Which we can't do. Because our political system has no incentive for longtermism.
And that still doesn't change the fact that it's retrospective - you're moving families from nice areas to shit areas with the promise that the area will get better in X years time.

moving people from a good area to a bad one will also most likely decrease the chances of stuff like the children doing well at school, thus perpetuating those family through multiple generations of poverty etc etc
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:02, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

You're not moving people, you're waiting for the current occupiers to either die
or move out. And replacing them with new council tennants who are currently on a waiting list or in hostels or something.
If it was an eviction or relocation style thing I'd be dead against it.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:04, Reply)

It will turn into one, though.
Because there will be pressure for the results to be seen more quickly.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:06, Reply)

That is the thing.
Over 20 to 30 years you could change the face of the social housing in a council by proper property managment and smart manipulation of the market.
However they won't, because a council doesn't think on those timescales.
It's ridiculous as well because lets face it any councils property portfolio is probably their biggest asset if they were more flexible with it, they could make more money.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 20 Aug 2012, 14:10, Reply)