Brixton Clifton Mansions former squats - background, 2011 evictions and latest news
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
The vast amount of reportage claimed that the majority of partiers had nothing to do with Clifton Mansions. It's a completely unsubstantiated claim. Someone invited them, someone let them in, someone allowed them onto the roof, and nobody prevented them chucking stuff off. That is not the behaviour of responsible people. It's the behaviour of ner-do-wells. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that living in someone else's property against their will is an act of altruism.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I don't need to wish, I've had on and off experience of the South London squatting scene since the early 1980s. As for dereliction, find me a builder, architect or other trade or profession involved with the fabric of housing, and ask them whether an unoccupied building degrades faster than an occupied building. They'll bear me out.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fuck off. I wouldn't touch it with yours, mate.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Except for being substantiated by "locals" who were there, but of course they don't count, do they?
Now those are unsubstantiated claims!
I don't disagree. What I'm disagreeing about is whether the "ne'er-do-wells" were residents or not.
Let's break the argument down into easily-digestible chunks for you.
1) Any property-owner whose property is occupied against their will can secure eviction. The owners have let many previous eviction notices lapse.
2) The owners of Clifton Mansions have been happy for the buildings to be occupied, because they understand, even if you do not, that an occupied building degrades more slowly than an unoccupied building.
3) I've never claimed that squatting is "altruism", I've said that it's often a quid pro quo, as was the case with Rushcroft and Clifton.
editor
hiraethified
I was there. You were not. I know the people. You do not.
People got in because it has an OPEN courtyard with OPEN access to the roof. Quite a few of the squatters had already left so there was no one to stop them.
The party was not put on with the approval of all the residents. The herberts on the roof were not known to locals - indeed the few I spoke all said that they'd only come because they'd seen the Facebook invite and knew nothing about what it was all about - it was just a groovy squat party in Brixton as far as they were concerned.
Not all were twats though - some I spoke to were genuinely interested in the history and culture of the place.
You weren't there. You don't know what happened, so can you stop talking clueless, ignorant shit please? Thanks awfully.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Allowing an out of control party in your building is just irresponsible. Claiming that 'it was on facebook so there was nothing anyone could do to stop it' is a defence I would expect from teenagers caught partying while their parents are away. People who care for their buildings don't allow this sort of thing to happen. To see how it's done, look at the current residents. They don't seem to be allowing massive irresponsible parties. That's why the owners want them, and not squaters.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
In general, yes: occupied is better than unoccupied. But it really depends on the occupants. Long term stable squats where there is an understanding between the occupants and the owners can definitely help.
A lot of ex squats I have worked on have been high turnover and it would have been better not to have them occupied. I have seen rubbish clearance companies refuse to deal with the mess left behind after squatters. I once puked from the stench when I walked into a recently evicted squat.
Builders I have worked with turned up to start work on a project in Brixton and squatters had just moved in. Didn't break in of course - they just happened to see kids kick in the door and took advantage of the opportunity. In the five weeks it took to evict them they tore out several doors, smashed down internal walls to make it open plan, filled the building with unbelievable amounts of rubbish, left roof hatches off letting rain in and pulled the entire heating system off the walls (although did not actually take any of it). Worst of all they turned on an isolated water mains causing severe leaks which over a short time would have significantly structurally degraded the building and damaged the neighbours'. The police called out in the middle of the night twice by neighbours because of fighting in the building and windows getting smashed into the street. The windows were boarded up with cardboard and plastic sheeting in such a way that it would have hastened rotting of the frames.
Worst of all the small family building firm had to temporarily lay people off causing unrecoverable loss of income. They tried to negotiate with the occupants, mostly young backpackery types from America and Europe, who simply took the piss out of them. Not clever. Not desirable.
So as someone closely involved in the fabric of buildings, I would say it is far too simplistic to say occupied is better than unoccupied. The occupants have to be respectful of the building for it to be a benefit.
editor
hiraethified
It wasn't one building, you doofus. It was 22 flats in three buildings and as I've already explained - now listen carefully because I won't be repeating myself - the mansions had an OPEN entrance and by then many of the residents had moved out because they were being evicted.
Were there any out of control parties before the council decided to evict them? No, so there goes your idiotic 'argument.'
There aren't any current full-time residents either, just a handful of people temporarily put there to protect the building before it's sold on.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Now about these costs...
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
In post #296, Rushy suggested it was not true to contend there were no costs, saying:
"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."
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
If what you say is true then why did these residents not lock the doors behind them when they moved out of these buildings? Isn't it just possible that the squatters left the doors unsecured behind them? Isn't it just possible that they weren't too bothered what happend to the buildings after they left? Landlords take deposits from tenants even after they have obtained references. There's a good reason for that.
The police called them drug dealers.
So a handful of people can protect a building, but all those squatters couldn't.
All the evidence from this thread shows that squatting is a selfish thing to do.
Aquamarine
Well-Known Member
It is selfish. Does that make it wrong? Not all squatters are irresponsible or unwilling to vacate properties when required. Leaving properties empty is morally wrong. One of the supreme moral problems. Empty properties lower the value of adjacent properties ... empty terraced properties attract flytipping, rodents and worse... empties in blocks if not maintained can create structural problems.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
To be fair, I don't tend to see "lifestyle" squatters (people avoiding paying for holiday digs etc) as legitimate squatters. Most of the people I knew on the scene were long-termers who put a fair bit of work into maintenance because they wanted a home, not just a doss.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Of course it's selfish, if you define "selfish" as desiring a roof over your own head.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Or OB fishing for info
Nah, don't think he's a pig, just a twat going by his posts on this thread and the Free School one.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
they're not running costs. LT claimed there were running costs.
editor
hiraethified
Because it's all locked up and protected by security guards, you utterly clueless buffoon.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
I'm expressing a (mainstream) view with which you disagree. You're responding with crude insults.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Running costs?
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
No I didn't.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Sorry, my bad. The costs of owning it. What costs.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Aren't security guards people?
And anyway isn't most of that security to keep out the squatters? People who want to party and throw things off the roof are surely not the main threat here.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
The opportunity cost of the capital employed.
If you want crude insults keep posting the drivel.
( by the way you are so far away from reality with your posts I'm not entirely sure where to start,so I give it a miss unless you insist on posting more idiocies)
Yes Lambeth council should liquidate all it's housing assets and invest in the food futures much more profitable,all that capital sitting around in bricks and mortar,what a waste.
Similar threads
