Letters
Page
Dear
Sir/Madam
We recently
received a copy of the Burngreave Messenger. When we turned to the
back page and began to read the letters, one letter caught our attention.
It involved the estate where my family and friends live.
The letter was
referring to my friends and me. It said that a young mother and
her friends were terrorising the estate, causing people to flee
from their homes and some too scared to leave their homes because
of abuse and threats towards them and their families.
We would like
to give our side of the story. These threats were not only one sided,
the people that were making the complaints were also giving abuse
and saying things about ourselves and our families. One man told
some of the children that they were ‘not fit to be on this
earth’. Another woman on the estate told some of the children
to take their brown faces away from the front of their home. We
were watching these children and all they were doing was sat down
talking amongst themselves. These were in fact CHILDREN between
the ages of 8 and 15 years old and if they were at school they would
respond in exactly the same way.
These articles
and letters do not tell the whole story and make out it was the
whole neighbourhood that was being terrorised. In fact a lot of
people on the estate spoke and treated these children with respect
and the children gave them respect back.
We think that the people on the estate need to learn to talk to
others as they would like others to talk to them. If they treated
those children with respect in the first place instead of treating
them like animals these problems would never have started. We feel
that the people that made the complaints did not show any respect
to the children and therefore do not deserve any respect in return.
Regarding the
police, these children do not deserve to be treated like criminals.
They should have been treated as children that had nothing to do.
It is the Council’s fault for not giving them somewhere to
go and join in with.
The Council
keep going on about how much money they have to do this and that.
They should have stopped and realised these children were bored
and needed something to do.
When at last
Pitsmoor Youth Project came round and organised activities for them,
the people of the estates still criticised and said no one should
be doing anything for them. They should have done something sooner
and given the children of Carwood a chance to show their good side,
which is what they needed from the start.
But now these
children and our families have a bad name, when it should be the
Council, the police and the complainants that should have the bad
name. We, along with all the young people of Carwood feel that it
is their fault in the first place for not giving us all the chance
we needed.
Yours
sincerely
Paula Spittle and Rachel Garratt, Carwood Road
Dear
Burngreave Messenger
With reference
to your October Issue of ‘Eviction’ I am not writing
to offer any answers to the problem, but instead to share a few
considerations and thoughts on the matter. My family and I chose
to live in Pitsmoor so as to be near family and decided to buy or
own house.
When one lives
amongst bad neighbours and their antisocial behaviour related to
drugs and crime, of which we have seen many, we do not have the
luxury of ‘uping sticks’ to somewhere more desirable,
instead, we just close our doors and hope that our children preserve
their innocence and don’t notice what’s going on outside.
It is a terrible
tragedy that within our modern society, the sense of caring for
things and people within the community has been erased. Despite
what some might feel, the action of a few does affect others around,
even though nothing might be said.
We used to live
in one of the upside-down wavy houses on Woodside estate - and although
we really loved the property and the view it commanded over the
Pennines, the antisocial behaviour and vandalism was too much, especially
with a new baby, and we had to move. People should not have to suffer
the consequences like that.
As I said, I
am not offering any magic answers but want to make a few suggestions:
- Inspectors employed for specific estates whereby they check occupied
houses against a checklist pertaining to the condition of each property.
The criteria being that tenants are responsible for making their
property attractive and admirable, as if it was their own. Failure
to do so would incur fines warnings and evictions as a last resort.
- Antisocial behaviour would not be tolerated and perpetrators would
have their names and faces publicised. This would affect their renting
ability in the future
- Schemes targeted for tenants whereby they would contribute to
a repair and maintenance pool. If repair and maintenance could be
aligned to lack of care, or acts of vandalism, they would not qualify
to have it paid by the scheme, but to pay out of their own pockets.
- An award for a decided number of tenants, with prizes for the
best presented home and garden. This could be extended to local
areas.
Of
course, these ideas would need further research, but I think it’s
better than doing nothing. People must relearn the importance of
community responsibility once again!
Yours
sincerely
Mrs G Love
Dear
Messenger
In response
to your front-page article in last month’s Messenger, it comes
as no surprise to hear confirmation that council housing on Woodside
is to be demolished. The announcement comes after ten years of impoverishment
and dilapidation on Woodside, the result of the council’s
strategy of deliberate neglect and abandonment of the estate. The
inevitable decline in demand which followed is now being used as
justification for demolition, supplemented by grossly-overstated
estimates of the cost of making the houses sustainable. The council
has no intention of building new council homes on the vacant site,
consequently the land will be sold to private developers.
Demolition of
council homes and the sale of public land are part of central government’s
strategy to effect the wholesale privatisation of all Sheffield
council housing. The political decisions which have brought about
the end of Woodside have been taken without regard to the rights
or interests of the established community, “consultation”
on Woodside having been stage-managed by a firm of private consultants
employed by the council. Housing officials and Councillors have
colluded in the implementation of Thatcher’s legacy - the
dogmatic pursuit of privatisation to the benefit of land and property
speculators. Their conduct has revealed their contempt for the people
of Woodside. The location of Woodside, situated on the hill overlooking
the city, potentially makes it an attractive and desirable place
to live; however, this aspect is compromised by the decaying housing
stock and Woodside’s unsavoury (and largely undeserved) reputation.
The decision
to demolish was no doubt made - but not announced - at least two
years ago, though this was consistently denied in the past by amiable-but-erroneous
Dave Robinson and his subsequent replacement “Hatchet”
Horton at Burngreave Housing Dept. The announcement of the decision
was facilitated by the council’s loathsome band of Judas collaborators
on Woodside - the feckless and easily-fooled tenants that have campaigned
to have their houses demolished - motivated by a poisonous mixture
of poverty and greed to conspire with the council to sell-off the
rights of future tenants for a measly £1,500 per tenancy.
The future for
those wishing to remain council tenants on Woodside is bleak; relocation
with the knowledge that the private developer jackals and property
speculator vultures, with their entourage of lawyers and accountants,
are poised to move in to make vast profits from the building and
sale of posh housing for yuppies. Further clearance in Burngreave
remains a threat - will Verdon Street be next?
K
Hartney - Woodside
|