesores have been dynamited. This trend in pulling such tower blocks down will only increase. So, where do the genuinely homeless, malnourished people who attend soup kitchens fit in ? Are they being considered in this strategy - I certainly hope so. Posted by: bluenose, Glasgow on 5:06pm Wed 13 Aug 08 Just a suggestion , but why not kill 2 birds with one stone , private developers are left with unsold stock , the city needs social housing , rather than build why not buy from developers at fair price and then the mix of private and social housing demand can be met at one time? Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 5:51pm Wed 13 Aug 08 bluenose, this is already happening, but not through choice. I'm of the belief that it was reported around 10 days ago that Glasgow Harbour were selling off some of their stock to the housing association/s. If this is indeed the case, then it just proves how vastly overpriced these properties are in the first place, even for the area their in. You can bet that as new housing going up now fails to get interest from buyers as quickly or easily that they may also be forced into selling to social housing / housing associations at a reduced amount. The need for this kind of common sense logic is crucial, especially as the balance of private v publically affordable houses is badly out of sink, and needing stabilised. Lets just hope that through time social housing will no longer be a luxury where some people have to wait so long on a waiting list for a roof over their heads. If Glasgow can eradicate homelessness by 2014 I would be very happy. But, realistically, until the problem is acknowleged by our politicians for funding to be allocated it will continue to be one of these no go areas, where sadly, it remains "out of sight, out of mind." Posted by: Smeeagain, Lanarkshire on 12:35am Thu 14 Aug 08 Aw C'mon - this is just too much!
When did Glasgow Cooncillors rediscover their altruistic motivations? What a load of sheeite. This article would make you think that Glasgow Cooncillors have suddenly seen the light - well that might be true, but they have been looking for the switch for the past 40 years. Don't be fooled; thios is just Glasgow fulfilling it's promise to take over the job previously done by Communities Scotland and before that Scottish Homes. Quite simply, this money is the commitment to development funding for housing construction and improvement that used to manged by other than GCC. Effing cheek trying to make out that this is some new Labour initiative. Hey guys, they had to take on the job of managing development funding when they undertook to transfer houses to GHA. New packaging - same old present. Honestly, give a labour cooncillor an inch and he'll stretch it tae F***k. |     |
 |
|
|
Copyright © 2009 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All
Rights Reserved Terms of Use |
Comment | Read Comments (5)
