London Council Estates Being Cleared For Developers

[@contradevian]

http://storify.com/michaellondonsf/london-council-estates-cleared-for-developers?awesm=sfy.co_tBJm&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter

They then build luxury homes on the cleared site and then just offer 10% as "affordable."

[Imminent_plunge]

http://storify.com/michaellondonsf/london-council-estates-cleared-for-developers?awesm=sfy.co_tBJm&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter

They then build luxury homes on the cleared site and then just offer 10% as "affordable."

I'm living in one near Canary Wharf. Been here a year, due to be demolished next year. Apparently they were 'built wrong' as in on prime land and next to the Thames when that should be exclusively for bankers paying mega bucks

[@contradevian]

I'm living in one near Canary Wharf. Been here a year, due to be demolished next year. Apparently they were 'built wrong' as in on prime land and next to the Thames when that should be exclusively for bankers paying mega bucks

Yes I can remember them demolishing older social housing when I lived in E14 (Poplar). The luxury flats were built in front of the Council flats but would have been on former industrial land, on the Thames side. Then the Council flats got demolished.

The site of the former Poplar Power Station, is now 'luxury' apartments but has a small amount of "affordable homes."

Edited July 26, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[SarahBell]

Social cleansing happened in East Manchester - suspect it still going on as they are still clearing estates.

[Lord D'arcy Pew]

Yes I can remember them demolishing older social housing when I lived in E14 (Poplar). The luxury flats were built in front of the Council flats but would have been on former industrial land, on the Thames side. Then the Council flats got demolished.

The site of the former Poplar Power Station, is now 'luxury' apartments but has a small amount of "affordable homes."

I other parts of the world a policy like this would be called ethnic cleansing.

[57percent]

They're demolishing a lot of the old estates in Fulham / West Ken (?).

Although there should be provisions for social tenants, I can't much wrong with replacing these ugly, cheap, outdated estates with something nicer.

[Hectors House]

Social cleansing happened in East Manchester - suspect it still going on as they are still clearing estates.

Doesn't work though, Hyde (near to where the Moors Murderers came from and the area around where those female coppers were murdered) is still a hole, I went to see a new development, never seen so many cheap plastic fixtures and fittings (build quality was awful), wind was whistling under the front door, felt sorry for the mugs already living on the development (which was a mixture of flats, 2/3/4 bed houses, plenty of smashed windows (including those which were already occupied)).

[Executive Sadman]

Regeneration, please.

Tories need to get themselves some labour PR hacks.

[bomberbrown]

This was almost 10 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tower:_A_Tale_of_Two_Cities

[bomberbrown]

1374829707[/url]' post='909364231']

I other parts of the world a policy like this would be called ethnic cleansing.

And that was how it was described almost 10 years ago in my link above.

[@contradevian]

And that was how it was described almost 10 years ago in my link above.

There is also a lot political gerry mandering going on. Traditional council estates = lots of hard core traditional Labour voters.

On the other hand, immigration helped maintain core Labour support in "hollowed out" former industrial area's.

Edited July 26, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[Dorkins]

When my private sector London landlord gave me notice I had to move. Until now I thought that renting a property off somebody meant they retain the right to legally terminate the tenancy and use the land for something else. Now I see that I was a victim of ethnic cleansing and am lucky not to be in a mass grave somewhere.

Providing riverside flats for life in an inner London borough is not a core function of the welfare state. If you are a tenant, you do not own the land you live on. People in council houses assumed that because their landlord was the government that their tenancy would be for life. They were wrong. Lots of people want to live and work in London, so why should long-standing council tenants be completely insulated from the competition for space that younger people experience every day? It's yet another subsidy from the young to the old.

It would be better for council/HA tenants to be on the same tenancies as all other tenants. This would create a much bigger voice for real reform to private tenancy laws. So far social tenants have been given a get out of jail free card which means they didn't have any reason to care what happens to private tenants. It has been a successful example of divide and rule.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Dorkins

[@contradevian]

It would be better for council/HA tenants to be on the same tenancies as all other tenants.

No it wouldn't.

[Dorkins]

No it wouldn't.

It would be better for those who are already on ASTs as at the moment they are easily ignored by politicians.

[@contradevian]

It would be better for those who are already on ASTs as at the moment they are easily ignored by politicians.

I think they are or would be ignored anyway. Security for any kind of tenants just isn't on the political agenda at all. If you want security eventually you will have to buy (or rent from a bank).

Security of tenure is gradually being removed from a lot of (new) social tenants especially with housing associations where an AST will be offered for an introductory period or permanently.

This country isn't run for your or my benefit. The Tories will make a killing when social housing is finally sold off to their mates or private equity, as is happening in Spain and Germany. The country is being carved up. It won't result in cheaper rents, or cheaper places to buy, or better "rights" for any kind of tenant.

Edited July 26, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[crash2006]

I think they are or would be ignored anyway. Security for any kind of tenants just isn't on the political agenda at all. If you want security eventually you will have to buy (or rent from a bank).

Security of tenure is gradually being removed from a lot of (new) social tenants especially with housing associations where an AST will be offered for an introductory period or permanently.

This country isn't run for your or my benefit. The Tories will make a killing when social housing is finally sold off to their mates or private equity, as is happening in Spain and Germany. The country is being carved up. It won't result in cheaper rents, or cheaper places to buy, or better "rights" for any kind of tenant.

