Sir.–My letter (November 8) has sparked some debate.
We all agree that there are 50,000 young people in our borough who will need a home either here or somewhere else. The only question is – who builds them?
The answer is simple – we build just enough homes to meet the needs of the next generation. No more and no less.
Mr Sant’s solution is different. His is a “Pied Piper” approach where we send our children and young families away and let someone else deal with the problem.
And yes Mike, I do think we have a responsibility to the next generation to build the homes they need. If we don’t, who will?
Ms Townsend misses my point. The 50,000 people are already here so it’s not “all due to (future) immigration”.
Closing the borough to outsiders and sending our children elsewhere is not a feasible solution.
Mr Bloyce’s approach is a “deadman’s shoes” policy. Peter suggests we wait for our current generation to die and let the next generation move into their newlyvacated houses. Does Peter suggest that we live with our parents until they are 90?
Building new homes requires us all to make sacrifices. But far greater sacrifices will be required if we follow the alternative where we turn our borough into a slowly gentrifying community, where our young families are encouraged to move away and we discourage new people from coming to the borough while we wait for our parents to die before we can have a home.
The fairest solution is to build the homes we need.
–Martin Heath, Millennium Court, Basingstoke.