?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
14 April 2009 @ 02:12 am
Oh for....  
The British Government has come up with a plan. The gist of it is to blow more of our tax money on art galleries and the like to prevent High Streets looking empty when shops go out of business.

Nice idea, but too bloody late Mr. Brown. Poole is half empty, it's pitiful, and we're an affluent area, I can't even imagine what things are like in poorer parts of the country. Honestly, what will they come up with next?
 
 
 
Sophie: Dr Whosophiedb on April 14th, 2009 08:41 am (UTC)
It's true that Poole's pretty affluent, but I'll bet the swanky moneyed folks of Canford Cliffs and Sandbanks don't shop on the High St.

A report came through to work recently, showing how Poole rates nationally on the index of deprivation. We have three streets in the worst 10% of the UK as a whole, and most of the immediately adjacent areas around those in the worst 25%.. plus several others that are just in the worst 25% without a "hotspot".

Not much compared to some other parts of the country, but just goes to show how extreme our poor-rich variation is in just one town.
The Proverbial Quiet Onestackcats on April 14th, 2009 09:54 am (UTC)
Chatham is a fairly poor area. Our highstreet has a new shop with a closing down sale every week. Since Woolworths and Virgin closed, there's no point going down there except for Tesco. Oh, we still have Waterstones, though! I'd have a nervous breakdown if that closed.
anniemare: Jack Seriouslyanniemare on April 14th, 2009 10:44 am (UTC)
Woah!

Although I must say our main street here, a good long section of it, was declared blighted a few years back. You re-e-e-eally don't want THAT to happen. Right in the middle of town, down the road that all visitors to town pretty much used, was empty lots and buildings with broken windows.

There has since been a rejuvenation of the area with new shops and restaurants, but for several years there it was just UGLY.

I don't know what the answer is, I just hope this scheme actually, you know, creates SOME jobs. There has to be a tradeoff like that or it is just throwing money at the problem.