Wake Up And Smell The Muesli

[Fancypants]

Here

Victims of London's property boom

Thousands are trapped between spiralling prices and desperate lack of council housing

Larry Elliott

Friday November 24, 2006

The Guardian

Vicky Walsh is a typical Islington resident. Typical but not stereotypical. The stereotypical Islington resident is a well-heeled trendy liberal who takes a surreptitious peek in the windows of estate agents on Upper Street, tut-tuts at dinner parties about the lunacy of the property market and picks up tips from television programmes providing owner-occupiers with advice on how to add value to their homes.

Ms Walsh does none of these things because she doesn't own her own home. Like more than 13,000 other families she is on Islington council's waiting list to be rehoused. She needs rehousing because she and her partner live with their two seven-month old twin boys in a one-bedroom flat that an estate agent would call compact and everybody else would call small.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the past 25 years, debate about the housing market in the UK has focused almost exclusively on the 70%-plus of homes that are owned outright or being bought with a mortgage. The fact that house prices are going up by more than 8% a year or that some banks are offering mortgages of five times individual or joint incomes warrants far more attention than the remote possibility of Ms Walsh being rehoused soon. But Ms Walsh and tenants like her provide a stark contrast to Britain's booming housing market.

Many houses in Islington are sold for £1m or more. Affordable properties for rent are so scarce in the borough that the council has to use a points system to ration demand. Those on the waiting list get extra points if they have dependent children, if they have a medical condition, but need a minimum of 140 points to put in a bid for a new property. Ms Walsh and her partner have 150 points but to have a chance of successfully bidding for a two-bed flat they need 250.

"There is double of everything - two seats, two cots, two high chairs. It's getting me down. I can cope with the kids - it's just the living arrangements. I wake up in the morning and think that I have to come up with a way of getting more points off the council. It's like the lottery. You know you are going to lose but you have to keep trying."

Price vice

Ms Walsh, like thousands of other families in Islington, is caught in a vice between some of the highest property prices in the country and a desperate shortage of council housing.

Amyn Elsafty is a butcher who works in Highgate but like Ms Walsh lives on the Bemerton estate on the other side of York Way from the massive King's Cross development. The flats are smart and well appointed, but Mr Elsafty has to sleep on the sofa in the living room of his brother's flat. His brother and his brother's pregnant girlfriend share the only bedroom. Mr Elsafty has split up with his partner but sees his children three evenings a week. When they stay at weekends they sleep on a blow-up bed in the living room with their dad.

"It was supposed to be temporary but that was a year ago", says Mr Elsafty, 30. "My brother says stay here as long as you need, but how long can I keep sponging off him?"

There is no chance, he says, of affording a mortgage on his wages of £780 a month and he does not qualify for the government's scheme for key workers. "I'm just a humble butcher. It makes no difference to me. I'm stuck in limbo."

The local Labour MP, Emily Thornberry, says the caseload at her surgery is dominated by people desperate to be rehoused. "I think it's disgusting, truly shocking," she says. "I think it's the sort of thing that went out when Dickens died. I suspect that people in government don't realise just how bad it is."

Even if affordable housing is well below the radar for most of those in Islington's leafy lanes, it is a big political issue locally. Ms Thornberry says the Liberal Democrat-run council should be doing more, and in particular taking a tougher line with developers to ensure they build more affordable homes.

Until recently, the council had a policy that any development of 15 homes or more was required to contain 35% of affordable homes. Now 50% have to be affordable in any scheme of 10 or more properties. Developers are pretty smart, however. According to Ms Thornberry's analysis, of the nearly 1,200 planning applications between 2001 and 2006 only 172 were for 10 homes or more.

"We have to turn high land prices to our advantage," said Ms Thornberry. "We must insist that if the developers are going to make huge profits that half the properties will be social housing. We have got to be tough on people.

"I live in the leafy lanes but I was brought up in council accommodation. I have some perception of what it's like but I was never as overcrowded as these people. It's awful. It just hits you all the time."

Terry Stacey, the Liberal Democrat chair of housing on the council: "There's no doubt that there is a big shortage of housing in London. Unlike Ms Thornberry, who lives in her own £2.6m house, I'm a housing tenant myself."

Mr Stacey said that Islington was one of the smallest boroughs in London and had a dearth of land available for development. Even so, it had nobody living in temporary accommodation, had been providing for key workers in the public sector and had weighted the points scheme to people who had lived in the borough for a long time. But it was important, he added, that developers were given incentives to build rather than being scared off.

"I have total and utter sympathy for the people on the waiting list. The council is doing everything it possibly can. We would like to build more council houses ourselves but the government does not let us do it."

Backstory

The number of council homes has fallen sharply over the past 25 years. In 1981, there were 6,305,000 properties rented from local authorities; by 2005 the figure had dropped to 2,803,000. Over the same period, homes rented from social landlords increased from 473,000 to 2,154,000. Owner occupation rose by 50% - from 12,442,000 to 18,405,000. Government figures show that right-to-buy legislation led to a steady erosion of the stock of social housing from the early 1980s onwards. In Islington South, according to the Labour party, 7,500 new homes were built between 2000 and 2005, of which 1,581 were affordable. Of the 13,120 families on the waiting list, more than 4,500 have enough points to bid for re-housing.

[The Colour]

Here

Victims of London's property boom

Thousands are trapped between spiralling prices and desperate lack of council housing

Larry Elliott

Friday November 24, 2006

The Guardian

Vicky Walsh is a typical Islington resident. Typical but not stereotypical. The stereotypical Islington resident is a well-heeled trendy liberal who takes a surreptitious peek in the windows of estate agents on Upper Street, tut-tuts at dinner parties about the lunacy of the property market and picks up tips from television programmes providing owner-occupiers with advice on how to add value to their homes.

Ms Walsh does none of these things because she doesn't own her own home. Like more than 13,000 other families she is on Islington council's waiting list to be rehoused. She needs rehousing because she and her partner live with their two seven-month old twin boys in a one-bedroom flat that an estate agent would call compact and everybody else would call small.

Article continues

MOVE.OUT.OF.ISLINGTON.

[Guest X-QUORK]

MOVE.OUT.OF.ISLINGTON.

Yeah, cheeky proles wanting to live somewhere just because they have done all their lives, just because their family and friends live there. Who do they think they are?

[The Colour]

Yeah, cheeky proles wanting to live somewhere just because they have done all their lives, just because their family and friends live there. Who do they think they are?

I know, crazy innit.

[Europa]

Yeah, cheeky proles wanting to live somewhere just because they have done all their lives, just because their family and friends live there. Who do they think they are?

It isn't as though they'll be barred from entering the area to visit I don't believe anyone has a right to live in a desirable area just because their parents do

[StainlessSteelCat]

MOVE.OUT.OF.ISLINGTON.

Agreed - I work near Angel but I live in East Ham. You can get rooms in HMO for £50-60/week.

No chance of getting on council list in either area. Personally I think they should stop RTB in London (if you can afford to buy - you should be buying at market rates and not stiffing the next batch of people who need social housing).

[Guest X-QUORK]

It isn't as though they'll be barred from entering the area to visit I don't believe anyone has a right to live in a desirable area just because their parents do

Agreed that nobody has the right to live in a desirable area just because their family and friends do, however I do find it sad that locals are forced out by the wealthy. The same thing happens in the country of course, here in the Cotswolds is a prime example.

[mosstrooper]

i said before. we are heading back to the good old days with whole families living in a "room & kitchen".

except it will be called a "studio apartment". The kitchen will be shinier and the floor laminated. but the end result will be the same.

[Fancypants]

Personally I think they should stop RTB in London (if you can afford to buy - you should be buying at market rates and not stiffing the next batch of people who need social housing).

the discounts have been slashed in the last year - from £38,000 to £16,000 - in one particular London borough.

[Nonnamouse]

Agreed that nobody has the right to live in a desirable area just because their family and friends do, however I do find it sad that locals are forced out by the wealthy. The same thing happens in the country of course, here in the Cotswolds is a prime example.

Often rich Londoner's who want a second home in order to get away from all the "foreigners" in London. They would agree that housing is a major issue in the village but would vociferously object to any attempts to build new housing because it might upset the equilibrium. They might have to have coarse "locals" as neighbours and that would never do. Why do you think they got onto the local council?

[Guest Cletus VanDamme]

i said before. we are heading back to the good old days with whole families living in a "room & kitchen".

except it will be called a "studio apartment". The kitchen will be shinier and the floor laminated. but the end result will be the same.

I agree. It's something I've wondered about also. I think it is very possible, even likely, that we will revert back to a Victorian society of low social mobility, have and have-nots cast in stone. As with Victorian society, your class will be determined by your ownership of property (or lack of).

Here:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...st&p=439371

and

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...st&p=439436

Edited November 24, 2006 by Cletus VanDamme

[Fancypants]

I agree. It's something I've wondered about also. I think it is very possible, even likely, that we will revert back to a Victorian society of low social mobility, have and have-nots cast in stone.

agreed, which is precisely why any progressive person with an interest in the ongoing survival of "modernity" should be heartily endorsing an HPC.

Obviously the government does not form part of the aforementioned group.

[hankdd]

Its like Daisy whatsit with her daughter crying in the kitchen 'mummy I will never get on the property ladder' . It is starting to bite the smug bastars on the ****. Having to MEW their pensions to get their children a shithole over a taxi rank. Now you will see change believe me. They could not give a rats **** when it was nurses.

Edited November 24, 2006 by hankdd

[Rachman]

Obvious point, I suppose, but where was the common sense in having a baby (presumably she only expected one in the first place), when they lived in a one bedroom flat. Given that rents are not huge for two bedroom flats in the private sector, why is the fatehr of her kids not out earning the money to pay for housing his kids and their mother instead of assuming we'll pay for it. It's central London, you are not for one moment going to suggest there are no jobs are you ? If he has no income and no prospect of it, why are we paying for them to have kids ?

