Randomly Selected Article or Link

I read recently city councillors saying the planning process is not political. Indeed, it is not meant to be. But it is ever more apparent that it is highly political with a “small p”.

I strongly supported the move to planning decisions taken at area committees, and advocated even more public participation than happens now. I hoped this would enable people (and councillors) to understand why certain decisions are taken, ‘owning’ the resulting decision as a local community and, crucially, bearing the costs of appeals against adverse decisions.

But now councillors appear to make the decisions they think people in the room would like them to make, whether right or wrong, and leave the appeals process to sort it out afterwards. That way they get the voters’ credit for defending local opinion and let the Planning Inspectorate take the blame for decisions that run counter to local feeling.

As a result, more than two thirds of appeals against decisions by the city council are successful; and all appeals against decisions made by councillors at area committees.

Councillors – you are not helping people to understand and own planning issues, merely raising false hopes that you must know are likely to be dashed by Inspectors. You are costing taxpayers money and delaying much needed development (particularly housing) by over a year. With deep regret, it may be time for planning decisions to be handled centrally again.

A recently discovered, by me at least, Lib Dem blogger, Jamie Saddler, comments on the apparent decision by government not to press for a lower blood alcohol limit:

Epolitix are reporting that the government have decided against lowering the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50 mg... This is all well and good, but they are the ones who would do this regardless of the limit, and need to be the exception. It needs to be spelt out to people that if you are driving, even one drink is unacceptable. [From Jamie Saddler: Government Gets It Wrong on Drink Drive Limit]

I wonder. I do have an interest here - I was done for driving under the influence and banned for a year, sixteen years ago now. In my case, it was a timely reminder, even though it led to years of bad times for me - losing my job and so on. Had I been caught a few years earlier while I was working in Glasgow I think I would probably have done time and I am probably truly lucky not to have had an accident in that time.

Nonetheless, when I was stopped, I will always remember the first words the officer said to me: "Good evening, sir, you haven't done anything wrong, but we were following you for a while and we felt you took that last roundabout a little carelessly so we wanted to stop you and have a word; first, I'd like you to provide a sample of breath to testing for alcohol content."

They had been following me for some time, on otherwise empty roads mid-evening in Birmingham and approaching an empty roundabout I had taken a straighter line - inside-outside-inside - that someone a little more perfect would have done perhaps. I had done nothing wrong. They said.

Nothwithstanding all this though, I still wonder if drink limits are the right, or at least the most liberal, way of dealing with this nasty social problem of people who drink, drive and then injure or kill others or property. And I certainly question the common message that Jamie repeats that "even one drink is unacceptable". I rarely drink at all nowadays. I have a good relationship with alcohol. I regard it as one of the worst drugs available, even though legal, and take it generally with caution (okay, I had a few large whiskies on Saturday night but was taking a taxi, but was perfectly lucid).

But recently I was out in the car meeting someone and had two pints and drove home. They were nice pints and next time I visit I will take the bus because I would have enjoyed more. But over three and a half hours I drank two pints of ale, and "the alcohol in one pint of ordinary strength lager will take two hours to pass out of your body" [Bupa guidance]. So I'm probably right in saying that there may have been the equivalent of less than half a pint in my system when I drove away.

The problem with having a law that specifies a uniform amount for everyone and above that is a crime regardless of whether you are behaving dangerously or not, or even using a mobile phone, or driving whilst exhausted, or smoking, or eating, at the wheel, or on drugs, and so on is that you just have to keep adding extra clauses, extra laws to deal with new situations.

The problem with having a more general law of "dangerous driving" is that it appears to introduce some subjectiveness into the legal process. You are no longer asking whether a person was simply, objectively, over a certain limit, but whether the "man on the Clapham omnibus" would consider that you were acting dangerously.

The former also, almost by definition, involves trawling for offenders and in the process interfering with the perfectly legal comings and goings of law abiding citizens. And it really doesn't respect a notion of causing danger. Just breaching a numerical limit. Whilst the latter is how we expect for British law to be dealt with more generally - involving intention, capacity, culpability, danger and the subjective decisions of a jury or bench.

Now, that's not to say that I want to see more people drink driving, or a rise in death and injury as a result. As a libertarian minded person though I do want people to have to take responsibility for their own actions. And therefore consider for themselves whether what they are thinking of doing may be dangerous to themselves or others. The arbitrary, numerical limit takes away that responsibility in a way.

In the case Jamie mentioned:

I do not understand why this is dealt with under "causing death through dangerous driving" and not manslaughter. Manslaughter of course allows for a life sentence. A few life sentences and people would start thinking a bit more about whether it's worth testing their alcohol fuelled infallibility. If people are prevented from drink driving simply for fear of breaking a limit that will result in the loss of their license if they are unlucky enough to get caught by police, how much more so by the possibility that their journey might end in a prison cell for life if they take a gamble and lose?

