I have been once again examining the strange doublethink that some people seem to have over "community assets". As far as I can see, they want them to be given away for nothing to groups they like, but withheld from groups they don't. In other words not so much a policy as simple favouritism.
One recent case is Roundwood Youth Centre,
where this post is highly critical.
Some of the critique is probably justified. I wonder whether the building would be offered as a PRU if it did not have a condition attached forcing payback if it did not follow some youth orientated purpose, and one might question whether the proposed contractor is the right body to run a PRU. If the unit would count as a new school, central government would effectively be forcing the Council to give the property away for nothing.
Scandalous one might think.
Yet the same author also apparently likes the idea of a Council owned building being
given away to a group he does like for nothing.
The failure to make maximum use of taxpayers assets naturally leads to boosting the revenues by other means such as taxing or charging, or cutting spending.
Incidentally, the Green Party's own comments on this issue appear to regard the Roundwood Youth Centre as "a group of white elephants". Actually, my experience of talking to people in the area was that they regarded youth services as extremely valuable, although many people seemed to have very little awareness of the Roundwood Youth Club.
The original was a Second World War communications centre. By 2010, it was in serious disrepair and had been subject to arson. The grant to replace it was actually obtained by Cllr Ann John lobbying Michael Gove after he
initially planned to cut it. It was one of the youth centres considered for closure in the 2011 budget, before being saved, and was the only one to survive the
2015/16 round of cuts (thanks no doubt to the repayment condition).
Statements made by Cllr Butt on the future of the Centre appear to contradict each other. He has seemed to suggest that it is happening, and that it is not, despite the proposal having been
in the public domain for some time.