Safe as houses
Safe as houses
复制标题
像房子一样安全
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Stuart Hodkinson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stuart Hodkinson
随着格伦费尔大厦火灾的悲剧慢慢揭示出外包和放松管制的阴暗背景，以及一个理事会对健康和安全问题视而不见，许多问题需要答案。斯图尔特·霍金森有这些答案。《安全如屋》将斯图尔特过去十年的研究与伦敦各地理事会再生项目中的居民团体编织在一起，首次全面介绍了格伦费尔是如何发生的，以及它是如何在全国多个地方轻易发生的。它借鉴了不同的不安全住房的例子，无论是翻新的还是由私人公司根据私人融资计划（PFI）建造的，以显示外包和放松管制的可怕后果，这些后果使开发商，银行和投资者能够从利润丰厚的纳税人资助的合同中获利。这本书还提供了令人震惊的证词，说明议会和其他公共机构如何不断站在他们的私人合作伙伴一边，尽其所能忽视，转移，甚至让那些说出来的人保持沉默。这本书的结论是，结束不安全的重建和住房供应时代的唯一方法是永远结束自我监管的灾难性制度。这意味着加强安全法律，建立独立于政府和行业的新的执法机构，并以新的公共住房模式取代PFI和类似的外包模式，将住房提供视为对居民民主负责的“社会服务”。
As the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire has slowly revealed a shadowy background of outsourcing and deregulation, and a council turning a blind eye to health and safety concerns, many questions need answers. Stuart Hodkinson has those answers. Safe as Houses weaves together Stuart’s research over the last decade with residents’ groups in council regeneration projects across London to provide the first comprehensive account of how Grenfell happened and how it could easily have happened in multiple locations across the country. It draws on different examples of unsafe housing either refurbished or built by private companies under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) to show the terrible human consequences of outsourcing and deregulation that have enabled developers, banks, and investors to profiteer from highly lucrative, taxpayer-funded contracts. The book also provides shocking testimonies of how councils and other public bodies have continuously sided with their private partners, doing everything in their power to ignore, deflect, and even silence those who speak out. The book concludes that the only way to end the era of unsafe regeneration and housing provision is to end the disastrous regime of self-regulation for good. This means strengthening safety laws, creating new enforcement agencies independent of government and industry, and replacing PFI and similar models of outsourcing with a new model of public housing that treats the provision of shelter as ‘a social service’ democratically accountable to its residents.