Interesting story here.
Genuinely difficult thing. Area of Blackpool that sounds like it needs regeneration. There's a market absence of people talking up the vibrancy of the area, which even Jaywick Sands can manage. If there are really 300 families in the area, they're pretty small families, given that the population is only 800. That suggests to me that the area is a dumping ground for impoverished (mostly single parent) families, with lots of it distinctly substandard and very expensive to heat properly.
The article makes the point that Blackpool has very little social housing, and lots of the people in this area would probably be living in social housing in other areas. If they did, they'd have protections that people who live in private rental don't. Some of the people quoted rather overestimate the cost of renting in Blackpool, but those who are out of work or in insecure benefits would likely find themselves turned down if they applied. So you can't really argue with how worried they're feeling.
Lots is made of the smaller number of houses, but that doesn't mean necessarily fewer people living there. An average household of 4 people would take the population way past the numbers who live there now. So I don't particularly object to that. But there's got to be some way of squaring the need (as I think there probably is) to rebuild the housing in this area with the needs of the residents. The Council has, in fairness to it, tried hard to reduce the number of empty properties (Blackpool is one of the few areas where doing this can make a significant difference).
The local Labour MP, Chris Webb, has taken up the residents' case. I'd hope that something can be done to guarantee that the most vulnerable residents get rehoused while making the housing much better. I know that everywhere sees itself as a special case, but I'd argue that Blackpool, with its very low number of social properties, is exactly that. Watch this space, I hope.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ble-people
- By Youngian