I will happily pay to help people who help themselves, but from what was written in the article, it seems there has been some judicious editing to paint the story one way....

[Bear Goggles]

It isn't as though they'll be barred from entering the area to visit I don't believe anyone has a right to live in a desirable area just because their parents do

The sad fact is that the flat in question probably isn't in a desirable area - much of 'Islington South' is increadably grim crime ridden 'sink' estates. Most well-healed islingtonites wouldn't be seen dead there (possibly becaue their bodies would be chucked into the regents canal)

[Guest X-QUORK]

Given that rents are not huge for two bedroom flats in the private sector, why is the fatehr of her kids not out earning the money to pay for housing his kids and their mother instead of assuming we'll pay for it. It's central London, you are not for one moment going to suggest there are no jobs are you ? If he has no income and no prospect of it, why are we paying for them to have kids ?

Rachman

It doesn't mention their income so it's hard to draw conclusions about their moral right to social housing. I would tend to agree with your opinion that if the father is out of work they shouldn't be reproducing, but it's quite conceivable that he's employed on a low wage which puts them in a different category to spongers IMO.

[PropertyGuru]

islington - pretty high up the 'shite places to live' list wasnt it?

[subsidiser]

MOVE.OUT.OF.ISLINGTON.

Right with you. WTF do people paying taxes in Glasgow and Leeds get for their tax money by subsidising "the poor" of Islington?

[Rachman]

Rachman

It doesn't mention their income so it's hard to draw conclusions about their moral right to social housing. I would tend to agree with your opinion that if the father is out of work they shouldn't be reproducing, but it's quite conceivable that he's employed on a low wage which puts them in a different category to spongers IMO.

I agree, but presumably being adults, they worked out what it would cost them to have a child and chose to have one (or took a chance and she got up the spout with double trouble).

In any event, this is part of the problem, people expect subsidising for their own decisions, if I decide the missus and I are going to sprog next year, will you all be happy to subsidise our mortgage as missus won't be earning ? Course not, instead we plan and do things that don't require use to rely on other people and handouts (which is to a greater or lesser extent what council housing is).

[Guest X-QUORK]

Right with you. WTF do people paying taxes in Glasgow and Leeds get for their tax money by subsidising "the poor" of Islington?

What a daft question. That's like asking what do the poorly paid taxpayers of Islington get by subsidising the "the poor" of Glasgow or Leeds?

[subsidiser]

What a daft question. That's like asking what do the poorly paid taxpayers of Islington get by subsidising the "the poor" of Glasgow or Leeds?

The point, that bleeding heart liberals (or in fact Nu Labour), have forgotten is that Islington is a rich area. If you can't afford to live there you don't have "a right" to do so. And you should not expect people who are poorer than you to subsidise your lifestyle.

I think you missed my point completely?

Do you remember Monty Pythons Lupin sketch?

Edited November 24, 2006 by subsidiser

[Guest X-QUORK]

I agree, but presumably being adults, they worked out what it would cost them to have a child and chose to have one (or took a chance and she got up the spout with double trouble).

In any event, this is part of the problem, people expect subsidising for their own decisions, if I decide the missus and I are going to sprog next year, will you all be happy to subsidise our mortgage as missus won't be earning ? Course not, instead we plan and do things that don't require use to rely on other people and handouts (which is to a greater or lesser extent what council housing is).

Again I agree with you, but not everyone has the upbringing and intellect to lift themselves out of poorly paid semi-poverty. There's a moral dilema for me in that I agree it's irresponsible to have kids unless you can afford to, but to live in a society that only allows the wealthy middle classes to breed seems a tad Orwellian.

[subsidiser]

Again I agree with you, but not everyone has the upbringing and intellect to lift themselves out of poorly paid semi-poverty. There's a moral dilema for me in that I agree it's irresponsible to have kids unless you can afford to, but to live in a society that only allows the wealthy middle classes to breed seems a tad Orwellian.

But are they too stupid to move somewhere cheaper?

[Rachman]

Again I agree with you, but not everyone has the upbringing and intellect to lift themselves out of poorly paid semi-poverty. There's a moral dilema for me in that I agree it's irresponsible to have kids unless you can afford to, but to live in a society that only allows the wealthy middle classes to breed seems a tad Orwellian.

The irony is that in the UK, the middle classes are the ones who don't breed because they can't afford to. By the time I get round to kids, my mother had a 17 year old and a 14 year old (not sure that reads right , but you know what I mean)

Who would you rather be able to be afford to breed, the subsidised illeducated classes who rely on the state or the ones who actually earn the money and pay the taxes ?

[MRMX9]

I am very sympathetic but it is arguably quite cruel (and a poor use of public money) to force the very poor to live in the most expensive parts of London.

Westminster City Council for example pays out over £160m per annum in housing benefits (twice what it spends on schools!) to subsidise people to live in one of the most expensive areas in the world! Only around £40m of that goes to council tenants - the rest to people in the private sector rental market and housing association properties. It is quite a shocking amount of money and that only for one London borough!