Since the tornado damage, Birmingham city council has finally engaged in a series of poorly publicised meetings with residents and traders in Balsall Heath. What follows is a response collectively written by some residents present at one of these meetings at Lahore Karahi and then two reports - one of a meeting at Lahore Karahi on Ladypool Road on Tuesday afternoon and another ‘resident’s meeting’ later on in Mosesley. Both meetings happened on August 9th 2005.
Residents and traders affected by the tornado’s damage know through direct experience that very little was done early on by the council in response to the disaster. This is in direct contrast to what the council have been recently saying in their press releases, on their website and in their free newspaper ‘Forward’.
Residents and traders affected by the tornado’s damage know through direct experience that very little was done early on by the council in response to the disaster. This is in direct contrast to what the council have been recently saying in their press releases, on their website and in their free newspaper ‘Forward’.
Council surveyor clearly states it is a ‘safe type of asbestos’
Venetta Johnston moves the meeting away from the asbestos issue to regeneration
Some feel that the meeting was chaired and presented by the council in a very managerial/corporate manner and that it mainly paid lip-service to many resident’s concerns and immediate needs. We would also like to point out that the meeting was far from representative. There were only 40 people present and all of them appeared to have insurance. The role of the Balsall Heath forum in terms of attempting to represent resident’s concerns was also criticised.
Particular concern was voiced about the structure of the meeting. The focus around regeneration was welcomed to some extent but it was also felt that it diverted attention away from the immediate needs of the community.
We also feel that raising the issue of regeneration during the meeting was in effect diverting attention away from the asbestos issue that the council was uncomfortable and unwilling to engage in. The council didn’t have anyone present with any specialist knowledge about asbestos and they used this to avoid engaging with the way they had poorly handled the asbestos issue and to move the meeting on.
In terms of the council representative raising issues around regeneration it was strongly felt that regeneration programmes do not meet immediate needs. Regeneration programmes are concerned with long term goals. Many people in deprived areas such as Balsall Heath feel cynical about consultations on regeneration. Many regeneration consultations have happened before, and people’s requests and needs have not been realised in the past. Tiers of highly paid ‘consultants’ and ‘managers’ are created at an extortionate expense to any real regeneration. Requests made at the meeting for community centres and play areas are effectively reversing what’s already happening in terms of local government policy so why should the tornado make any difference to this trend?
Pressure exerted by residents and traders affected by the disaster on the council has resulted in some changes but given the circumstances of the disaster why should this have been necessary? In such an event as this disaster shouldn’t the council respond to obvious needs without having to be pressured and lobbied?
Particular concern was voiced about the structure of the meeting. The focus around regeneration was welcomed to some extent but it was also felt that it diverted attention away from the immediate needs of the community.
We also feel that raising the issue of regeneration during the meeting was in effect diverting attention away from the asbestos issue that the council was uncomfortable and unwilling to engage in. The council didn’t have anyone present with any specialist knowledge about asbestos and they used this to avoid engaging with the way they had poorly handled the asbestos issue and to move the meeting on.
In terms of the council representative raising issues around regeneration it was strongly felt that regeneration programmes do not meet immediate needs. Regeneration programmes are concerned with long term goals. Many people in deprived areas such as Balsall Heath feel cynical about consultations on regeneration. Many regeneration consultations have happened before, and people’s requests and needs have not been realised in the past. Tiers of highly paid ‘consultants’ and ‘managers’ are created at an extortionate expense to any real regeneration. Requests made at the meeting for community centres and play areas are effectively reversing what’s already happening in terms of local government policy so why should the tornado make any difference to this trend?
Pressure exerted by residents and traders affected by the disaster on the council has resulted in some changes but given the circumstances of the disaster why should this have been necessary? In such an event as this disaster shouldn’t the council respond to obvious needs without having to be pressured and lobbied?
Comments
Display the following 2 comments