£300 a month or £3,000?

Pobby

existentialist wrote: »

Hard to know what your true sentiment is... if you have true sentiment...

Social housing just not your scene?

Give it a year at least social housing could well be a saviour, when no idiots are to be found for the overpriced boxes.

Then I guess you havn`t read many of my posts here and on HPC. So what are you implying?

existentialist

SquatNow wrote: »

"Social Housing" or "Disused Aircraft hangers" as it will soon be known.

If I felt that way Squat Now I would squat now...
Long way off...

What makes you think others faced with such 'camps' in your scenario would just sit back & take it? Won't happen...

Like the idiot Pobby bemoaning a reasonable rent paid for one just idolised...

Pobby

existentialist wrote: »

If I felt that way Squat Now I would squat now...
Long way off...

What makes you think others faced with such 'camps' in your scenario would just sit back & take it? Won't happen...

Like the idiot Pobby bemoaning a reasonable rent paid for one just idolised...

Before you throw out the term ``idiot``, where have I bemoaned a rent of £75 a week for any of those properties?

SquatNow

existentialist wrote: »

If I felt that way Squat Now I would squat now... Long way off...

Keeping this option open is exactly the reason for the SquatNow.com website and social squatting concept. Don't give the government a reason to ban it!

existentialist wrote: »

What makes you think others faced with such 'camps' in your scenario would just sit back & take it? Won't happen..

People will be told it is just "temporary" while the government makes better provisions. "Temporary" then drags out months until people just except that that is how it is. People will except amazing circustances as bearable when they are promised things will get better in future if they just give it a few more weeks.

Incidently, Disused airbases isn't just made up, it's the current official government contingency plan in the event of mass homelessness. Tis no secret... the first stages of the plan have been used before during flooding, and second stages have been put into motion but never needed.

I did a thread on it a while back. Caused a lot of controversy.

existentialist

Quote Pobby :

Before you throw out the term ``idiot``, where have I bemoaned a rent of £75 a week for any of those properties?



True.... you probably see the 'value' hitting you in the face.
HPC guy as you are.

existentialist

SquatNow wrote: »

Keeping this option open is exactly the reason for the SquatNow.com website and social squatting concept. Don't give the government a reason to ban it!



People will be told it is just "temporary" while the government makes better provisions. "Temporary" then drags out months until people just except that that is how it is. People will except amazing circustances as bearable when they are promised things will get better in future if they just give it a few more weeks.

Incidently, Disused airbases isn't just made up, it's the current official government contingency plan in the event of mass homelessness. Tis no secret... the first stages of the plan have been used before during flooding, and second stages have been put into motion but never needed.

I did a thread on it a while back. Caused a lot of controversy.

Yes, think I read it at the time.
But, still feel you underestimate folk common like me.

SquatNow

existentialist wrote: »

Yes, think I read it at the time.
But, still feel you underestimate folk common like me.

I underestimate no-one.

You're underestmating peoples people willingness, especially in britain, to do what there told when they are told it is for "the greater good".

Mass unemployment, mass homelessness... come on people, we need to all pull together to make this country great again!

We can make this hanger look great, like a proper home. We can work the feilds to feed the nation! Be proud of your work! one day you will have paid off your debt and you'll be able to get an old fashioned house!

Pobby

existentialist wrote: »

Quote Pobby :

Before you throw out the term ``idiot``, where have I bemoaned a rent of £75 a week for any of those properties?



True.... you probably see the 'value' hitting you in the face.
HPC guy as you are.

Why do you assume so much. Really makes me wonder, but I do find it rather amusing.

GunJack

Came across this thread by accident, but thought it was worth a read....

For what it's worth, my humble opinion is this...

Even disregarding the blatant attempt at social engineering, the whole idea of social housing put up within new-build (expensive)developments is, quite frankly, madness. The inclusion of such homes just adds to the already premium prices charged by developers, as they have to cover, in this instance, a third of the development in the prices they have to charge for the other two thirds, which has served over the last few years to help increase already rising property prices.

Now, for families like mine, who are over the threshold for earnings for social housing but are struggling with having had to buy a home, the idea that my taxes are paying for people to live in such relative luxury, much more than I could ever hope to afford, is yet another kick in the teeth for those of us trying to get on, better ourselves to earn more to support your family better, and have to struggle to do so. There are many empty social houses up and down the country that could be done up and re-let for a fraction of the cost. If it happens to be in an area you may not particularly want to live in, tough. Many of the working population have had to move to areas they don't really want to be living in because that is where the work is. Maybe it's about time the country got real about such matters.

I'm sorry, but the whole situation stinks in my book - I'm not against the idea of socia housing at all, but I do firmly believe that it does need re-examining. For instance, if a family was housed, say, 20 years ago by the council, and they now have better salaries, why not re-assess their need for a social house. If they can then afford to buy/rent privately, then give the social house to the people who really need it. It makes me a bit sick when they plead poverty and say they can't afford to leave their council house, but can afford two brand-new cars every couple of years and at least one foreign holiday a year. I work my bits off and can't afford to do that, as i have always "earned too much" to qualify for social housing, but not on so much that we've always struggled to buy (and always at a higher cost than council rent).

Sorry for the rant, but as someone said earlier, this is an emotive subject.....

PasturesNew

existentialist wrote: »

A solid £300 in the hand beats a hypothetical £3000 in the bush...

Is that your price?
£3000 for bush
£300 for hand?