Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
May-be, Howard, but Roger has an issue with people on benefits here, and many such persons are hard-working people who've found themselves out of work. Others receive pension and a pension credit, which entitles them to housing benefit and council tax benefit.
If I am not mistaken, the minimum State pension entitles its recipients to pension credit.
Many such people have worked hard, and may have also looked after their own children, for example mothers, and couldn't always work and pay pension contributions as employed people do.
I simply think that at the next election in Dover, General and Local, people on benefits should be informed of their supposed status in the intentions of the DDC core strategy. It's doubtful they'd cast a vote for this!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
too late alex the die is cast and dover dstrict has growth point status due to the plan.
when and how many new houses will actually be built is all up in the air with the general strength of the economy and buyer confidence the deciding factors.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Once again you've twisted my words Alexander:
"There will be no provision for housing people from overseas who will be on benefits - we want and need people with a good education and good earners, preferably home-grown local people, but perhaps some from the greater London area on good salaries; even those people from the Discovery Park at Sandwich".
What is wrong with that ?
We are not looking to build houses at Whitfield (or anywhere else for that matter) just to house East European people who come here because we will give them a house and pay their rent etc.
I do not have a problem with people who need benefit payments to get by, just those who use them as a lifestyle not to work.
I do not have a problem with anyone coming here from overseas who is willing to work, pay their rent or mortgage, learn to speak English (if they don't already) and pay their taxes.
If you are going to pick holes in, or twist everything I say, then there is no point in me posting is there ?
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
OK, Roger, don't take it too hard, was referring to the thread's title, a Tory vote-winner.
I won't be adding any salad dressings to my view of the DDC core strategy, which is (my view that is) based on the idea that it was a pre-2008 financial crisis core strategy, one that therefore needs revising owing to the changed economic reality that sprung up just after DDC had completed all strategic studies.
I think even the meaning of growth point status got lost somewhere amongst all the post-2010 spending cuts.
Personally I'd think a revised core strategy with less new houses would be more realistic, if also coupled with a few production sites that give work to our local people, without any need to specifically attract migration from London.
And if we could bring about a Dover-style development based on 10 King Street, something people would stop and look at, that would be great.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you may be missing the whole point of the strategy alex, we actually need more people to move into the district - the current population is actually less than when the luftwaffe visited us regularly.
we often here people asking why we do not have a better range of shops and entertainment.and there are 2 answers.
a) not enough people live here.
b) the people already here do not have enough spending power to encourage inward investment.
the core strategy is aimed at adressing those two problems.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Yes but, let's not forget to add to the financial crisis the spending cuts towards Council budgets, Howard.
Can't recall how many blocked up drains I've counted in Dover Town lately, not to mention the many High Street shops that have closed down. Treasury, Councils and private enterprise, as well as individuals, are generally cash-strapped, and unemployment here is rampant.
The core strategy is pie in the sky really, with all its best of intentions.
But we do have differing views on this core strategy, and I fully respect yours. Howard.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
much as i agree with a lot of what you say alex core strategies are not based on "here and now" situations but over long periods of time. the district has no long term future without people together with the requisite folding stuff coming here.
moving on blocked drains are kcc responsibility, we have more filled retail units than many other towns and again the issue is over the future not the present.
no developer will build a single house without being sure there is a market for it.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
That does bring our views closer, Howard, because my point is, we need more local production, more local employment, so people can actually afford a house. I'm thinking of the large number of young people living in East Kent who are unlikely to buy a house if they are unemployed or on a minimum wage. Hence, growth point status does not bring all this, but enhanced local employment would.
My other point is, I DO agree we could need more housing in the future, but perhaps not to the extent as envisaged in the core strategy.
It's not a 100% opposing view here, just more cautious and more intent on not forgetting the need to offer more employment opportunities to the many people here in search of work. It's not just houses and houses, but also factories and agriculture and other productive enterprises, as well as a measured number of houses.
