More Social Cleansing from Dave

cells

antrobus wrote: »

But council tenants already possessed the right to live in the property for the rest of their lives.

What are you suggesting? That tenants should have been offered the opportunity to pay a one-off capital payment in order to get a reduction in rent?

yes that is what he suggested and sadly the shared ownership scam is actually looking like its going that way

people buy for £100k say 25% of a flat valued at £400k. They are responsible for the mortgage on that £100k and the whole flat service charge (even though they own only 25%) plus rent to the council/HA. All that is just about acceptable even though its imo a bad deal. However what these 'owners' are finding is that they cannot buy the rest of the share (insufficient savings or income) and when the lease drops to 80 years or below then effectively every year the council/HA is repossessing a portion of the property such that in 80 years time you own nothing!

I am already seeing shared ownerships come to market with 81-85 years left on the lease and my best guess is these are the somewhat smarter lot who see how screwed they are and are hoping another fool takes it off their hands and someone will. But the next fool say they live there for 20 years and come to sell, well with 60-65 years left on the lease how are they going to do that?

I really hope the councils extend the shared ownership leases for nowt else its going to be a huge scam

cells

stator wrote: »

Except the rents will be higher and all of the original residents will have been 'cleansed' from the area by the time the new builds are finished.

i know one woman who was hell bent in not leaving her hackney 3 bed flat (lived there alone) which was going to be knocked down and rebuilt and most the residents were not going to take that. She was mighty !!!!ed off when the council went ahead anywhere but once she moved into her new 1 bed flat in walthamstow she was really happy with it

basically a lot of people are like you, negative and only see the downside. You think everyone is out to get you. The reality is that most people in life and business try to be fair and that change is usually for the better.

chris_m

cells wrote: »

i know one woman who was hell bent in not leaving her hackney 3 bed flat (lived there alone) which was going to be knocked down and rebuilt and most the residents were not going to take that. She was mighty !!!!ed off when the council went ahead anywhere but once she moved into her new 1 bed flat in walthamstow she was really happy with it

It could have ended up rather differently if she'd been in China;

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china-nail-houses-in-pictures-property-development

:rotfl:

stator

cells wrote: »

basically a lot of people are like you, negative and only see the downside. You think everyone is out to get you. The reality is that most people in life and business try to be fair and that change is usually for the better.

:rotfl:
Property developers are hardly known for treating residents fairly.
I've heard of a million broken promises regarding regeneration schems.
"We will fit all homes with free solar panels". Never happened
"Everyone who leaves will get a unit in the new houses". Never happened.
"30% will be 'affordable'". Reduced to 20% after all the old houses are demolished.
"We will build a new swimming pool for the area". Never happened
"We will reinvest the money in the airport". Closed the airport.

HornetSaver

thequant wrote: »

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.

There are hundreds of thousands of jobs in London that are only viable because they are relatively lowly paid (cleaners, shop assistants in the broadest possible sense, security guards, people who work at free attractions such as museums, and so on). I left public sector jobs out because discussion on appropriate levels of public sector pay tend to descend into political slanging matches, but needless to say some of those jobs are also towards the lower end of earnings.

I would agree with the quote if there were somewhere viable for these people to live. Some are underpaid, but all are jobs which will inevitably be at the lower end of the payscale in any capitalist economy.

lisyloo

HornetSaver wrote: »

There are hundreds of thousands of jobs in London that are only viable because they are relatively lowly paid (cleaners, shop assistants in the broadest possible sense, security guards, people who work at free attractions such as museums, and so on). I left public sector jobs out because discussion on appropriate levels of public sector pay tend to descend into political slanging matches, but needless to say some of those jobs are also towards the lower end of earnings.

I would agree with the quote if there were somewhere viable for these people to live. Some are underpaid, but all are jobs which will inevitably be at the lower end of the payscale in any capitalist economy.

I don't get your point.
Aren't we talking about removing those who don't contribute at all?
We clearly need low paid workers like waiters, drivers, nurses etc.

Rich2808

cells wrote: »

yes that is what he suggested and sadly the shared ownership scam is actually looking like its going that way

people buy for £100k say 25% of a flat valued at £400k. They are responsible for the mortgage on that £100k and the whole flat service charge (even though they own only 25%) plus rent to the council/HA. All that is just about acceptable even though its imo a bad deal. However what these 'owners' are finding is that they cannot buy the rest of the share (insufficient savings or income) and when the lease drops to 80 years or below then effectively every year the council/HA is repossessing a portion of the property such that in 80 years time you own nothing!

I am already seeing shared ownerships come to market with 81-85 years left on the lease and my best guess is these are the somewhat smarter lot who see how screwed they are and are hoping another fool takes it off their hands and someone will. But the next fool say they live there for 20 years and come to sell, well with 60-65 years left on the lease how are they going to do that?

I really hope the councils extend the shared ownership leases for nowt else its going to be a huge scam

They are seeking to expand shared ownership though and the salary thresholds are being raised to £80k outside London and £90k in London. Yes it's got so mad we are now having to offer government help to people earning £90k to buy 25 per cent of a fiat.

You are paying a huge premium for security of tenure - which council houses used to offer. And it's disgusting that any developer or HA should be able to sell a new build on a short 99 year lease meaning within 30 years of ownership it becomes almost unmortgageable. What a scam - it's no wonder housing association Chief Execs are amongst the most highly paid in the public sector.

HornetSaver

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't get your point.
Aren't we talking about removing those who don't contribute at all?
We clearly need low paid workers like waiters, drivers, nurses etc.

Yes. And where are they going to live if London is purely private sector?

Generali

HornetSaver wrote: »

Yes. And where are they going to live if London is purely private sector?

If the Government (taxpayers) stop subsidising poorly paid workers to live in London then shops and bars and other low payers will find they have to pay their staff more or go without workers.

If you subsidise something you get more of it, that's an economic truism. If low pay is bad as I believe it is, stop subsidising it.

Moby

stator wrote: »

:rotfl:
Property developers are hardly known for treating residents fairly.
I've heard of a million broken promises regarding regeneration schems.
"We will fit all homes with free solar panels". Never happened
"Everyone who leaves will get a unit in the new houses". Never happened.
"30% will be 'affordable'". Reduced to 20% after all the old houses are demolished.
"We will build a new swimming pool for the area". Never happened
"We will reinvest the money in the airport". Closed the airport.

They also buy up land and don't do anything on it for years to maximise their returns while homelessness in London grows and grows!:mad: