More Social Cleansing from Dave

mwpt

stator wrote: »

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.

What if you could quantify this to high accuracy. If moving unproductive people out of an area which needed more homes, building those homes, and allowing people who worked in the area to relocate there, resulted in 5% more happiness across the entire population (including the relocated people) on average, but 30% less happiness in the smaller group of people who had been relocated. Would you think this was worth it? This is a hypothetical scenario, made up, but needs to be accepted as I presented it in order for me to ask the question:

Or do you lean more toward small scale justice on a personal level rather than at a societal level? I'm not at all passing a judgement on you here, it's an interesting discussion I think.

lisyloo

mwpt wrote: »

What if you could quantify this to high accuracy. If moving unproductive people out of an area which needed more homes, building those homes, and allowing people who worked in the area to relocate there, resulted in 5% more happiness across the entire population (including the relocated people) on average, but 30% less happiness in the smaller group of people who had been relocated. Would you think this was worth it? This is a hypothetical scenario, made up, but needs to be accepted as I presented it in order for me to ask the question:

Or do you lean more toward small scale justice on a personal level rather than at a societal level? I'm not at all passing a judgement on you here, it's an interesting discussion I think.

There is an assumption there that moving people out of dirty, smelly central London to say beautiful countryside would make them less happy. Why would it automatically have to be a downgrade?

Most people suffer overcrowding and pollution for the sake of their careers. If you don't have to work then there are much nicer places to live.

Why can't it be a win/win instead?

mwpt

lisyloo wrote: »

There is an assumption there that moving people out of dirty, smelly central London to say beautiful countryside would make them less happy. Why would it automatically have to be a downgrade?

I need to have those assumptions and you need to accept them off hand, in order for me to ask the relevant question. Is small scale social justice more important than larger scale if the small scale negatives are higher than the large scale positives.

Most people suffer overcrowding and pollution for the sake of their careers. If you don't have to work then there are much nicer places to live.

Why can't it be a win/win instead?

This is an entirely valid, but different question to the one I'm asking. I'm interested in both.

setmefree2

Generali wrote: »

Compulsory purchase order is normally the way they go AIUI.

TBH this has been going on in London for a while now.

Thank God.

These estates are awful places to live yet there will be lots of whining from the Labour Party that the Tories are "breaking up communities". The truth is that lumping the poor into one place is a really bad idea. Far better to have the poor mixed into the rest of the community in housing association properties. (I think the French have something to learn from us in this regard. Those big slums they have in Paris will cause them so much trouble.)

It's my belief (having sold my father's 4 bed room home in a working class area for £60k in 2013) that there isn't a shortage of houses in England - just a shortage of homes in middle/upper class areas. Getting rid of ghettos of working class housing, where nobody wants to live, is a start to solving some of our housing problems.

kabayiri

lisyloo wrote: »

There is an assumption there that moving people out of dirty, smelly central London to say beautiful countryside would make them less happy. Why would it automatically have to be a downgrade?
...

I think we have to tread carefully.

The prevailing view in the 50s and 60s was to demolish inner city slums and create new large estates further out. There are several such estates around Manchester for example.

Unfortunately, they didn't factor in the isolation that came with some of these estates. Amenities on the estates were poor, and they have become trouble spots in their own right.

With intelligent planning, there is no reason that there can't be a much more diverse housing stock in a given area. What's wrong with building very small living units for single workers for example?

kabayiri

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Let the workers be near the work and the non productive where it doesn't matter. How fair is it that working tax payers spend 1000s of their wages and 100hrs a year commuting in and out of London just so people who don't even need to be in London can keep their free house in zone2?

It's not social cleansing it's common sense

Why do we still locate refugees and others needing state support in one of the most expensive capital cities in the world?

Freeing up some of these places would provide funds to build alternate accommodation in cheaper places.

There was an Iranian family featured recently on tv, where father; mother and grown-up son all shared a tiny flat in London. They came from a wealthier lifestyle and were now existing in a place costing the taxpayer £1700 a month!

Why not relocate them to a place where even half that budget secures a better property? They had no ties in London to speak of.

I think we could make much better use of the existing housing stock in places in demand.

MARTYM8`

Generali wrote: »

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

So the violent thugs are going to disappear are they – or just relocated to become someone else’s problem.

These schemes have already happened in London. Council sells to developer – usually at below market value – existing social rented tenants are relocated (sometimes outside the borough or even London) and owners have the homes compulsorily purchased at a market rate (based on what you would pay for a flat in a council estate!). With the funds they raise the owners cannot afford to buy locally – so move often to outer London or further afield.

Developer redevelops the place – and hey presto nice shiny new builds appear sold to foreign investors and the very wealthy (who else can afford £650k for a one bed or £1.3m for a three bed?). A few ‘affordable homes’ will be thrown in at 80 per cent of market rent (about four times the previous social rent) with shared ownership available (25% shares) which you need to be earning £60k plus to afford.

Yes the thugs might be relocated to zone 3 – to terrorise someone else – but many ordinary hard working folk doing jobs London needs are effectively cleansed from the capital.

And the local council of course doesn’t need to spend as much money any more on services – as those on lower incomes/families leave the area.

Maybe you think that’s a good thing!

setmefree2

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Maybe you think that’s a good thing!

What about the rest of us? The normal hard working Londoners. We have kids who need homes too.

You want our kids (who are more than happy to work hard) to leave the city just so that the out-of-work/never gonna work can occupy large tracts of prime London land.

And why?

Just because someone thought it was a good idea after the war to house them in the inner city when nobody wanted to live there because of bomb damage.

It's just nuts to house the unemployed in London. Nuts.

CLAPTON

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.

In London, utility workers, nurses etc can't afford to live in many of the areas where social housing is provided free for unproductive people.

It is because the house is scarce that we will have to decide whether London becomes a no go area for essential workers or takes steps.

The choice will be between essential productive people or unproductive people.

antrobus

stator wrote: »

...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....

If that's true, then why did the Labour Party react by stating that "a bigger scheme with more investment is required", and why did the Guardian characterise it as "a bid for the political centre ground".

Do you understand that what is being suggested is just simple more of what is already happening? See, for example Woodberry Down estate in Hackney; 1,980 homes to be demolished, 5,500 new homes to be built, "up to 17% more homes across all tenures".

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/woodberry-down.htm