Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
@contradevian

London Council Tenants Compared To 'made In Chelsea' Brigade

Recommended Posts

Those champagne swilling Council Tenants!

(Paywall)

http://www.telegraph...ea-Brigade.html

Councillor Jonathan Glanz, cabinet member for housing at Westminster Council, said heavily subsidised rents on local authority properties in central London meant tenants were able to live in multi-million pound houses otherwise only affordable to people with trust funds.

But who made these area's expensive? A lot of these social homes when they were built were in former slum area's. Notting Hill for example.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should sell off expensive council properties and use the money to build many more in cheaper areas. Never understood the point of building one or two very expensive council homes to make the point that the "poor" should be able to live in Central London (as Islington has done) when they could use the money to build many more and get many more families off the waiting list. It's just political point scoring rather than actual practical use of the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should sell off expensive council properties and use the money to build many more in cheaper areas. Never understood the point of building one or two very expensive council homes to make the point that the "poor" should be able to live in Central London (as Islington has done) when they could use the money to build many more and get many more families off the waiting list. It's just political point scoring rather than actual practical use of the money.

Because these areas were originally poor areas, dumps or bombed out of existence when these 'social homes' were first built. Some of the most gentrified areas today like Notting Hill and St Johns Wood has some of the cities most notorious slums though it seems hard to believe now.

Presumably social tenants in Barking and Dagenham will be decanted when that is gentrified for the City brigage. Gotta keep them house prices high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta keep them house prices high.

So state the bleeding obvious, and you're being "nasty" now? Because life is all rainbows and unicorns and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Placing social housing in the most expensive districts of London does keep house prices high. It's a massive waste of resources and keeps a huge amount of supply out of the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So state the bleeding obvious, and you're being "nasty" now? Because life is all rainbows and unicorns and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Placing social housing in the most expensive districts of London does keep house prices high. It's a massive waste of resources and keeps a huge amount of supply out of the market.

I am surprised that some bright chap at BBC or Guardian does not publish:

- selling one council home in zone 1 for £2,000,000

.

- building sixty six 2 bedroom council flats on free council land in zone 5 for £30,000

must be perhaps some kind of Nazi thinking ....

Edited by Damik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those champagne swilling Council Tenants!

(Paywall)

http://www.telegraph...ea-Brigade.html

But who made these area's expensive? A lot of these social homes when they were built were in former slum area's. Notting Hill for example.

I know a council tenant living near Bond street tube another in Holborn these haven't been slums for a very long time (and when they were slums their ancestors weren't in the UK).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised that some bright chap at BBC or Guardian does not publish:

- selling one council home in zone 1 for £2,000,000

.

- building sixty six 2 bedroom council flats on free council land in zone 5 for £30,000

must be perhaps some kind of Nazi thinking ....

A brilliant idea - why can't we do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised that some bright chap at BBC or Guardian does not publish:

- selling one council home in zone 1 for £2,000,000

.

- building sixty six 2 bedroom council flats on free council land in zone 5 for £30,000

must be perhaps some kind of Nazi thinking ....

If the Council wants to evict its Council tenants and make the housing available to rich foreign investors, or redevelop for rich foreign investors then why not just go ahead and do it. I don't see the point of trying to shame the tenants into moving.

After all this is what they are doing in Southwark. Also the offers that the ex council tenants who bought in Southwark were so low (compulsory purchase) they had to move out of London entirely in some cases. No where near what would be required to buy a new apartment where they were living before.

None of this will result in cheaper houses in Central London (on the contrary in fact). Neither will it result in any new council housing being built in cheaper zones.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something slightly odd about a party which lets face is basically run by trustifarians, for trustifarians to attack people for behaving like a trustifarians! :lol: Not that many trustifarians would be seen dead in many London council estates, given many of them live high on the hog of State subsidies, from their extensive country acreages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how people think gentrification only works in one direction and will never be reversed.

What goes around comes around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something slightly odd about a party which lets face is basically run by trustifarians, for trustifarians to attack people for behaving like a trustifarians! :lol: Not that many trustifarians would be seen dead in many London council estates, given many of them live high on the hog of State subsidies, from their extensive country acreages.

Miliband isn't a millionaire based on inherited wealth?

The trustifarians from the Guardian/BBC/Labour seem to have no problem swanning around council estates showing how "enlightened" they are (before retiring to their mansions) so I'm not sure what you're going on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A brilliant idea - why can't we do it.

Because that money from selling the homes goes to central government and councils aren't allowed (by central gov) to build state owned houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because these areas were originally poor areas, dumps or bombed out of existence when these 'social homes' were first built. Some of the most gentrified areas today like Notting Hill and St Johns Wood has some of the cities most notorious slums though it seems hard to believe now.

Presumably social tenants in Barking and Dagenham will be decanted when that is gentrified for the City brigage. Gotta keep them house prices high.

