Property disaster

[ads]

Cardiarms wrote: Only problem with point 3 is that it's the children who suffer through no fault of their own. Because of their parents feckless lifestyle they are forced to live into poverty. Not an easy one to solve without taking them into care, which costs. I know personally of families who have as many children as possible to rake the benefits system and avoid work. If the benefits aren't there then with any luck, the large family won't be as attractive. I have nothing against people with large families as long as they can support them. I fully understand your views on the feckless lifestyle, being involved in the care system Aha,more clues about the mysterious ads!!A socially involved ex Scrumpies headbanger.Surely a contradiction in terms?

[cnosni]

ads wrote: A new model for living needs looking at from the bottom up. My fix would 1. Instead of direct social payments, benefits would be paid onto a pre payment card that couldnt be used for beer and fags. No different from using a cash card.2. Unless you are in hospital or can get a sick note from a doctor, you have to earn your benefit. Councils should be made to use people to sweep the streets, clean graffiti up , and other community based jobs that need doing but never get done. No work no benefits. That might encourage some people to take 'real jobs' and not just sit on their back sides.3. For those who chose to have large families, after 4 children ( an arbitery figure) child benefit starts getting reduced. A cap is put on other benefits as well.4. Provide starter housing for young people. These can either be low cost or low rent. They can only be occupied for a limited period of time - say 5 years, then you either purchase your own property or move into housing association. Any increase in value is capped to the rate of inflationWhilst I know it doesn't apply to every one, there are a sizable amount out there who think society owes them. Society owes nothing, we owe it to society and those around us. There we go. Problems solved in one easy post. Yeah,number 2 is a good un.Unfortunately some of the feckers will knock sick and expect paying as well.I really dont know what the answer is.Point 4 Could have a proviso,in form of contarct,that the property must ve vacated after 5 years ,no matter what.It could also incorporate an option that the rent is a little bit higher than normal council rent.Take this amount,and a proprtion of the rent and have it placed into a locked account.Then after 5 years this money can be released for a mortgage,payable directly to a mortgage lender.This amount could also serve as a deterrent to those people who do not look after the property,in that any damages to the property will be paid for from the money put aside.Too complicated probably

[tyke bhoy]

cnosni wrote: Point 4 Could have a proviso,in form of contarct,that the property must ve vacated after 5 years ,no matter what.It could also incorporate an option that the rent is a little bit higher than normal council rent.Take this amount,and a proprtion of the rent and have it placed into a locked account.Then after 5 years this money can be released for a mortgage,payable directly to a mortgage lender.This amount could also serve as a deterrent to those people who do not look after the property,in that any damages to the property will be paid for from the money put aside.Too complicated probably Less complicated than Mr Brown's numerous variations of tax credit

[electricaldave]

I can't readily think of a way to push people to wrk to get benefits without some form of unfairness creeping in, lots of schems start out with the best intentions but somehow the devil gets into the works.Like it or not, we look upon folk who have made it enough to buy their own homes differantly to those who live in council housing, and that is a veiw that will nt go away, too many of us have built very large parts of our lives around home ownership.Very few of us would deny decent housing to those who we felt to be 'deserving' but this view of 'deserving poor' and 'underserving poor' has been around for a good 300 years, and possibly more, going back at least to Harrison's day and his almhouses up by St Johns.In all that time we still have not found an effective way to handle this issue, except we do not tend to use poverty as a form of social punishment, nor do we have the workhouse.I do think that if you live in rented accomodation, you have a duty to keep it in good order, after all, it is someone else's property and you are borrowing it.The reverse is also true, that someone renting should be considered to be a guest and the property should be properly maintained - which is something that was spectacularly not done during the 1950's and early 1960's partly due to the blight of threatened demolition.We need to find ways to make it more attractive to become a landlord.It should be far less cumbersome to evict the feckless home wrecker, this would make it easier to encourage private landlords, especially those with just one or two properties. There should also be some direct financial redress against those reck, fail to pay rent etc as a disincentive to behave in this way.

[raveydavey]

And now the whole 'Trinity Quarter' project has been put on ice 'for the time being'.Apparently they are looking at alternative uses for the site until building work can be restarted as the economy recovers. I think they might struggle a bit with that as they seem to have demolished everything. Funny they always seem to have the money to pull the old buildings down, but not to erect new ones...Anyway, I'd like to be the first to suggest they adopt the traditional use for a large empty site in the city centre. They should roughly flatten out the ground, using a combination of mud, small stones and half bricks, and then use it as a car park (like the pre-NCP Markets car park, or the one that used to be at the side of the Corn Exchange), like they did in the 70's. For a truly authentic period feel they should ensure that there are random potholes large enough to lose a small hatchback in so that everytime it rains large puddles develop all over the place making it virtually impossible to get to your car without getting wet feet.

[chameleon]

raveydavey wrote: And now the whole 'Trinity Quarter' project has been put on ice 'for the time being'.Apparently they are looking at alternative uses for the site until building work can be restarted as the economy recovers. I think they might struggle a bit with that as they seem to have demolished everything. Funny they always seem to have the money to pull the old buildings down, but not to erect new ones...Anyway, I'd like to be the first to suggest they adopt the traditional use for a large empty site in the city centre. They should roughly flatten out the ground, using a combination of mud, small stones and half bricks, and then use it as a car park (like the pre-NCP Markets car park, or the one that used to be at the side of the Corn Exchange), like they did in the 70's. For a truly authentic period feel they should ensure that there are random potholes large enough to lose a small hatchback in so that everytime it rains large puddles develop all over the place making it virtually impossible to get to your car without getting wet feet. Here's a bitthey didn't pull down Dave.A small problem with your suggestion though - so many restrictions on traffic flow and built-in controls to slow progress that way, nothing would ever move!

[chameleon]

Just a thought - isn't town going to be a wonderfully peaceful place for a while

[Cardiarms]

I took some photos the other evening thinking it would be the last chance to get some open views. Then I read the newspaper. haha.

[Cardiarms]

Here we are:

[Cardiarms]

Lights out