Brixton Clifton Mansions former squats - background, 2011 evictions and latest news

[leanderman]

Some people were using an unused building.

The owner finally wanted it back.

And the occupiers left peacefully.

End of story

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Some people were using an unused building.

The owner finally wanted it back.

And the occupiers left peacefully.

End of story

No it's not. You missed out the end of the story.

The occupiers went to live in ... instead.

Anyone turfing anyone else out of their home on the basis that the law says they can is a cunt. The 'owners' gave up any rights to ownership the moment they left it empty imo.

 

[Blagsta]

The opportunity cost of the capital employed.

That's not a cost. I owe a grand on a credit card. I own a grands worth of camera equipment. It does not "cost" me to own the camera equipment.

 

[Aquamarine]

I'm expressing a (mainstream) view with which you disagree.

having worked for many years at the Empty Homes Agency - aka the Squatters Agency HAha ha - i don't think you are expressing the predominant mainstream view of squatting amongst people informed about this complex issue. In very simplified terms, the problem is not squatters - it is landlords who leave their property empty. Your view appears to essentially focus on 'monetary loss' ... lost revenues. Whereas it is not squatters who have caused this - again it is the owners of the property. It will be very interesting to see how the pending legislation tackles the issue because any housing professional will tell you that the issues of squatting/homelessness/public housing are interlinked. I'd have thought that was obvious.

 

[Laughing Toad]

That's not a cost. I owe a grand on a credit card. I own a grands worth of camera equipment. It does not "cost" me to own the camera equipment.

It does. The fact that you don't understand that explains why you don't understand why squatting is wrong.

 

[Blagsta]

It does. The fact that you don't understand that explains why you don't understand why squatting is wrong.

You're a moron.

 

[Laughing Toad]

having worked for many years at the Empty Homes Agency - aka the Squatters Agency HAha ha - i don't think you are expressing the predominant mainstream view of squatting amongst people informed about this complex issue.

Labour run Lambeth council evicted these squatters. It seems likely that the Conservatives would have done the same, had they been in power. I'd call that a fairly mainstream view.

In very simplified terms, the problem is not squatters - it is landlords who leave their property empty. Your view appears to essentially focus on 'monetary loss' ... lost revenues. Whereas it is not squatters who have caused this - again it is the owners of the property. It will be very interesting to see how the pending legislation tackles the issue because any housing professional will tell you that the issues of squatting/homelessness/public housing are interlinked. I'd have thought that was obvious.

Empty homes account for about 3% of public housing, so you're 3% right, 97% wrong. Housing supply is more about population levels and new house builds.

Homeless people are almost all in addiction or mentally ill, or both. You can't blame that on 3% of public housing being empty.

 

[Blagsta]

Empty homes account for about 3% of public housing, so you're 3% right, 97% wrong. Housing supply is more about population levels and new house builds.

Homeless people are almost all in addiction or mentally ill, or both. You can't blame that on 3% of public housing being empty.

I'm sure you can back this up with some stats? A study perhaps?

 

[Laughing Toad]

I'm sure you can back this up with some stats? A study perhaps?

It's been my overwhelming personal experience. If you talk to homeless people for more than a few minutes then they'll soon tell you about it.

 

[Blagsta]

It's been my overwhelming personal experience. If you talk to homeless people for more than a few minutes then they'll soon tell you about it.

That's a no then.

 

[Rushy]

That's not a cost. I owe a grand on a credit card. I own a grands worth of camera equipment. It does not "cost" me to own the camera equipment.

Why not? Everything ultimately falls into assets and liabilities. Your credit card debt is a liability and your camera equipment is an asset. Just because your credit card debt is unsecured does not mean the cost of the debt can be negated.

 

[Blagsta]

It doesn't "cost" me. The camera is an unrealized asset, not a cost. They are not the same. I do not pay out money due to owning a camera.

 

[Winot]

It does seem a bit of a stretch to automatically count failure to realise an unrealised asset as a cost. Theoretically we could rent out our spare room to a lodger - the fact that we choose not to do so does not mean it counts as a cost. I very much doubt that Clifton Mansions counted as a cost in this way on Lambeth's balance sheet either.

That's not to say that once an owner has been offered money for an asset it is improper for it to be sold, although it doesn't sound as if that is exactly what has happened here either, nor is it much comfort to people who have lost their homes (although I have to say that it seems to me that, if you are going to squat, you have to accept that the downside is lack of housing security).

 

[editor]

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.

Just to highlight how ridiculous this comment is and how clueless you are of the actual situation, the mansions are currently BOARDED UP and protected by security guards. The entrance is sealed and all doors padlocked.

There are no "current residents" and you clearly have no idea what's going on, so perhaps it's best you either STFU or took time out to actually understand the situation correctly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The opportunity cost of the capital employed.

Are you sure that you understand the concept of opportunity cost?

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Reality is that opportunity cost doesn't really pertain because in terms of alternative uses for that capital, given local authority spending regulations, there is no "alternative use" allowed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Some people were using an unused building.

The owner finally wanted it back.

And the occupiers left peacefully.

End of story

And that's what it is: A story, a fictional enterprise that diverges from the known facts.

