Is it right and legal for social housing to control the residents association of a private area given they are renters and not home owners?
i know you mean well but i have a couple of points i would like to make. The meaning of residents association = an association of the residents, wouldn't you concur?
Shouldn't that alone inform your query as to whether the housing association that has purchased/managed the properties or the tenants who live there be the 'person' on the residents association? Who better to know about issues that affect the people who live on the road?
hint: there is a reason its not called the 'Owners only not renters association'.
Now imagine if you had a rule that said people who live in 4 bed home get 4 votes each, 3 bed homes get 2 votes each, but those in smaller units get one vote each. you could justify this by saying they paid more for their homes, and so should have more of a say. would that be fair or equitable? i really hope you think not.
now consider if you say all the 'housing association, lets call them cluid' tenants together on your road only be entitled to one vote collectively. This would certainly mean their opinion would be suppressed - possibly the aim of such a measure. but why would that be fair or right? They are residents as long as they reside there. And their opinions should be equally as valued as those who have purchased their homes. oe those who privately rent etc. The alternative to to say those who own, or rent privately know better
than the renters of cluid etc. This leads to voter suppression.
Imagine that principal applied to a general election. Should only property owners get a vote in general elections eh? that would do away with the danger of sinn fein etc eh? that would have a dangerous appeal to certain interests. But the principal of Universal suffrage is actually under threat in democracies like the united states where voter suppression is openly practiced.