I have no problem with using any of the impairment inducing activities - taking drugs, eating, phoning someone, smoking, driving too tired and so on - as aggravating the culpability and pushing more towards higher sentences. But is this not a case where "tough liberalism" punishing the consequences and not creating arbitrary laws that simply apply to everyone, dangerous or not, could once again reduce the burden of legislation and the arbitrariness of laws to deal with different substances and activities, whilst focussing peoples' minds on the real consequences of their actions?

Around 7.5% only of "KSIs" (killed and seriously injured) in road traffic accidents are causally linked to alcohol, and I believe this figure includes when the drunk is the pedestrian that staggers out in front of a perfectly legal driver and is killed or injured.  Which suggests to me that the greater rewards will now be found dealing with other forms of anti-social driving.  I nominate middle-lane-itis and misuse of the acceleration lane for starters.

Depending on what side of a fractious political divide in Oxfordshire you sit, news that the South East Regional Plan as amended by Whitehall will next week recommend a review of Oxford's Green Belt and the development of 20% more new housing over the next twenty years than proposed at Oxfordshire Structure Plan level will be seen as victory or worst case scenario.

Whilst some, such as City Council leader John Goddard quoted in the linked Oxford Mail article, point out that we are looking at developing just 1% of Oxford's Green Belt, the true story is that the total number of new housing units demanded of the county in the next twenty years is more than an entire new city the size of Oxford. The fact that it appears that most of the additional units recommended by Whitehall planners seem to be destined for edge of city development, the grandiosely termed "Central Oxfordshire Sub-region", suggests that the city itself will be required to grow by at least 20% in twenty years. A handful of land owners will each trouser nine figure windfalls for their land currently worth about one hundredth of that.

The existing Green Belt, the nation's second oldest only after London, took forty years to agree - talks began in the late 1950s and the boundaries were only finally fixed in the Oxford Local Plan 1997. So, unless the process of redrawing the Green Belt boundaries is going to be railroaded through with all the attendant risks of riding roughshod over dissenting opinion, it seems highly unlikely that development would be able to start on any of these major sites inside a decade at the very least.

Now, I'm no great fan of the protectionist Green Belt policy in the first place - it has just as often worked as a "choker" than a belt. In Oxford's case, its main raison d'être was to preserve the historic character of Oxford. And I have often observed that the real, human historic character of Oxford, of "poor scholars and clerks" here to study and the attendant infrastructure that makes the city's very purpose in the world possible, is itself compromised by making housing unaffordable to those very people. I have also consistently pointed out that fulfilling even the government's latest plans for three million new homes over twenty odd years would require just over half of one per cent of England's non-urban land so this is not a NIMBY or "BANANA" anti-development rant.

Mistaken interpretation of needs data.

But I do rail against inappropriate development wherever it surfaces. And I completely believe that this "Central Oxfordshire Sub-regional Growth Zone" is inappropriate. And unnecessary. For a start the housing need data on which it was largely based are just plain wrong - well, more wrongly interpreted I suppose. In 2004 Fordham Research produced a Housing Needs Assessment for Oxford City Council that concluded that 750 units of additional affordable housing were required every year for the next decade just to stand still. Delivering such a requirement with the current maximum affordable-market priced housing quota of 50:50 would imply development of 15,000 new homes in a decade, which is clearly not even in the thinking either of the City Council's planners nor of the South East Regional Plan, even as amended by Whitehall.

However, that figure of 750 affordable units is naively misleading at best, utterly mistaken at worst. For 75% of all the people represented by that annual need are currently housed in the city. And whilst some of them are in unsuitable or overcrowded housing and by definition all of them in unaffordable housing for their incomes, it equates to an overcrowding rate of around 2% of households. Whilst anything up to about 40% of housing if it follows the national pattern is underoccupied. The naive extrapolation from these figures, which is what has been pushed as the "growth zone" option, is that most of that 750 a year requirement can only be met by creating net additional housing units as near as possible to that 750 figure. But, since 75% of them are already housed in the city, such a solution in reality means not merely housing those in housing need in the city, but growth of the "greater Oxford" population to the tune of 20% in twenty years.

No consensus on large scale city growth.

And the one thing we have not had is a debate about whether such overall growth is justified or necessary. In fact, the whole debate, driven as it has been by high housing costs for people already in the city mainly (and quite rightly in many ways - for that is the pressing problem) has not really discussed growth so much as an imperative to get housing costs down for existing residents. For a start, such a rapid rate of growth is likely to cause all sorts of demographic and other social problems that cannot be planned for through mere spatial planning policies. Oxford does have a shortfall of resident working age population compared with the number of jobs in the city, but in the context of a county town in a predominantly rural county that is actually a good thing. If we suddenly meet the employment requirement within the city or on its near borders we risk the economy of the rest of the county insofar as it relies on people earning money in Oxford itself and thence able to support the smaller county towns and villages.

