Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Some buildings cost a lot, some buildings cost much less. Perhaps I've been looking in the wrong estate agent's windows, but I've not heard of any buildings which are free.
Brixton Clifton Mansions former squats - background, 2011 evictions and latest news
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Some buildings cost a lot, some buildings cost much less. Perhaps I've been looking in the wrong estate agent's windows, but I've not heard of any buildings which are free.
TruXta
tired
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
The cost was there squatters or not.
Squatters were in effect live-in guardians as it happens; at no cost to the council, unlike now.
+ they kept the place maintained and secure, whereas it would have turned into a crack den a long time ago otherwise.
Anyway, I guess next year it'll probably be Rushcroft road time to go through the eviction process :/
Aquamarine
Well-Known Member
It is difficult to condone squatting of council properties with the high levels of street homelessness and badly housed on waiting lists etc But there are staggering numbers of empty council properties - 1,332 empty council homes in the LB borough. They should be occupied if the councils are not trying to bring them back to use - otherwise they attract anti social behaviour. If councils were able to guarantee these properties will be used to house the very vulnerable I'd support that. That is unlikely as social housing in the UK is on the way out. Soon there won't be any public housing even for the very vulnerable and elderly.
http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/news.cfm?id=5711
http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/news.cfm?id=5711
editor
hiraethified
Would you also be looking for a totally insecure stay in a cold, damp and leaking building that is falling apart because there's been no maintenance for years? Sound good to you?
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
2.28% of the total.
editor
hiraethified
The building wasn't for sale, silly. It had effectively been abandoned by the council and if the squatters hadn't taken over it probably would have been declared unsafe by now.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
ah that's ok then! how much of a % is acceptable to you?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Still a lot. And lots of sites worth building on too. But govt. policy does not want to increase housing supply too much, for fear of collapsing house prices and wiping out a major source of "wealth" in this country. The whole housing market is a distortion.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Self-evidently I would only live there if it were better than the alternatives.
HandinHand
New Member
The point is the council did not have plans for the builidng and allowed the squatters to live in the house rent free, as an occupied building is always going to be better than an empty building they were providing a service to the area. When they were recently were asked to leave they did, to make way for high cost housing that no one in the local area can afford (it can only be assumed). So selling the buildings of has made them a lot more out of bounds for people than they were when they were squats (ie squating has not taken up hosing stock increasing the price of other houses, its private ownership aimed at high earning clients that will raise the price of housing).
I cannot see how you prefer the second option to the first. While we would all like to live for in a house for free we don't because most of us prefer the safety and comfort, living in a place we can call our own. But the world is not as dull as that and some people for whatever personal reason choose to live in unoccupied builidngs which would otherwise be unused.
The fact that you think luxury housing in an area is more preferable to an community art center speaks volumes about you. People need more than just housing we need areas to get together, interact, create and so on and so forth. If the whole world was just made up of houses and shops, which quiet a few places are, we would not get the chance to do any of the above. Please try to understand that not everybody is like yourself and since no harm was being done by these squatters, a live and let live attitude should prevail.
I cannot see how you prefer the second option to the first. While we would all like to live for in a house for free we don't because most of us prefer the safety and comfort, living in a place we can call our own. But the world is not as dull as that and some people for whatever personal reason choose to live in unoccupied builidngs which would otherwise be unused.
The fact that you think luxury housing in an area is more preferable to an community art center speaks volumes about you. People need more than just housing we need areas to get together, interact, create and so on and so forth. If the whole world was just made up of houses and shops, which quiet a few places are, we would not get the chance to do any of the above. Please try to understand that not everybody is like yourself and since no harm was being done by these squatters, a live and let live attitude should prevail.
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
well between what editor described and a cardboard box down the bullring (not actually there anymore...) which would you choose?
You also seem to have missed this part of what I said earlier: "Most squatters given the choice of paying rent for where they live would actually do so"
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
You seem to be conflating potential worth with running costs.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Nonsense. They couldn't possibly afford it.
TruXta
tired
Only goes to show you know fuck all about squatting.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
You can't demand to live in a building and only pay the running costs.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Then why don't they go and live in any of the many buildings available for rent in the area?
TruXta
tired
Because occassionally they're trying to make a political point. Other times they merely prefer to spend their money on other things. There's this thing called "taking other people's perspective". You should try it one day.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
You said that taxpayers were paying the running costs of building. What costs? Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Perhaps I should hop on a bus, refuse to pay, and say that I am making a political point and that I prefer to spend my money on other things. Genius.
TruXta
tired
Give it a shot and report back. Nothing wrong with the political position as far as I can see - public transport could well be run free at the point of use. It couldn't get much worse in terms of bang for buck anyway.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
that would be illegal
squatting is a civil offence
if you don't like it, tough toady
HandinHand
New Member
Needless to say it costs money to run a bus service. It doesn't cost money to leave a building empty.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Thought Id Laughing Toad the benefit of the doubt on that. I dont think he is quite that Daily Mail.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
That's only true if you don't have any debt. The council has debt so every asset that they are not using and could dispose of is essentially costing them the interest on the equivalent value of the building. If they can get 3-4 million for selling it then they should be able either pay off debt (unlikely) or use the money to pay for services they will otherwise have to borrow in order to provide (more likely). On that basis, and assuming a borrowing rate iro 6%, retaining the asset costs £180-240,000pa.
If squatters are not paying council tax (I've no idea whether they are or are not) then they also have to calculate in that cost. That would be another £24,000.
HandinHand
New Member
It would be losing that money regardless, if the squatters were there or not. Maybe I was a bit rash to say an empty building costs nothing, but if the building had been empty the council still wounldn't have had the money to turn it back into acceptable social housing. It has taken a very short term decision, deciding to sell off priceless assets to pivate landlords instead of allowing it to exist as housing for the poor.
quimcunx
imprimeo, lamino, distribuo
It had far more real social value as a squat as it will as a one off financial bunce to the council and housing that is out of reach of most or as an unoccupied building. the only thing that would have had more value would be the council renting it to the squatters or others as social housing and the council evidently have no intention of doing that.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
TruXta
tired
So a squat that goes, what, 20 years back, hasn't put down roots in the community you think?
Similar threads