Reminds me of the film Passport to Pimlico not the preserve of millionaires but grimmer than Hartlepool.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the film Passport to Pimlico not the preserve of millionaires but grimmer than Hartlepool.......

Yup Pimlico was a poor area, but you would need to be a millionaire or a banker to live there now.

Passport to Pimlico was actually filmed in Lambeth. When I lived in London I tried to take a few photo's of the external locations used in the film. Pretty much all the bombed out (you see the characters setting up a bathing pool out of a bomb site) areas, shops and pubs you see in the film, were levelled and replaced with post war social housing, which is still there now.

So these area's kind of came up around the social tenants (in fact that was one of the idea's behind social housing originally). Now they want to turf them out, in order to pump the bubble even higher and build homes more suitable drug traffickers, oversea's despots, bankers and absentee foreign investors.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council housing in expensive areas should be funded by taxing the housing in those same expensive areas.

If you have a £50m Candy house you should expect to pay tax on the community benefit which is re-invested in social housing in the same area.

That's how society works. Unless you're a Tory landowner who prefers to expunge the poor from your vista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council housing in expensive areas should be funded by taxing the housing in those same expensive areas.

If you have a £50m Candy house you should expect to pay tax on the community benefit which is re-invested in social housing in the same area.

That's how society works. Unless you're a Tory landowner who prefers to expunge the poor from your vista.

Why? Shouldn't tax benefit all of society rather than just a fortunate few?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Shouldn't tax benefit all of society rather than just a fortunate few?

What 'fortunate few' are you talking about? I'd say it was the ones who were able to afford to 'live' at Candy House.

Not the ones who through some bizarre economic quirk find their cheaply built postwar council flats, suddenly worth millions (to someone else).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of giving a non-working household free housing in the centre of London is that one or more people in a working household have to slog their way in from the suburbs every day. This costs them time, effort and money, and their family life suffers as a result. Still, nobody seems to care about the family life and social connections of people who make an effort to support themselves, so I doubt this will enter into the calculation any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup Pimlico was a poor area, but you would need to be a millionaire or a banker to live there now.

Passport to Pimlico was actually filmed in Lambeth. When I lived in London I tried to take a few photo's of the external locations used in the film. Pretty much all the bombed out (you see the characters setting up a bathing pool out of a bomb site) areas, shops and pubs you see in the film, were levelled and replaced with post war social housing, which is still there now.

So these area's kind of came up around the social tenants (in fact that was one of the idea's behind social housing originally). Now they want to turf them out, in order to pump the bubble even higher and build homes more suitable drug traffickers, oversea's despots, bankers and absentee foreign investors.

Ok, nobody is saying that older people who have lived there all their lives and have secure tenancies should be forced out but why on earth should new tenancies be put in these homes when they could be sold when the old tenant has died and the money used to buy multiple homes elsewhere? The whole point of social housing is to give people a roof over their head at a lower cost rather than give them access to housing in Central London that would cost most people paying market rate much much more. Besides, many of the prospective tenants have no real local connection and may have not been in the country very long. Why should people who have never contributed to the system but turn up and declare themselves homeless be given prime real estate subsidised by those who could never afford equivalent housing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, nobody is saying that older people who have lived there all their lives and have secure tenancies should be forced out but why on earth should new tenancies be put in these homes when they could be sold when the old tenant has died and the money used to buy multiple homes elsewhere? The whole point of social housing is to give people a roof over their head at a lower cost rather than give them access to housing in Central London that would cost most people paying market rate much much more. Besides, many of the prospective tenants have no real local connection and may have not been in the country very long. Why should people who have never contributed to the system but turn up and declare themselves homeless be given prime real estate subsidised by those who could never afford equivalent housing?

I agree 100%. Particularly with "Besides, many of the prospective tenants have no real local connection and may have not been in the country very long". I know someone who got a flat in old street after less than 6 months here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Council housing in expensive areas should be funded by taxing the housing in those same expensive areas.

If you have a £50m Candy house you should expect to pay tax on the community benefit which is re-invested in social housing in the same area.

That's how society works. Unless you're a Tory landowner who prefers to expunge the poor from your vista.

Nope, taxes from the Candy house should be used for all of us including the working middle class, which is taxed to the death.

Providing a luxury life style to a few chosen one social tenants is firstly undemocratic and secondly waste of public money.

Let me make it simple for you: do not treat people on benefits better than the one working for the minimal wage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because these areas were originally poor areas, dumps or bombed out of existence when these 'social homes' were first built. Some of the most gentrified areas today like Notting Hill and St Johns Wood has some of the cities most notorious slums though it seems hard to believe now.

Presumably social tenants in Barking and Dagenham will be decanted when that is gentrified for the City brigage. Gotta keep them house prices high.

Yes, my aunt lived in a council flat in Fulham, from 1950 to 1998, when she died! I imagine Fulham was a different place back in 1950.

Actually I do feel Mr Cameron to be "nasty". :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   217 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.