The cost of urban extensions.

Further, concentration on developing virgin edge of town land and new additional housing abandons existing housing to its inexorable decline. One of the most naive, I feel, enthusiasts for the Whitehall changes to the South East Plan, Labour City Councillor Antonia Bance, who positively whooped with joy in her blog the other day when the news broke, represents a ward, Rose Hill, that illustrates quite nicely both the pitfalls of the growth plan and the better solution to the housing need. Tagging new estates onto the edge of the city is no great answer. As Rose Hill shows, such marginal land housing tends to be taken up by the least well off, people who actually could do with being closer, not further, from centers of employment and social interaction.

One can only imagine the potential effects of plonking another 3,500 homes on the edge of the most deprived wards in the city. Optimists will say that it will drag up the fortunes of its neighbours, making it more likely that that whole swathe of post-war development on the edge of the city will attract the infrastructure is still needs to become prosperous and desirable. But the history of such developments tends to prove the pessimist more likely to be right. Indeed, the same was said of what is now Northfield Brook ward - that the new mixed tenure housing of the eighties and nineties in Greater Leys would pull the whole area of the Leys up out of the doldrums, yet just a few years on and Northfield Brook has made its mark as being the newest most deprived area of the city. At the very least, it proves just how long it takes to create new, vibrant communities - a generation and more.

Redeveloping existing urban areas the better alternative.

So, if we are likely to take a decade to get started on these new developments if everything goes well in the Green Belt review, and in the process negate the very ethos of Green Belt - that it should be as permanent as possible and not seen as a stock of land on which the city can call every few years, we should also make attempts to look at other mechanisms for delivering more affordable and more appropriate living spaces for the current needs of the city first and foremost before we plan for topsy growth.

And here, Antonia's ward also proves that it can be done. The Rose Hill redevelopment program proves that where there were 138 housing units of very low, almost derelict, standard you can provide 238 brand spanking new homes better matched to today's household composition and importantly energy needs. Of course I believe it's been badly handled - handing over nearly half of them all to private sale is the equivalent of enclosing half of what up till now has been land held in trust by the council for the people off Oxford, and the resulting housing will not be what it could have been in terms of 21st century energy efficiency. But the principle is correct - and all over Oxford we have lots of twentieth century housing that is not now, or will soon not be, appropriate or efficient in an era of high energy costs.

What Fordham showed was that we need to make around 600 existing units of housing more affordable each year, plus plan for more modest demand of about 180 units a year for people who aspire to move into the city. We can achieve this without wholesale estate building, by redeveloping existing estates (including the private inter-war housing estates in the inner suburbs), But to do that we need to transfer our property tax from taxing both land and buildings to taxing just land. This will relatively penalize underoccupancy and encourage redevelopment of areas that are below the optimal density. In the process more of our existing housing land will be equipped for that low energy 21st century living. And the additional units that can be incorporated by increasing densities will mean that newcomers slot into existing mature communities.

LVT the 21st century radical key to urban regeneration/redevelopment.

Much of Oxford's development in the nineteenth century was the work of Liberals and Radicals through vehicles such as the National Freehold Land Company which, amongst other things, was a mechanism for enfranchisement of the working classes before universal suffrage was enacted. It was a model for social change built, if you pardon the pun, on the idea that land ownership was what made a person free and give them full citizenship. What we need now (and what more fitting a tribute to the recently late Brian Hodgson who a few years ago got the county to investigate LVT's effects on a part of the city) is for that Liberal-Progressive coalition at the Town Hall to demand the right to try out this approach which has recently been making such a vision as I have given here possible in cities across the United States, such as Philadelphia and Harrisburgh, before the bulldoizers move into South and West Oxfordshire and land owners pocket several hundred millions of pounds at our expense.

Finally, if none of that works, I will consider supporting some edge of town new development if we find a way of using the land owners' unearned increment from their rent seeking to create a light rail service from Shipton right round to the Cowley works, taking in all the proposed new estates and employment growth areas such as the Oxford Science Park and the Oxford Business Park. Only with such a piece of infrastructure will these potential new estates be anything other than marginal. At the moment it takes over an hour to get by bus from Kidlington round to Headington for example. Such travel times are unacceptable for estates that would be intended to supply housing for workers in the main employment areas of the city.

So David Cameron is apparently going to explain that we need to learn to understand the "hoodie culture" better - that for many it is a way not of hiding aggression and criminal intent but of "keeping your head down" retreating into anonymity in an hostile world. That instead of opprobrium youngsters need nurturing to make the correct life-choices in a fast moving bewildering (and I'd add very unequal) society.

