Freedom of Information is serving Carlisle badly says a community group, because it does not include housing associations.
These organisations do whatever they see fit because they don`t have to answer questions about their operations in a democratic way as they would if they were covered by the Freedom of Information Act.
Riverside Housing Association is the latest association to fail to answer questions when it demolished 16 flats in Borland Avenue, Botcherby. Carlisle , says a Letter to the Editor today from Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation. The letter is to the News and Star, Carlisle .
Here it is:
A dark shadow remains over Carlisle despite the very welcome spotlight shone by your newspaper on the Freedom of Information Act.
T
he News and Star did a great public service with its spotlight. But sadly, many people will conclude that the Freedom of Information Act servesCarlisle badly.
T
he News and Star did a great public service with its spotlight. But sadly, many people will conclude that the Freedom of Information Act serves
Badly, because housing associations- the biggest landlords in Carlisle - are unlike other public bodies : they don`t do Freedom of Information, the Act does not include housing associations.
Nationally, some of these housing associations are also big
and powerful .One of the biggest in the country, Riverside
owns 50,000 homes nationwide. About ten per cent of these
are inCarlisle , and this Carlisle holding gives Riverside a near-monopoly of the city`s social housing.
owns 50,000 homes nationwide. About ten per cent of these
are in
It also gives Riverside very similar powers to the city council in running
the housing estates.
On these estates, the council has a good record in dealing with information under the Act. But Riverside is under no such legal obligation. Nor is Riverside very ready to explain what it is up to on these estates.
A couple of weeks ago in Botcherby, Riverside demolished 16 one-bedroom maisonette flats in Borland Avenue . Before the demolition, there were protests from a local councillor, from Botcherby people, and from a protesting petition.
A Freedom of Information request would have forced an explanation
There have been several similar Riverside demolitions over the last few years in other parts of the city. Sheltered accommodatation and old people`s bungalows have gone . And like the Botcherby demolitions,, the reason why they have gone has never been explained by Riverside .
Riverside`s unexplained demolitions have been challenged repeatedly, particularly by the tenants` and residents` organisation, Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation.
But such challenges are easily brushed aside by an organisation that has the freedom to do exactly what it thinks fit.
One hundred years ago, Carlisle council also had the freedom to do what it thought fit,.But, unlike Riverside , it did it in a democratic way which it was prepared to explain. What the council thought fit to do 100 years ago was to start building council houses..
Down those 100 years the council also thought fit to continue building until 9,000 homes were created and Carlisle was doubled in size through a handful of newly-created council estates.
Ten years ago, all this ended with the takeover of the city council houses by the giant Liverpool organisation, Riverside .
Riverside`s unexplained demolitions and other unexplained measures- all of them, no doubt, decided in a what-we-think-fit way in Liverpool -are now changing for ever what the city council created during a century of democratic government.
Freedom of Information would force Riverside to explain these unexplained demolitions and tell us what is going on.
Community Voice Carlisle is the blog of Carlisle Tenants` and Residents` Federation. Information abourt the Fededration is contained in the first post of this blog, dated March 25 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment