Friday, 4 January 2002

Letters to the editor

It has been fascinating to see so many people jumping on the band wagon of claiming responsibility for the HATs. I make no such claim, though I was there in the early days of their birth. My only contribution was not opposing them as vigourously as I now believe I should have done. Ah well.

Anyway, for good or evil Clive Morton was the person who made the HATs a reality. Others no doubt had a peripheral role in the process but it was Clive who first set about building support for the concept.

I still believe councils should manage their own housing stock and if at all possible new developments should have lower than average density, better than average parking and greater than normal access. The HATs have given us properties that do not score well by these standards. Parker Morris, now that was something to be proud of. The garden city movement, wow! But who can be proud of HATs?

HATs were born of a poverty of imagination. They were a make do and mend solution to problems caused by a society which concentrates wealth in the hands of a few and denies basic facilities (like decent housing) to many. I suspect Clive would probably agree with most of that. HATs are not a reason for pride, they are a cause of shame. Which is one of the reasons why I don't expect Clive to be writing in claiming credit for them, much as I understand exactly why he helped the borough seize the one route available to get rid of a lot of slums at the time.
Jo Brind