It reminds me of Germaine Greer's "The Boy" of 2003, a book extolling the real beauty of teenage males that got her some bad press with some decrying her as a middle aged pederast. I recall not buying it myself because I felt it might feel uncomfortably voyeuristic. I heard her explain the rationale behind the book at the time though. What she was trying to do was rekindle a sense of self-confidence; that boys in particular were, through their fashion statements - baggy trousers, hoodies and the like - reacting to being constantly put down, as inherently criminal, as "thickos", as failures in a feminist world that said we can do without men.

For years we have been showered with statistics about how boys are in fact doing worse than girls, at school, at university, at life. Now sure, we've had generations, perhaps millennia, where girls and women were second class citizens, chattels, not worth the same as men, and that had to be addressed. But maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Of course I'm prepared to accept that in fact women are simply just the superior being and that levelling the playing field has begun to allow that inherent superiority to shine through. But even if that is the case, it means we need to pay more attention now to boys and men, to give them the step up to realise their potentials and so on.

When I was a councillor it was a very common complaint that there were "gangs of youths" just hanging around, intimidatingly, frightening old ladies going about their ordinary business at the local shop, the chippie or whatever. Cameron is right certainly in one respect - Labour's, and society as a whole's it seems, response to this has been to criminalise them, with ASBOs, curfews, banning their attire from public places in the name of a surveillance society that wants to record our every move, Big Brother like. It seems sometimes that it's not a case of if you offend, but when you offend, we will be able to spot you (and, by extension, punishment will be swift).

The axiom that if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide is Labour's mantra for centralising control of our lives and is making people feel that their privacy is under attack. And if you're young and perhaps just a little bit naughty (weren't we all? As DC should know!) and you don't quite have a full understanding of your rights you are going to be tempted to retreat into anonymity.

A friend of mine took a bunch of kids from his council estate on a couple of overseas trips to Oxford's twin cities of Bonn and Leiden last year. Some of them had ASBOs. Whatever he allowed his name put to in his Labour election leaflets this May (he lost anyway) it made him realise that ASBOs were not really the answer to many of these problems - that a little bit of TLC was what they needed to settle down and make the right kind of choices when faces with them. To have some self-confidence.

And then there was Tom Conti's contribution to "This Week" a couple of years back where he speculated that if we throw huge investment at education, that if we make schools, especially in the early years, places of respite from a hostile world, and, in some cases, hostile home lives, with class sizes of just half a dozen in the most formative years so that the environment is more family than cattle-market, that we will foster a sense of personal responsibility that will eventually feed through into massive savings in currently state provided services (especially health and social services related).

Can we afford not to address these issues? And do it better than criminal sanctions? Respect does indeed begin at home, and when prominent, and one presumes well brought up for want of nothing, young political campaigners have so little respect for the "little people" in the council estates that, when caught short, they feel no compunction about pissing in the alleyways of someone else's neighbourhood, maybe the example from the very top could be a bit better!

Whatever the answer, the youngsters of today are our future. They are ours (well not mine personally you understand - no chance of that!), a part of our communities. If our communities are outlawing them in the formative years, what resentment are we storing up for our future? And boy, do we need more people like this to change things.

Technorati Tags: conservatives, education, young

Courtesy of the OED:

[< Anglo-Norman and Middle French mortgage, mort gage (1283 in Old French; also as gage mort (1267); French mort-gage (now arch.)) < mort MORT a. + gage GAGE n.1, after post-classical Latin mortuum vadium (from 12th cent. in British sources) < mortuum, accusative of mortuus dead (see MORT a.) + vadium pledge (see INVADIATE v.). Middle French mort gage {goesto} post-classical Latin morgagium (from 14th cent. in British sources), mortgagium (a1564 in a British source).
Extended use (sense 1) is found slightly earlier in English than the technical legal sense (2); such extended use is app. not found in French, but may perh. have been developed in English directly from the legal use in Anglo-Norman and Middle French.
For the explanation of the etymological meaning of the term current among 17th-cent. lawyers, cf. the following:
1628 E. COKE First Pt. Inst. Lawes Eng. 205 It seemeth that the cause why it is called mortgage is, for that it is doubtful whether the Feoffor will pay at the day limited such summe or not, & if he doth not pay, then the Land which is put in pledge vpon condition for the payment of the money, is taken from him for euer, and so dead to him vpon condition, &c. And if he doth pay the money, then the pledge is dead as to the Tenant, &c.]

Parents to pass on mortgage debt:

A new mortgage allows parents to leave to their children not only their homes but their home loans as well.

Grip of Death, right enough.