The library that lived and who saved it? A joint post by the Barnet Bloggers.

Labour Councillor Pauline Coakley Webb opens Friern Barnet Community Library

Barnet Conservative candidates in Coppetts Ward have been distributing an election leaflet claiming the credit for saving Friern Barnet library.

This indefensible attempt to rewrite history is something that cannot go unchallenged.

The Barnet bloggers have followed (and been part of) the story of Friern Barnet in detail, from the moment in 2010 when Councillor Robert Rams launched the strategic library review, making ludicrous suggestions about the possibilities of ‘pop-up’ libraries in Tesco, and Starbucks.

We supported the raising of a petition, gaining over 7,000 signatures, and the lobbying of council meetings, and councillor surgeries. This gave the Tories pause for thought and they relented from their initial plans.

When the review was announced, only two libraries were marked for closure: Hampstead Garden Suburb and Friern Barnet. As Hampstead Garden Suburb was in a staunchly Tory ward, it took little pressure from influential local resident groups for the council to grant a reprieve, and happily agree to subsidise the small branch library in this most affluent area of the borough. This left Friern Barnet library, in a largely Labour voting ward, as the sole victim of Councillor Rams’ axe. 

Community campaigners were invited to draw up plans to keep the library open. As later events were to demonstrate, this was a crafty ruse by councillors and senior officers, which meant the campaigners were working on plans in the period where they could have instigated a judicial review. Such time wasting slammed the door on legal remedy. It seemed clear to all involved that the council had acted in bad faith and the invitation to draw up proposals were never a serious proposition.

In April 2012, the council closed the library at short notice. A symbolic occupation of the building by residents took place, to register the sense of injustice felt by the local community. The same afternoon, valuers arrived to assess the building for future development. The library was boarded up, emptied of books, and left to stand until a plan of sale had been made.

The marvellous Keith Martin

The closure of Friern Barnet, as some have forgotten, was justified by Tory members on the basis of a new library to be created in the Arts Depot at North Finchley. This plan came to nothing.

Along with many other supporters and activists, Barnet bloggers were at the forefront of the campaign to reopen Friern Barnet library, helping to launch the People’s ‘pop-up’ library, not in Tesco, or Starbucks, but on the village green next to the building, beneath the cherry trees. It was an act of defiance from local residents and campaigners in response to the removal of a much loved local community centre, and it received an astonishing outpouring of support.

The pop-up library received donations of hundreds of books and kept the protest alive throughout the weeks that followed. The BBC One show came to film the event, the first of a wave of media interest in the issue.

Despite this clear evidence that there was enormous support for the library, Councillor Robert Rams and his colleagues continued to ignore the local community.

Through the summer of 2012, residents came down every Saturday, come rain or shine to swap books on the lawn. As we approached autumn, and weather conditions worsened, it looked as if the Peoples library may become unsustainable: but in September 2012, the Occupy movement took over the Library and the People’s Library moved back into its rightful home.

How did Robert Rams and the rest of the Tories react to this demonstration of "Big Society"? They refused to engage with the local residents, although ironically they were more at ease discussing terms of occupation with Phoenix and his collective of squatters who had re-opened the library on behalf of the community.

Within weeks, the library shelves were full and the library was back in business.

Council officers were despatched to meetings to see if a compromise could be reached, but the elected representatives of the Tory Party ignored residents, and refused to attend talks. The council then launched eviction proceedings against the people of Barnet, who were simply using a public asset in the way it was intended.

Despite spiralling costs, the Tories persisted in the war against their own citizens. When the case finally came to court - supported by legal assistance organised by Labour party councillors - it lasted 2 days. 

Barrister and Labour candidate for Finchley & Golders Green, Sarah Sackman, who represented the occupiers in court (at the microphone)

The council had originally claimed it was a simple possession case and asked for ten minutes. It was clear to all that despite the judge finding in favour of the council, there were strong grounds for an appeal. The judge herself brokered a deal whereby Occupy would hand over the keys to the community and the library would continue. The council had won the battle but lost the war. 

The sad truth is that there is no happy ending.

Does anyone trust the council after their previous tactics? It would appear to be a mistake to do so. The election leaflet implies that the library was saved by the ‘fervent campaign’ within the Conservative party fought by Councillor Kate Salinger. In fact any success was entirely due to the fervent campaigning of local residents, and the occupation of the premises: and the library has not been saved. It still faces an uncertain future.

Barnet Council simply offered the re-named Friern Barnet Community Library a two year lease, to park the problem until after the election. 

