Dear Alex
On your comment about continuity of residence...
As someone who lives on an inner city housing estate, and previously
worked in housing co-operative development and management as a
volunteer, then worker, I found your point interesting. Housing policy
directly affects this important issue. Many local authorities - well
those I'm familiar with in London - do not have neighbourhood
housing/rehousing policies but a single list which can disrupt such
continuity - applicants are only allowed one offer and must take this
even if it is at the oopposite end of the borough from relatives
(for whom they may be carers)friend and work. Housing co-operatives,
trusts and associations traditionally had more freedom in housing
allocation and so tended to pursue neighbourhood-based policies,
attempting to maintain family support, links and so on. Care is needed
to ensure that such policies do not exclude people who lack such local
networks, such as migrants or refugees, but that can be done. The
central London co-op which I managed was able, for example, to work
with several local authorities to try to ensure that minority ethnic
applicants on their lists were able to obtain housing near family
support.
I live on a large inner London estate owned by a Housing Trust which
aims to rehouse families locally as far as possible. The effect is
visible - young mothers for example, are not unsupported because they
are able to remain close to mothers and other relatives, friends
and neighbours, often in the same street. Children who went to school
together often continue to live in the neighbourhood when they have
their own children and there is a high degree of social support and
cohesion as a result. Levels of 'neighbourliness' are high, despite the
usual problems of such an area. This in now in decline however, since
almost all referrals are now made from the local authority list, which
does not attempt to incorporate any neighbourhood basis in its
operation.
Chris McCourt
|