There is a 12,000 long waiting list for council houses in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, so how come the city council only seem to house immigrants, drug dealers, pikeys, and paedophiles?
There isn't a council estate that isn't in the process of being ravaged by scum, so why are the city council inflicting this on us? As we have a duty to uphold the tenancy agreement, surely the city council have a duty to the decent, law abiding council tenants?
It would appear not.
England First Party Stoke-on-Trent Division would like to see a local lettings policy, and for Residents Associations to be given the right to veto the housing of certain people within their area. Why the city council feel the need to house some of the scum that we get foisted on us, God only knows, but it isn't good enough.
With 12,000 people to choose from, how about giving us some decent, non-criminal sorts as neighbours, there have to be plenty on the list, and whilst you're at it, tighten up the rules for private landlords. There is no point evicting some oik, just to have a private landlord rent them a house round the corner from where they were just evicted!
We would also want to see the city council use all available powers to make sure that they were not housing scum in amongst us, and to this end we believe that there should be a set of written rules to which the city council has to follow, starting with their right to check with the police for recent criminal activity.
The way this should go is as follows; if a prospective council tenant has form for violence, drug use or dealing, paedophilia (within the past 5 years), or is an immigrant, then they should be refused the right to a council property, and instead should be made to take private accomodation. Council tenants that house such people should have their tenancies terminated, and not be re-housed by the city council for a fixed period
All it would take would be a few simple rules like these to cure our council estates of the runaway counts of ant-social behaviour, something that would favour the residents and the city council, and something that would build stronger communities.
You're quite right.
ReplyDeleteChanges along these lines would be free to implement, but make such a difference to quality of life.