I have written about the poor state of our local media before, and warned what would happen if the area is only really served by a council propaganda rag. Here is an example straight out of the pages of yer best Pravda!On the letters page a woman has written in, and to be fair to H&F News, has been published as she questions the bright new world that Council Leader Stephen Greenhalgh talked about here.
However, she also gets a 'right of reply' instant response from the very same Supreme Leader Greenhalgh! I have read this paper every time since it started to be published after the election and I have never seen this before. What it tells you is not only how a lack of local press scrutiny is a real gap but also just how sensitive the council must feel about its housing plans at the moment.
I note that the woman's question - where are these replacement homes for evicted residents - is well and truly dodged unless Cllr Grenhalgh is saying that the 900 new socially rented homes will go to those evicted from current housing. In which case that means a no real terms increase in social housing doesn't it? (Assuming the existing estates along the Thames are sold off privately to become private flats)
I will be speaking to the leaders of the campaign to save the estates shortly, so watch this space for more. And to my readers at Hammersmith Town Hall Cllr Greenhalgh would be welcome to respond on here too - but then so would the leaders of the opposition groups on the council as well. Just in the interests of balance, you understand.
Chris can you post a clearer scan of the cutting please?
ReplyDeleteThanks
Paul Bird
yes sorry it hasnt come out well, will do this afternoon
ReplyDeleteDesiree Cranenburgh writes:-
ReplyDelete"If LDF is truly for social, economic and environmental reasons, will profits raised from property developers' deals be put back into the community to benefit the elderly, youth centres, mental health care and the homeless whose services have faced cuts?"
Having read a lot recently about their plans I fear not. The main motivation appears to be to cut borough costs so that they can reduce council tax thus pleasing the Tory voters who will keep them in power and so on, a vicious circle.
Sadly I do not think they have the welfare of the poorer tenants in the borough at heart, at all. I don't live in the borough so can't help but I hope you are able to return it to Labour control asap.
The council seems to believe that if there is a space, it must be stuffed full of more housing, retail and so called leisure. This area is already jam packed with people. Have you seen how busy Uxbridge Road is. It is hard to walk along the street. Maybe some of the "potential land" should remain just that.... land, with air and green and space, for a community that needs some room to breathe. Everywhere that there is a tiny bit of space does not need to be crammed with more buildings and people as this detracts from the existing residents and businesses and will eventually drive them away. People will get fed up with becoming 'batteried' into less space. For example the Goldhawk Industrial Estate Plans! What about Boris's edict about larger homes. House after house in our road is converted into cells for rent that are barely big enough to exist in, let alone have a life of any quality. It is anti-social housing in my book.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see that this thread has mustered several comments... people obviously car about this issue.
[...] 4, 2009 by chrisunderwood It seems the propaganda rag, which you pay for, and which puts out completely misleading articles like this, and has a [...]
ReplyDelete[...] my frequent commentary on the dire state of local independent media in this Borough and the frankly shameless attempts by the Council to present one-sided and biased reports that show them in a good light but have [...]
ReplyDelete