More Social Cleansing from Dave

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

they could buy them the average terrace house in stoke-on-trent for 25 months rent.....

stator

antrobus wrote: »

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

I don't really care what Labour have to say on any issue, but replacing 2k homes with 5.5k homes sounds like they must be building more rabbit hutches than homes. I doubt any new rentals are under the same terms as council houses either. 'affordable rent' is charged at 90% market rate.

Rich2808

setmefree2 wrote: »

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.

Who says everyone in social housing or currently on those estates is unemployed. Most are not - they just cannot afford market rent at £1500 a month or to pay several hundred grand for a one bed flat as they earn the average wage or less.

All I can say is your hard working average kids cannot be that average if they can afford to pay 600k for a one bed flat - that is becoming the going rate in many zone 1 and 2 news builds arising from this supposed regeneration. There is a new development in Paddington where one bed shoeboxes - as that is what they are - start at £950k.

What they need is affordable housing - not shiny new builds where 2 bed flats cost £1m and overseas investors are the only ones who can afford them.

mwpt

Rich2808 wrote: »

Who says everyone in social housing or currently on those estates is unemployed. Most are not - they just cannot afford market rent at £1500 a month or to pay several hundred grand for a one bed flat as they earn the average wage or less.

All I can say is your hard working average kids cannot be that average if they can afford to pay 600k for a one bed flat - that is becoming the going rate in many zone 1 and 2 news builds arising from this supposed regeneration. There is a new development in Paddington where one bed shoeboxes - as that is what they are - start at £950k.

What they need is affordable housing - not shiny new builds where 2 bed flats cost £1m and overseas investors are the only ones who can afford them.

But if these shoeboxes are selling for £950k, how much worse would you have to build them to be classified as "affordable housing"?

antrobus

stator wrote: »

I don't really care what Labour have to say on any issue, but replacing 2k homes with 5.5k homes sounds like they must be building more rabbit hutches than homes. I doubt any new rentals are under the same terms as council houses either. 'affordable rent' is charged at 90% market rate.

But if these proposals do involve any 'social cleansing' surely you would expect the Corbynist Labour Party to start saying so rather than saying that it wasn't enough? Surely you would expect the Guardian to make a fuss about it?

You are just trying to score some cheap political point whilst being blissfully ignorant of the detail involved.

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

I don't really care what Labour have to say on any issue, but replacing 2k homes with 5.5k homes sounds like they must be building more rabbit hutches than homes. I doubt any new rentals are under the same terms as council houses either. 'affordable rent' is charged at 90% market rate.

if you are against replacing 2k homes by 5.5k then what is your solution; complete social cleansing of everyone with a job?

kabayiri

cells wrote: »

they could buy them the average terrace house in stoke-on-trent for 25 months rent.....

I've lived and worked in different parts of stoke on trent.

It might not be mayfair, but it's far better than the environment the Iranian couple fled.

We have 100,000+ Somali refugees here, the vast majority are unemployed. They could be housed in any one of dozens of cheaper estates up North and it would still be better living standards than back in Somalia.

Could the real reason behind placing desperate people in London be that it supports a myriad of social worker and other council jobs in the region?

There can not be an economic rationale.

danothy

mwpt wrote: »

But if these shoeboxes are selling for £950k, how much worse would you have to build them to be classified as "affordable housing"?

Maybe it would be better to not reduce the build quality and size, but sell them very cheaply anyway, and only to people who can't afford what they're actually worth. I defy anyone to find a flaw in that plan.

mwpt

danothy wrote: »

Maybe it would be better to not reduce the build quality and size, but sell them very cheaply anyway, and only to people who can't afford what they're actually worth. I defy anyone to find a flaw in that plan.

Ha ha.

How do I enter that particular lottery?

cells

MARTYM8` wrote: »

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

a combination of both

your surroundings impact greatly on you and what you become and also even on what is socially acceptable or not.