For example, the owner was and is indifferent to repossessing their property. As it was it meant that 22 units of housing were in use, as it is, it means that Lambeth Housing have extra stress put on their services attempting to find/provide emergency housing for homeless people. Lambeth proceeded with this eviction not because they have an imminent use for the flats, but because of a combination of political and financial pressure.

All that will happen now, is that after several months/years with "guardians" in there, the place (more dilapidated than before, and therefore cheaper) will be sold off for an unreasonable small sum, and developed into "luxury housing". Just another bit of social cleansing in Lambeth.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It does. The fact that you don't understand that explains why you don't understand why squatting is wrong.

No, it only "costs" him to own the equipment if he derives no use value from it. Just as Blagsta derives use value from owning his camera equipment, Lambeth derived use value from Clifton Mansions even while it was squatted (and in a condition such that Lambeth couldn't have rented flats there to its' own tenants) insofar as the use of 22 units of housing by squatters kept those squatters from having to use the services of Lambeth Housing and kept them from claiming Housing Benefit.

Don't tell people that they don't understand something, and then post shite that shows that you don't understand. It makes you look stupid.

Well, stupider.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It doesn't "cost" me. The camera is an unrealized asset, not a cost. They are not the same. I do not pay out money due to owning a camera.

Ever wish that more people read and understood Marx?

 

[leanderman]

And that's what it is: A story, a fictional enterprise that diverges from the known facts.


All that will happen now, is that after several months/years with "guardians" in there, the place (more dilapidated than before, and therefore cheaper) will be sold off for an unreasonable small sum, and developed into "luxury housing". Just another bit of social cleansing in Lambeth.[

I can agree with some of that. But also:

If the occupiers were not paying rent or council tax, it's possible they might have put aside some money to find alternative accom.

 

[Laughing Toad]

Camelot's guardians aren't employed in the way that security guards are - they pay rent. It's only a fraction of the market rate, but they're not paid to live there. Camelot no doubt take a management fee from the owner of the building. For all we know that 250 figure could be the management fee for the whole block.

Just to highlight how ridiculous this comment is and how clueless you are of the actual situation, the mansions are currently BOARDED UP and protected by security guards. The entrance is sealed and all doors padlocked.

There are no "current residents" and you clearly have no idea what's going on, so perhaps it's best you either STFU or took time out to actually understand the situation correctly.

I'm inclined to believe nick h.'s account of Camelot's service, but either way, my point stands that responsible people don't allow facebook- partygoers to throw stuff off their roof. You can be sure that when I move from one home to another I make certain that the buiding is secure. And I'm guessing you probably do the same.

 

[Laughing Toad]

It doesn't "cost" me. The camera is an unrealized asset, not a cost. They are not the same. I do not pay out money due to owning a camera.

You've confused costs with payments.

 

[editor]

I'm inclined to believe nick h.'s account of Camelot's service...

I don't give a fuck what you're inclined to believe, because the actual facts are simple.

There are no full time residents living there, the entrance to the block is currently boarded up and the only people in the building are a handful of security guards.

So your 'point' remains one that is woefully ill-informed and made from a position of complete ignorance.

 

[Laughing Toad]

I don't give a fuck what you're inclined to believe, because the actual facts are simple.

There are no full time residents living there, the entrance to the block is currently boarded up and the only people in the building are a handful of security guards.

So your 'point' remains one that is woefully ill-informed and made from a position of complete ignorance.

Are you telling me that the squatters boarded up the building to prevent party-goers from hurling objects from the roof? I thought not.

 

[editor]

Are you telling me that the squatters boarded up the building to prevent party-goers from hurling objects from the roof? I thought not.

Here's what you said:

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.

This proves beyond doubt that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

There are no "current residents" so you're talking utter horseshit here, and the previous residents didn't allow "massive irresponsible parties" either, on account of the fact that just about all of them had already moved out and NONE had taken place during the entire time of their tenure.

It's obvious that you really have no idea or understanding about this situation, so perhaps it really is time you either educated yourself or just stopped spouting such embarrassingly ignorant rubbish.

 

[Blagsta]

You've confused costs with payments.

No I haven't.

 

[Laughing Toad]

Here's what you said:
This proves beyond doubt that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

There are no "current residents" so you're talking utter horseshit here, and the previous residents didn't allow "massive irresponsible parties" either, on account of the fact that just about all of them had already moved out and NONE had taken place during the entire time of their tenure.

It's obvious that you really have no idea or understanding about this situation, so perhaps it really is time you either educated yourself or just stopped spouting such embarrassingly ignorant rubbish.

Ok well let me change the language slightly for you.

To see how it's done, look at the current people-who-are-looking-after-the-building. They don't seem to be allowing massive irresponsible parties. That's why the owners want them, and not squatters.

The point is after 9am on Tuesday there haven't been lets-throw-stuff-off-the-roof parties. Or drug dealing for that matter.

 

[peterkro]

There are no full time residents living there, the entrance to the block is currently boarded up and the only people in the building are a handful of security guards.

Very nervous looking security guards as well from what I've seen.

 

[Treacle Toes]

No I haven't.

I think Toad may think you are in X amount of debt because your camera is worth X...meaning you are in debt because you brought that particular camera.

 

[Blagsta]

I think Toad may think you are in X amount of debt because your camera is worth X...meaning you are in debt because you brought that particular camera.

I'm not in debt cos I bought the camera.