Select a region
With Jersey's politicians currently discussing where to build thousands of new homes, the phrases 'concrete jungle' or maybe 'Hong Kong' are almost certain to be mentioned.
For Michael Van Neste, Express columnist and founder of the Jersey Homes Trust, the time has come to look beneath some of the most common phrases attached to discussions of Jersey's housing crisis.
In Jersey, there has long been a perception that more housing development would be a bad thing, a view held particularly by those adequately housed.
Sometimes there are indications that this has haunted actual government policies, which is one of the reasons we are where we are.
In my work with the Jersey Homes Trust, I would routinely receive criticism:
“There is no cardboard city in Jersey; where are all the people who will occupy these new homes?”
“All you are achieving is to draw in more immigrants.”
“You are turning Jersey into Hong Kong.”
“You are covering the Island in concrete.”
“Don’t you realise, Michael, you are competing with yourself?”
These were actual opinions sincerely held by real people. Let’s look at them.
Cardboard City: over the last two years I attended meetings of the Homelessness Bubble, a group of professionals, civil servants and others involved at the sharp end of emergency housing provision. It was agreed that part of the definition of homelessness was “involuntary sharing”. This refers to the undesired sharing of homes, multi-family occupation, divorcees in joint occupation and so forth. People do not live in cardboard boxes as a result. Many, though, do resort to expensive but poor and unsuitable accommodation.
Those without dependents are denied access to the Affordable Housing Gateway. Besides denying hope of a decent life, the effect of the restrictive criteria for access to the Gateway is to conceal the extent of a serious problem; homelessness, a real problem for real people. The Housing Minister has recently announced his intention to correct the injustice of the access criteria, but in phases over some years. I submit that, if it’s wrong, it should be put right now. To delay is to perpetuate the injustice and the damaging concealment of actual housing need.
Immigration: over many years the island’s government attempted, but failed, to control immigration by restricting the availability of homes. At one time our population policy was actually administered by the Housing Department; need one say more? The island draws in the number of immigrants it needs to do its donkey work and to fill essential appointments, whether decently housed or not. It is really that simple. Immigrants would not come if there were no jobs for them. If the island housed its resident population properly, fewer would be squeezed out and we would need fewer immigrants. Overall population numbers would not be affected but living standards and general prosperity would be transformed. Housing those properly who are already here does not increase or reduce numbers. All those living and working in the Island deserve decent housing, immigrants and residents. Our two-tier system leads to exploitation and denial of human rights, reflects badly on us all and does not control immigration.
Hong Kong: People briefly stuck in traffic jams, driving their pampered off-spring to school, resort to the 'Hong Kong' comparison. They should try driving in Hong Kong, or any major UK city for that matter, to understand how fortunate they are to live in this lovely Island. They should also try the bus service, which is a pleasant way to travel, efficient and cheap.
Concrete Island: really! Flying over the Island, it looks much as it did 55 years’ ago, since when its population has almost doubled. There is strict protection of the countryside, through the Island Plan, and there are numerous urban sites suitable for housing development that would actually enhance the built environment. Many streets in our capital are shabby, some little better than slums. They do the island no favours and would benefit greatly from redevelopment, increasing density and providing excellent living conditions. We need a Town Plan that would encourage and oversee a sensible, orderly and sustainable transformation. The present approach relies on piecemeal planning applications which must fit into vague generalised labelling of districts. It is an ongoing mess and a wasted opportunity.
Competition: I admit it. I was competing with myself, as a private landlord, in trying, as a trustee of a housing trust, to hold down residential rents and to develop affordable homes for rental. Guilty as charged.
