Why was last week’s story on the Stonefield development (SBC spends £100K on buying back privately-owned houses) written in such a negative way?
Your report could have said that Scottish Borders Council returned £100,000 of monies paid to it bylocal housing associations under the banner of second homes council tax because they had empty houses! (Both being non-profit charities, Scottish Borders Housing Association probably the biggest contributor to this fund in the Borders).
This money was, from the start, to be used to help ease housing problems in the Borders and rightly so.
Let’s look at the positive side of things for a change and give praise where it is due .
I think we should be saying well done to the teams at SBHA, Waverly Housing and SBC for the hard work and commitment shown already to this project and wish them success in the future with it.
We should also give them the support they deserve because tythis money will be a small part of a £10million project that is long overdue and will: 1) Regenerate the whole Stonefield area; 2) Supply needed housing for different needs; 3) Provide Jobs for local tradesmen; 4) Help the local economy; and 5) Give Hawick, and especially the residents of Stonefield, a feelgood factor for 2014.
Instead we get a mump at the council job, what’s that all about? Wouldn’t a little bit of homework on the paper’s part have made a better story?