More Social Cleansing from Dave

stator

Generali wrote: »

Easy for the person that doesn't have to live among violent thugs to say.

Funny you should say that, I'm moving to a council estate :j
Well, it used to be a council estate, before RTB gave away half the houses on the cheap.
They're not all full of violent thugs you know.

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

Most private landlords refuse to accept HB. Social housing is being destroyed through RTB and lack of new build letting units to replace.
I don't see where people will live if the private landlords don't want them.

I'm sure it is more important that poor people should be found nice spacious property in a central area of London than utility workers, teachers, nurses etc.

csgohan4

stator wrote: »

Most private landlords refuse to accept HB. Social housing is being destroyed through RTB and lack of new build letting units to replace.
I don't see where people will live if the private landlords don't want them.

Private landlords don't let to HB for mortgage and insurance reasons as they exclude HB from their BTL mortgages and landlord insurance.

High risk of issues in the property possibly, at least statistically.

RTB is the one that can be controlled from government level, but they choose to continue this old scheme. This reduces the amount of housing that was originally built by the council and increases the amount of private landlords or those that make a profit at the tax payers expense.

I didn't get a discount for my house, should they get a discount? is that fair?

Private landlord's prices understandably are market force driven, not to mention the exorbitant fees EA charge for tenancy renewals and reference checks, borne from lack of regulation from the sector.

mwpt

stator wrote: »

Most private landlords refuse to accept HB. Social housing is being destroyed through RTB and lack of new build letting units to replace.
I don't see where people will live if the private landlords don't want them.

Do you think that reflects badly on private landlords, or schemes which aim to increase the total housing stock?

stator

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm sure it is more important that poor people should be found nice spacious property in a central area of London that utility workers, teachers, nurses etc.

Utility workers can rent privately. Nurses aren't poorly paid either.

But we're talking about demolishing people's homes and replacing them with housing they don't have access to. It's just creating pressure on a resource that is already limited.

This applies to other regions and not just inner city London. In Plymouth they knock down 100 council houses and put up 300 mostly privately owned houses.

cells

stator wrote: »

Most private landlords refuse to accept HB. Social housing is being destroyed through RTB and lack of new build letting units to replace.
I don't see where people will live if the private landlords don't want them.

there needs to be some social housing as the private sector simply cant/wont deal with some types of tenants.

however its probably well below the 5 million social units that exist. Probably less than half that figure

danothy

Generali wrote: »

I must say, I do find the phrase 'social cleansing' hateful.

It tries to draw some kind of moral equivalence between the 'ethnic cleansing' in Yugoslavia as was or Rwanda and trying to improve state owned housing in London.

There is no link between the things. It isn't, unlike what a lot of people that use this sort of ridiculous hyperbole would have you believe, a small step from knocking over a few tower blocks that have never served the purpose for which they were built to knocking over millions of people because you deem them to belong to the 'wrong' race.

Also, victims of ethnic cleansing don't enjoy the guaranteed right to return that this initiative provides.

cells

stator wrote: »

Utility workers can rent privately. Nurses aren't poorly paid either.

But we're talking about demolishing people's homes and replacing them with housing they don't have access to. It's just creating pressure on a resource that is already limited.

This applies to other regions and not just inner city London. In Plymouth they knock down 100 council houses and put up 300 mostly privately owned houses.

for the greater good comrade

the proceeds from the building and sale of the shiny new homes can be used to buy some older stock elsewhere. For instance knock down an estate of 1000 flats in hackney rebuild 2500 flats and your probably up £300m which is could buy you 3,000 private homes up and down the country to make them social.

but of course some hold the idea that there are too many social homes, not too few, so you need to work out that assumption before you say where will they all go

thequant

We need to remove social housing completely from London. A big reason for the housing shortage in the capital is due to unproductive people squatting on public land which could be lived on by those willing to contribute to society and the goverments coffers.

stator

You really want all poor widows and single mothers and disabled people to be forced out of London? That would be quite extreme social cleansing.
Not sure the rest of the country wants a huge influx of poor people either to be honest.