Time stands still in Friern Barnet library, September 2012

The Council has refused to fund a full time librarian. The Council has refused to allow the Library to access the council book stock. There are even allegations of other Barnet Libraries refusing to allow posters promoting events at FBCL. Most worrying of all, there is no long term lease, and Councillor Daniel Thomas, the deputy leader, has merely guaranteed that the building will not be sold in the next four years. What happens then? And even if the building is not sold, for how long will the community library be allowed to remain?

In truth the local community has preserved the building, and filled it full of books, which is a stunning achievement. It is a wonderful community enterprise, a victory of resistance against injustice, but it is not a public library.

Barnet’s Tory councillors have been outmanoeuvred by residents in their move to close the library and sell the beautiful, eighty year old building for redevelopment as a supermarket or flats. But it is only a temporary victory.

To ensure this library and every other publicly owned property controlled by this council remains in our hands and does not become the target of a ruthless agenda of sale and development, the only course of action is clear: use your vote wisely on May 22^nd, and do not return this Tory administration to power – or we will all live to regret it.

John Dix

Derek Dishman

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne 

 

proud and happy library members

The death of democracy in our own back yard

There is an election in May to choose a new admistration in Barnet. I was talking to a local Tory Councillor who told me he thought the turnout would be less than 50% of the electorate. It will be even less for the Euro elections on the same day, as most people don't even know what MEP's do.

The question is "does it matter if I don't vote?". Well if you are in one of the groups below it makes a huge difference, as the council is responsible for the services you use.

Adult disabled/Special needs
Car drivers
People who put the bins out
People with children in schools or educational establishments
People with relatives buried in local graveyards
People who pay Council tax
People who work for firms that pay business rates
People who live in a controlled parking zone
People who walk on pavements
People who like a walk in the park
People who live in a house and want to change or extend it, requiring planning permission
People who use libraries

There are probably other groups of people. The council decides all of these things. How well they are done, how much money is spent on them. They use your tax to pay. The equation is pretty simple in Barnet. The Tories have a policy of spending as little on services as possible so that they can charge as little tax as possible. Labour want to charge a bit more and protect the most vulnerable people in society from the worst of the cuts. Unless you live in High Barnet or Childs Hill, the Lib Dems are irrelevant, in those areas they are staunch campaigners for local issues. Whichever side of that argument you stand on, if you don't vote, don't moan when your tax bill goes up or your granny doesn't get her meals on wheels on time. Local democracy is dying and the people who are killing it are apathetic voters. Many people will be getting knocks on the door from politicians canvassing. Ask them what they will do about the local issues that concern you. If they give you an answer you don't like, tell them you will not be voting for them and you will be voting for the other side. Carry out your threat as well. It is the only chance you will get in the next four years to change anything. We will cover the local issues and try and help you make up your mind, if you haven't already.

No party is perfect, in some ways none of them really deserve our votes, so you have to choose the least worst option. Don't be fooled by anyone who tells you it doesn't matter. If Barnet had a different administration, we wouldn't have seen the abolition of pay and display parking and local disabled people would not have seen services slashed. You would also be paying about the price of a Starbucks coffee a week in extra tax. That's the long and the short of it.

Barnet Housing Strategy report reveals failure of Council economic policy

A report on the Barnet Council website reveals some rather interesting facts about the housing situation in Barnet (http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s12279/Housing%20Strategy.pdf)

There are a few interesting points to consider. Firstly the revealation that the population of Barnet will incease by 101,000 peope between 2001 and 2022. Not only that, but most of those people have already moved to Barnet. It is no surprise in these circumstances, that the report notes the number of private homes for rent has shrunk, homeless applications have increased and private sector rents have increased. This is called "the law of supply and demand" if you have more people using the same resources, then things get more expensive. The long term effect this has on the boroughs economy is to drive out young people who were raised in the borough as they seek cheaper accomodation elsewhere. This causes the breakdown of social support networks, and increases the social care costs. I saw an example of this in my own family. My mother had a stroke in 2001 and needed constant care. Much of this was provided by myself and my siblings. My sister was living in Edgware and would visit my mother every day (as would I). When my mother passed away in 2008, the first thing my sister did was make a long planned move to Essex, for a larger, cheaper property. Had she moved in before 2001, then my mother would have needed to rely on the council for the social care we provided to a far greater extent. This is one of the social costs of council policy that the bean counters cannot quantify. Large Council estates such as Burnt Oak, used to supply homes for generations of working families at affordable rents. As a result of Thatchers policy of Council house sales, with no replenishment of the social housing stock, the younger generations were forced out. Now the council is picking up the costs of this divorce of parents and children. Contrary to many right wing commentators, no one wants to become dependent on the council for care. Families would much rather look after their own, but it is not practical or feasable from long distance.

Another interesting comment is on the failure of the governments economic policy is also revealed. It states that "median incomes fell in 2012". For those who don't understand statisics, the median refers to those in the earning tree. The implication is that Barnets super rich did alright, at the expense of the majority of the rest of us, who work hard and pay our taxes, whilst trying to raise our children. The Coalition governments decision to cut top tax rates from 50% to 45% for the super rich has meant that the burden clearly has not been fairly shared.

Another interesting fact is that the number of empty properties has risen. This is the one fact that I have struggled to understand, given that there is clear need. It can only mean that the govenrment and the council have defective policies towards housing stock. Margaret Thatcher abolished the old system of rates. Now we have the community charge, which has no socially progressive element to encourage landlords to rent homes. In seeking to understand what is going on, I discussed the issue with an estate agent. They informed me that property developers are buying up empty homes and seeking to build huge blocks of flats. This can result in the acquired homes lying empty for periods of years whilst they try and buy neighbouring properties and argue with the council about planning requests. It is standard practice for developers to submit schemes that are far too ambitious, just to see what they can get away with. All of this leads to delays, resulting in housing stock sitting empty. I personally would like to see two things done. Firstly an empty house charge to be applied to any property sitting empty for more than one year. The second thing I'd like to see is two new bands on the community charge, so that the largest home owners pay their fair share. Billionaires in Bishops avenue pay the same charge as relatively modest suburban detached houses. I have calculated that for many of these mansions, billionaires are paying a rate of as little as a 10th or a 20th of the value compared with normal Barnet residents. The Leader of the Council spoke in a recent newspaper column about the fact that it is "unfair" to target owners of mansions to pay their fair share of community tax. I disagree and I believe that the vast majority of Barnet residents would disagree if they realised that billionaires were paying a 20th the rate of tax they were on their homes.

The last phrase in the report chills me to the bone. It states that Barnet has a "higher capacity for new homes than other London Boroughs". This can only refer to an attck on the green belt and conservation areas.

So you may ask what the councils strategy is? This is described in section 9.1

9. BACKGROUND INFORMATION   Existing housing strategy 9.1 The council’s existing housing strategy was agreed by Cabinet in April 2010 with the following key housing objectives:  o Increasing housing supply to improve the range of housing choices and opportunities available to residents o Improving the condition and sustainability of the existing housing stock o Promoting mixed communities o Maximising opportunities available for those wishing to own their home o Providing housing related support options that maximise the independence of residents o Providing excellent value services that exceed residents’ expectations.

That was passed in 2010. Has the council succeeded on these lofty aims, set out in 2010. Their own report clearly spells out the failure of the strategy. Their own document clearly states there are less homes, showing that they've failed on point 1. Given that housing is now more expensive and incomes have dropped, they have also failed on point 4. As to point 5, by forcing people to move away from parents, they have increased, not decreased reliance on Council services. I suppose that we can say that on point three, they have to a certain degree succeeded. There has been huge net immigration into the Borough and the character of many neighbourhoods has changed significantly, even over the last four years.I must confess I hadn't realised that the council had a clear policy of moving long standing local communities out and replacing them with immigrant communities. My own personal view is that the Council not be seeking to "move on" existing residents, many of whom have paid tax all their life to Barnet Council. It may surprise many, given the perception that the Tories are "anti immigration" that the council has such a policy. It doesn't surprise me at all. What they are really talking about is trying to move out people such as the elderly and the disabled, and replace them with fit young immigrants who are less of a burden on the Barnet Taxpayer. That is perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the Tories. They pretend to be anti immigrant, but actually encourage immigration when it suits their greedy tax cutting agenda. I am not in the least anti immigratant, but I strongly believe that groups such as the elderly and the disabled should not be discriminated against, to facilitate a goal no higher than tax cuts for the super rich.

As with all council reports, the devil is in the detail. I doubt many Barnet Councillors bothered to read this report and even fewer (especially on the Tory benches) understand what it is saying. But the truth is there spelled out in black and white. Barnet Council has a proven track record of failure on housing. It has a clear policy of discrimination against existing residents  and a clear policy of bending over backwards to wealthy private Landlords. There is a council election in May. If you vote Conservative, you are voting to continue this record of discrimination and failure.