more on the proposed eviction

I have garnered support from the ward councillors and opposition spokepersons and I have had a "question" tabled (and accepted) for the 7th December 2010 meeting in Hove Town Hall at 4pm.
A tenant in Rottingdean also asked about the consultation process.
I have ask for support from Simon Kirby MP.

this is my question --
What real evidence that,  such as the annualised numbers on the list for each of the 5 chalet areas involved,  they are “little used”  and what research is there as to the reason for that apparent “little use”  and what difference would it to the finances of the council to alter the tenancies in this way and   why has there been no consideration of applying any new lease to new tenants only,  retaining the original lease for current tenants,  much like employers use “natural wastage” to get rid of dead wood? 

Comment from a tenant:
item 42 is a typical composite motion -- the 10% rent hike is bad enough but to wrap it up with an eviction notice is the worst Christmas present of the year --
do please try to get it un-packed and the lease proposals kicked out....

another comment:
why not build more chalets elsewhere if there is a problem of "closed waiting lists"?
as to alternative options for the Council: yes, there is a rationing issue but, you are right, it would be easy to construct more elsewhere......
but the model brakes down a bit when it is not simple needs like housing per se...just like council tenants being kicked out if their income is too high......? or residents parking list ("sorry, you have a permit now, but you lose it after one year and join the queue at the bottom...")