Archive for August 8th, 2006
Complex decision
There’s great news today for fans of trees and stuff. Lottery chiefs have rejected the £25 million bid to build a Life Centre on Plymouth’s Central Park.
Described as ‘a multi-use complex that would reinvigorate the centre of Plymouth’, the centre was supposed to boast a recording studio, dance centre, health clinic, Olympic-sized swimming pool, sculpture trail, library, youth centre, cinema and bowling alley.
The Evening Herald was so excited by the project it gathered more than 10,000 signatures as part of its Let’s Build It campaign to ’show lottery commissioners the massive public support for the scheme’.
Unfortunately, we at the People’s Republic (and indeed, Plymouth’s ’silent majority’, as Richard Littlejohn might say) were overwhelmingly against the scheme - primarily because of the news the facility would ‘replace the Mayflower Leisure Centre and build into unused space around Home Park’. In fact, the centre was due to eat into ‘just’ two per cent of the park’s 200 acres. Hey, you do the math.
Perhaps aware of the PRSD’s riposte to the Let’s Build It wheeze (our Careful Now campaign), lottery chiefs decided to hand a fistfulla fivers to the Eden Project instead so they can erect another one of their bubble dome thingies.
An embarrassed Herald today was appropriately aghast, expressing ‘disappointment and despair’, and describing it as a ’slap in the face’ for Plymouth. ‘This decision,’ the leader column sobbed, ‘represents a massive, missed opportunity for every man, woman and child here, and one which could have devastating consequences’.
Yikes! Still, at least every man, woman and child can console themselves by having a rather nice park to enjoy. But let’s not get complacent, folks. Deputy Plymouth council leader Cllr Chris Pattison was quoted as saying ‘it is not the end of the scheme. This is a project which carries on and we will look at other options’.
Misguided optimism? Perhaps. But there’s still a lot of support out there for the scheme and one should never underestimate a newspaper scorned.
Posted by Thin White Duke
August 8th, 2006
Add comment
Febrile Fitz # 4
Hullo, and welcome to another look at the confused comedy stylings of David ‘Fitz’ Fitzgerald – the never-popular stuffed rabbit wrangler cum Evening Herald scribbler.
This week’s effort once again features special guest appearances by Ratboy (his son) and The Enemy (his wife) and is a good column for fans of Rainman-like observations about cheap clothes and sweatshops. Right on!
FEBRILE FITZ # 4
ONE BUNNYHOP: “The Enemy suggested a trip to find Ratboy a new football shirt. Like an idiot I agreed. Within moments I was standing at the gates of hell, the bulk discount mega sportswear shop.”
TWO BUNNYHOPS: “Already 16 deep in French language students, I entered this fantastic emporium where, if you are careful, you can clothe yourself entirely for about £7.20.”
THREE BUNNYHOPS: “It went through my mind that if I were to check my balance with my bank’s Indian call centre, the voice at the end of the line may well notice just how little I had paid for the garments probably made just down the road in the same country. Can anyone else see a problem with this?”
Oh, Fitz, you are a one.
Bye children.
Posted by Thin White Duke
August 8th, 2006
Add comment
Home spun
So it seems there’s another nail in the coffin in being able to afford to live in the south west. The government’s attempt to add ‘choice’ into the mix of Housing Benefit with the Local Housing Allowance doesn’t appear to be going as planned.
Teignbridge was one of the nine ‘pathfinders’ (guinea pigs) for the new allowance, and rather than adding choice into the mix, the experiment seems to be taking possible accommodation out of the equation.
Teignmouth writer and researcher Alan Dearling (of Enabler Publications - see links) regularly works with a range of national housing agencies.
‘Teignbridge was part of the first group of Housing Allowance Pathfinder areas in January 2004, which are being piloted to assess whether paying housing allowance direct to recipients, rather than landlords, is helping them to have a greater choice of rented accommodation in their local area,’ he said.
‘Put simply, the tenants are allowed to pocket the difference between the local housing allowance (which is meant to be a fairly generous rent level) and what they are actually paying. The governement’s aim is to encourage them to shop around to find appropriate and good value accommodation.
‘This sounds a ‘good thing’ in theory, but the practice the outcomes may be very different. We don’t know the results of the evaluation yet, but I personally suspect that it will reduce the number of private rented properties on offer and lead to some tenants entering a spiral into debt and eviction.’
Hey ho to affordable housing then.
He suggests: ‘At an anecdotal level, I’ve heard of more than a dozen houses that were previously privately rented now being sold off. ‘Many landlords just don’t trust tenants to hand over their housing benefit allowance. They much preferred the system where the rent was paid directly to them - even if it sometimes took time to come through.
Maybe, even though borne out of good intentions, this is what happens when you replace care with market forces. Soon enough no one will be able to afford to live down here, despite the growth of megalith-type rural conurbations.
Posted by Cptn
August 8th, 2006
Add comment
