LETTER:Why the Government paid pounds 150,000 per new 'council' house
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE pounds 150,000 spent on each new home in the Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust was made available by a government desperate to make an unpopular policy appear workable ("This is a council estate ...", 7 January; Letters, 14 January).
Housing Action Trusts (HATs) were intended to take council houses away from councils, but you are wrong to suggest the intention was then to "hand them to the tenants". Quite the reverse; without a ballot seeking residents' consent, the housing would be given to a board of businessmen whose task it would be to "do up and sell off" at the highest prices.
Councils would have been unable to afford to buy the properties back, and tenants would have been displaced to make room for people who could afford to buy the improved properties. So ill-conceived and unpopular was this policy that all Nicholas Ridley's original, imposed HAT estates failed in the development stage or were rejected by angry residents.
Waltham Forest have fought hard to ensure that their HAT would be on their terms. The Government was willing to give them more than pounds 170m for the programme to "prove" that the HAT principle was still viable.
Peter Marcus
London N10
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments