This is a pretty controversial question. Sometimes it's the only proper choice for government with no alternatives. However, some families can get down in the dumps while losing their dwellings, covered with memories and history. To my mind, it's not right to force people change their place of living. Nevertheless, if there is no choice, equal exchange should be provided.
First and foremost, in my consideration, your place of living is connected with a chunk of memories, which could be important and extremely valuable. Your entire childhood can be spend in that house, which you would like to visit every now and then and spend time with your parents, searching your memory for cheerful and pleasant moments, spent within the territory of the building. For some families, an edifice can contain a lot of history. In some cases, houses have been kept for centuries, going from one dynasty to another. Therefore, forcing people to permanently wipe out such an important part of their lives is unacceptable.
Secondly, if we take a look on the situation from the economical aspect, not always people receive similar conditions compared to those they have lost.
In a great deal of cases, a one-family house can be exchanged to a flat, which is not equal. I am convinced that people won't have a lot to choose from, and the proposals will be worse than their former place of living. Another variant could be an exchange for money. However, due to the constant inflation, the price of your house most surely declined, and it will be impossible to buy the same dwelling for earned amount of money. Thereby, people can have tough times in their lives, if they don't receive financial help from the government or building company.
To sum up, I consider the idea of replacing history and a bunch of memories with new constructions as a one that should be forgotten. Of course, the circumstances can leave people without a choice, but if there is a possibility of relocating the new object, it should be done in first place.
This is a pretty controversial question.
Sometimes
it's the
only
proper choice for
government
with no alternatives.
However
,
some
families can
get
down in the dumps while losing their dwellings, covered with
memories
and history. To my mind, it's not right to force
people
change
their
place
of living.
Nevertheless
, if there is no choice, equal exchange should
be provided
.
First
and foremost, in my consideration, your
place
of living
is connected
with a chunk of
memories
, which could be
important
and
extremely
valuable. Your entire childhood can be
spend
in that
house
, which you would like to visit every
now
and then and spend time with your parents, searching your
memory
for cheerful and pleasant moments, spent within the territory of the building. For
some
families, an edifice can contain
a lot of
history. In
some
cases,
houses
have been
kept
for centuries, going from one dynasty to another.
Therefore
, forcing
people
to
permanently
wipe out such an
important
part of their
lives
is unacceptable.
Secondly
, if we take a look on the situation from the economical aspect, not always
people
receive similar conditions compared to those they have lost.
In a great deal of cases, a one-family
house
can
be exchanged
to a flat, which is not equal. I
am convinced
that
people
won't have a lot to choose from, and the proposals will be worse than their former
place
of living. Another variant could be an exchange for money.
However
, due to the constant inflation, the price of your
house
most
surely
declined, and it will be impossible to
buy
the same dwelling for earned amount of money. Thereby,
people
can have tough times in their
lives
, if they don't receive financial
help
from the
government
or building
company
.
To sum up, I consider the
idea
of replacing history and a bunch of
memories
with new constructions as a one that should
be forgotten
.
Of course
, the circumstances can
leave
people
without a choice,
but
if there is a possibility of relocating the new object, it should
be done
in
first
place
.