Landlords from Hell - Channel 4 tonight at 8.30

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I've decided against the crayons anyway. I'm pretty sure you'd just eat them. Much of the Victorian Housing stock was designed and built for .... uh .... Victorians. I'll ask again.........



I know you long to see the roads full of Ford Prefects powered by modern electric motors, but the people don't want that either. Social Housing tenants are consumers, not second hand citizens only fit to be shepherded into the kind of housing no-one else wants.

Your arguments are becoming ridiculous now.

Thankyou for clarifying that Victorian housing was built by and for the Victorians. But we already knew that. Aesthetics aside (And I feel that Victorian housing is much nicer looking than modern housing from the 50s onwards, whats your opinion?) my point is there is no INHERENT fault with the type of housing outlined in the dormant stock programme discussed at hand (ie 2 up 2 down Victorian terraces) that some light refurbishment wont fix (Which would be cheaper and less wasteful) than demolition and rebuild. The only point I grant you is that some of this stock has small garden space. Reality check: Newbuild social (and some private) housing HAS EVEN LESS.

I have no idea what youre on about with Electric cars. Er... if your point is we can do away with societal reliance on noxious fossil fuels for private transport then, yes I do support that...(?)

lighting_up_the_chalice

propertyman wrote: »

You are from an alternate reality. Have you wandered around the Victorian parts for most UK cities, perhaps even Boston or Toronto who have even more Victorian housing than London?

And it sells !

Nothing wrong with refurbishing it and living in it.

Social housing tenants are in the main from the 1980's onward are second hand and second class consumers in housing. They should get a decent standard to live in, in the same way as any house should have decent standards, but choice has to be met from the sweat of their brow, not mine.


They have not all bee gutted out inwhite timblerfloored palaces,

See post #69.

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Then why ask the question.....



When the disabled were mentioned in a post?

I think youre typically confused. To clarify two points:

1) The disabled are not a race.

2) My remark 'Why bring up race' was in response to Concerned34s comment about Ulfars post:
"What a disgusting comment - replace 'benefits' with black, jewish or disabled and would you have written the same comment?
Of course not - but you think its perfectly acceptable to discriminate against another minority! People like you make me sick"

I felt it was bringing race into a broader arguement about benefits and social housing that was clouding the issue.

Sorry you seem to have taken this personally...

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

Your arguments are becoming ridiculous now.

Thankyou for clarifying that Victorian housing was built by and for the Victorians. But we already knew that. Aesthetics aside (And I feel that Victorian housing is much nicer looking than modern housing from the 50s onwards, whats your opinion?) my point is there is no INHERENT fault with the type of housing outlined in the dormant stock programme discussed at hand (ie 2 up 2 down Victorian terraces) that some light refurbishment wont fix (Which would be cheaper and less wasteful) than demolition and rebuild. The only point I grant you is that some of this stock has small garden space. Reality check: Newbuild social (and some private) housing HAS EVEN LESS.

I have no idea what youre on about with Electric cars. Er... if your point is we can do away with societal reliance on noxious fossil fuels for private transport then, yes I do support that...(?)

(Yawn) The point was, for the hard of understanding, that people don't want to buy For Prefects anymore, regardless of propulsion method. The same applies to much of the Victorian housing stock. It's bog standard, outdated housing, nothing special, nothing unique, nothing anyone wants. Why not scrap it and built the housing people want? Why is that such a difficult notion for you to grasp?

clutton_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

That is certainly a huge part of the problem. But one aspect of the Localism Bill will be the facility for LA's to discharge a homeless duty to house with the offer of privately rented accommodation.

they can do that now...... and many do

propertyman

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I see your rather broad and uneducated brush has decided to paint all social housing the same colour. Do a bit of research. Look at where the pathfinder areas are. Look at the stock. Look at the area. Most of it is private, not social, housing, left to ruin by landlords who have no social concern for the plight of their tenants or the wider community. Selective licensing was introduced to try and address this with those landlords requiring registration which entailed establishing that they were "fit and proper". Were talking more of slum clearance, not demolishing the leafy suburbs.

Erm ok my BA Hons in town planning from South Bank was written in your crayons perhaps? Lets not go into the post grad qualification either shall we.

You have the same attitude of the agenda driven numpties who prayed off their clientèle back then in the 80's that led me to flee to the real world. The problems we face today are the ones that I said would happen.

No one is saying that modern accommodations particular those of the RSL's are not good accommodation.

The point is that it is expensive and the country cannot and should not afford it.

Younger single men and women should live in barracks and hostels and those that will not behave and who are not ill, can go and live in cave.

They should invest in themselves and earn accommodation.At the same time government needs to open the floodgates in development through new towns, and use workfare to change the attitudes and aspirations of the young , and those needing a second chance, to give them impetus and means to aspire to a home and the career to go with it.

They can start with refurbishing perfectly serviceable Victorian homes.

jc808

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I see your rather broad and uneducated brush has decided to paint all social housing the same colour. Do a bit of research. Look at where the pathfinder areas are. Look at the stock. Look at the area. Most of it is private, not social, housing, left to ruin by landlords who have no social concern for the plight of their tenants or the wider community. Selective licensing was introduced to try and address this with those landlords requiring registration which entailed establishing that they were "fit and proper". Were talking more of slum clearance, not demolishing the leafy suburbs.

If youve done your research to come to these conclusions, good on you. But what I ask is IF these are indeed private housing (So we cannot bring the council to task over letting them go to waste) then why are they under the remit of the council/ government who, under Pathfinder want to WASTEFULLY demolish and rebuild them, which brings us back to the SAME ARGUMENT

lighting_up_the_chalice

jc808 wrote: »

I think youre typically confused. To clarify two points:

1) The disabled are not a race.

2) My remark 'Why bring up race' was in response to Concerned34s comment about Ulfars post:
"What a disgusting comment - replace 'benefits' with black, jewish or disabled and would you have written the same comment?
Of course not - but you think its perfectly acceptable to discriminate against another minority! People like you make me sick"

I felt it was bringing race into a broader arguement about benefits and social housing that was clouding the issue.

Sorry you seem to have taken this personally...

Concerned34 listed various MINORITIES, which he then went on to call MINORITIES. It was YOU who decided to assume that a discussion regarding MINORITIES must be based on race. .... And some think it's ME who should go to specsavers.

We're in a pedantic circle now, so I'll bow out of this little sub-debate and get back to housing. I just wouldn't want this thread to descend into the usual blame game that so many others seem to. I'm sure you know what I mean.

clutton_2

i rent out a number of late victorian early edwardian pavement terraces in the north, there is always a demand for them, and they are in good condition... i dont know what you two are arguing about.... but its getting boring.....

lighting_up_the_chalice

clutton wrote: »

they can do that now...... and many do

Not with an offer, they can't. It's currently what they call a "qualifying offer" of privately rented accommodation, which the applicant is perfectly able to turn down with no penalty and no discharge of the duty to house. Only if they accept is the duty discharged. Under the localism bill, a reasonable offer of private accommodation would be regarded in the same way as a reasonable offer of a secure tenancy, ie refusal would lead to the discharge of the homeless duty to house (pending the established review procedure, of course).