This is a failure on a massive scale, friend of mine now has to apply for housing benefit to help him pay the rent, and the government wants to reduce housing benefit but with policies like this they are increasing HB costs.

[@contradevian]

This is a failure on a massive scale, friend of mine now has to apply for housing benefit to help him pay the rent, and the government wants to reduce housing benefit but with policies like this they are increasing HB costs.

No, strangely I don't think they do. Crazy as it seems. I don't think they mind Housing Benefit going to the rentier class, in the same way don't mind paying a farmer, not to grow stuff on a field. Its an area of discussion which is absent on any kind of political agenda at all.

Mrs T said that an increased housing benefit bill was a `price worth paying` for moving towards market rent (whatever that is). Its been the policy since rents were deregulated in the 80's and almost certainly the London Mayorall policy now.

Edited July 26, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[Hectors House]

I think they are or would be ignored anyway. Security for any kind of tenants just isn't on the political agenda at all. If you want security eventually you will have to buy (or rent from a bank).

Security of tenure is gradually being removed from a lot of (new) social tenants especially with housing associations where an AST will be offered for an introductory period or permanently.

This country isn't run for your or my benefit. The Tories will make a killing when social housing is finally sold off to their mates or private equity, as is happening in Spain and Germany. The country is being carved up. It won't result in cheaper rents, or cheaper places to buy, or better "rights" for any kind of tenant.

The majority of social housing in this country is no longer controlled by the councils, there is nothing to "sell off" apart from the odd ALMO HA most Housing Associations are now technically private concerns.

There was a period in the last few years of takeovers but its been realised that its stupid to be a HA in say East Anglia whilst owning housing stock in the North West (made up example but substitute your own areas)

[Dorkins]

This is a failure on a massive scale, friend of mine now has to apply for housing benefit to help him pay the rent, and the government wants to reduce housing benefit but with policies like this they are increasing HB costs.

It's not really about money, it's about who gets access to real resources. Money is just the tool used to allocate real resources. At the moment you have inner London boroughs with high unemployment rates and half of households in receipt of housing benefit. Boroughs like Westminster, Camden, Islington, Hackney, Lambeth and Southwark are in the heart of the employment centres but housing in these areas is dominated by households generating very little labour per adult per week. Meanwhile households containing two adults with full time jobs commute past them each morning from zones 3-6 and beyond at great cost to themselves in terms of time, money, and stress. It's insane that the government is doing this intentionally.

[@contradevian]

The majority of social housing in this country is no longer controlled by the councils, there is nothing to "sell off" apart from the odd ALMO HA most Housing Associations are now technically private concerns.

Not strictly speaking correct. The ALMO's are only operating companies. The ownership of social housing remains vested in the local authorities.

[Hectors House]

Not strictly speaking correct. The ALMO's are only operating companies. The ownership of social housing remains vested in the local authorities.

There are not many ALMO HA in Hertfordshire I only know of Stevenage Homes (this probably mirrors most of the country)

North Hertfordshire Homes which took over North Herts council stock is a Ltd company and a Industrial and Provident Society, they have a wholly owned development subsidiary called Rowan Homes, which, deals with the development of new homes which includes market sale and shared ownership. Any profits are used to subsidise the building of new affordable homes.

In Letchworth Garden City the housing association stock is split between NHH, Howard Cottage (one of the UK's oldest housing associations) and William Sutton Trust, there are a few other smaller players but in other local towns and villages there are also Metropolitan HA, Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust and the Aldwyck group.

All this talk about selling off social housing is nonsense, there is pretty much nothing to sell off!

[@contradevian]

All this talk about selling off social housing is nonsense, there is pretty much nothing to sell off!

There are still 4 million social homes in England. Councils still own half and half the 2m owned by Housing Associations were transferred to them from Councils. therefore, around 3m homes, potentially, have Right To Buy eligibility. Total "RTB" sales to date are just over 1.5m.

Where I live (Kirklees) the local Metropolitan Council retains ownership of the legacy social housing stock. Indeed I think the ALMO has to pay rent to the Council even if a unit remains empty (well I think that is how it works).

[Hectors House]

There are still 4 million social homes in England. Councils still own half and half the 2m owned by Housing Associations were transferred to them from Councils. therefore, around 3m homes, potentially, have Right To Buy eligibility. Total "RTB" sales to date are just over 1.5m.

Where I live (Kirklees) the local Metropolitan Council retains ownership of the legacy social housing stock. Indeed I think the ALMO has to pay rent to the Council even if a unit remains empty (well I think that is how it works).

Depends on where you get the figures, ALMO accounts for 15% of social housing but the 2m is correct

RTB only applies to those tenants (in HA housing stock) who were previously council tenants at time of transfer, if someone moves today into a property as a new tenant then they only have the ‘Right to Acquire’ which doesn't have the discounts. Those that were eligible for RTB and were willing too would have done so years ago.

[crash2006]

I find it strange that housing associations get government grants if they increase rents or transfer more social homes into affordable homes, yet offer no discounts to those that wish to buy.or people need housing benefit to remain in thses new homes.

Edited July 26, 2013 by crash2006

[@contradevian]

Secure tenancies not that secure. You can get thrown out for having an untidy garden.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-evicted-harpurhey-house---5347206