editor
hiraethified
There weren't any when the place was fully occupied either. For 15 years.
Brixton Clifton Mansions former squats - background, 2011 evictions and latest news
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Treacle Toes
Time
Aquamarine
Well-Known Member
LT’s costing theory assumes the circumstances surrounding all squats are the same. When some squats would be considered “management vacant” ie. ready for use only after minor repairs. Properties uninhabited for six months are usually considered unfit to meet the Tolerable Standard, the current legal minimum standard acceptable for habitable properties.
Noone here is arguing that landlords should not take responsibility for their property. There are empty council properties in LAs controlled by each of the parties. IME the mainstream view, the predominant concern, is that property should not be left wasted to contribute to urban decay and when there are people in need. Squatting can provide a solution.
Ding Dong! Your emphasis is wrong: what you have written here is irrelevant. I said the issues are interlinked. Most pernicious is this snide circularity of reasoning attributed to me:
Yes, homelessness is about more than housing but nor is it true that most homeless – even most users of night shelters and hostels - are homeless because of addiction and/or mental health issues.
The last available government housing figures (England) are from 2009/10 available here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1785484.pdf
Some extracts:
In 2009-10, the majority of homeless households in priority need accepted by local authorities lost their last settled home due to their relatives or friends no longer being willing or able to provide
accommodation (34 per cent). Twenty per cent were made homeless due to a relationship breakdown
with their partner. Only 6 per cent of homeless households had their last settled accommodation
repossessed or other loss due to mortgage or rent arrears (Table 6.4). .
It is estimated that unrecognised, “hidden” homelessness affects 400,000 people in the UK at any given time: http://www.streetsoflondon.org.uk/about-homelessness. Most LAs count squatted homes as empty, including council owned. For that reason few squatters are included in official housing or homeless statistics.
Contrasted with those 51,300 households placed into temporary accommodation (only 15 per cent of which were placed into LA/HA stock (see Figure 11), are an astonishing 34,000 LA & 37,462 HA dwellings stood empty. Also, the number of additional affordable homes provided increased by only 2,160 (4 per cent) between 2008-09 and 2009-10. It is the 72, 062 total empties relative to the number of homeless – people in need of a home! - that is relevant not the % of public stock that is empty.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Contrary to the occasional stories in the yellow press, most squatters aren't earning enough to sock bugger-all money away. For every well-off squatter the Daily Mail has written a story about, there's probably another 50 scraping by on temp and/or agency work, income fluctuating week by week.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
It's not a theory, it's a principle. You can prove it just by thinking about it.
See posts 381 and 296.
Aquamarine
Well-Known Member
The point is most squatted council properties are not going to be sold off in principle. That squatters are not paying CTax is irrelevant if the property would otherwise be sitting empty and not collecting CTax anyway.
Is it to be assumed that you make a distinction between the rights and wrongs of squatted public and private properties?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
OK wise guy prove to me that there is a difference between a theory and a principle.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
No. Don't assume that. Both are wrong. People wanting to live somewhere should get the owner's consent.
Aquamarine
Well-Known Member
It was suggested above that LB Lambeth had informally consented to Clifden Mansions allowing the squatters temporarily occupy the flats but would not accept rent. I'm interested to know if you think that was wrong.
I lived there for almost nine years and never heard that.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
So what was the understanding of the people who lived there?
Laughing Toad's moral strictures are neither here nor there. Like morality, property is never absolute. Property is always wrapped up in legal conditions.
It is often in the interests of property owners that own empty properties to have squatters in them. The alternative is having tramps. Tramps destroy buildings, usually by fire.
It is often in the interests of property owners that own empty properties to have squatters in them. The alternative is having tramps. Tramps destroy buildings, usually by fire.
TruXta
tired
TBF a small but infortunately very visible minority of squatters act more like tramps than responsible adults.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Is this some sort of hierarchy of who deserves to have a roof over their head?
TruXta
tired
I see you didn't get the memo. It's not about hierarchy, but some people, for various reasons, do very poorly at living without some serious support.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
I know that some people aren't able to live/cope well without support, it was more just the tone, or perhaps how I read, Emet's post that I was getting at.
The council accepted our presence. As far as I know, the council didn't have contact with us, as a group, until 2004. We initiated the contact because of the violence of the person I posted about on page 3, his use of the courtyard as a commercial jerk chicken kitchen, his homophobic attacks on lesbians in the building et al. The situation got quite unmanageable, with threats of violence at every turn. The police came along too.
My take is that the council couldn't sell some buildings to finance the rehab of others. Having us there was the least costly option. We had shown ourselves to be, I think, reasonable and constructive in discussions and worth talking to, for management reasons, if no other. In the summer of 2009, they were finally able to announce a program of sale and rehab. They invited Cliftoners and folk from Rushcroft Rd along to a meeting and told us how they intended to proceed. That is the history, as far as I know. I went to most of the meetings.
My take is that the council couldn't sell some buildings to finance the rehab of others. Having us there was the least costly option. We had shown ourselves to be, I think, reasonable and constructive in discussions and worth talking to, for management reasons, if no other. In the summer of 2009, they were finally able to announce a program of sale and rehab. They invited Cliftoners and folk from Rushcroft Rd along to a meeting and told us how they intended to proceed. That is the history, as far as I know. I went to most of the meetings.
No, that's not my point.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Get ya.
Either way, it still all comes down to capitalism's failure to cater for that very basic need - a roof over your head.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Emet, was there any talk at these meetings of forming some sort of cooperative to run the buildings?
Also, could you tell us why, in your opinion, did the council get a notice of eviction in court. Why did they not just ask you to leave, and why do you think there were so many police officers present on Tuesday?
Also, have you ever considered being a guradian with Camelot? Do the people who work for them have something you don't?
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Capital probably.
I must admit though, this 'guardian' system seems pretty dubious to me - and the likes of private companies such as Camelot being involved.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...9/housing-property-guardians-squatters-rights
editor
hiraethified
Yes, a co-op was mentioned. People weren't interested for a variety of reasons. We would have had to buy the building. The figures have gone from my memory, but the price seemed very high. No one would brook the guy I mentioned on page 3. Some weren't interested in the responsibility. There were a lot of foreigners, some quite young, who came here because London was booming and there was no work where they came from, but might go home if things improved. One or two were against paying rent on any conditions. Some had no good reason. Nothing came of it anyway.
The council were terrified of anything that looked like a formal agreement. Apparently, to the courts, it looks like a tenancy agreement and must be avoided. I would have gone if there had been an agreement. Even better if they had pointed me to an empty building to 'look after'.
They pretty near had a riot at St Agnes Place when that was decanted. Maybe that was the reason. I found most of the squatters there to be very neighbourly but not politically cohesive. I thought the police action looked like overkill. Most of us were gone by Sunday. I was, and didn't
go back for the 'party'.
I'm homeless and I don't have job - perhaps I'll apply! Hadn't thought of it before.
Fuck off that's a nasty slur on tramps (and squatters).
Incidentally if anyone knows where there are any off those groovy "this property is protected by Camelot guardians " signs are that are gettable at (the only ones I've seen are behind glass not on the outside of buildings ) could they let me know I could do with one for my flat.
TruXta
tired
Hmmmm. Maybe my usage of the word tramp is poor. I meant no disrespect to the homeless. FWIW I'd use the word tramp about any person who seems utterly unwilling to make an effort towards preserving the integrity of themselves and their surroundings for whatever reason, regardless of whether they have a home or not.
Some squatters are filthy selfish bastards, same as some people who own or rent a place. I'd feel that if I squatted I should make an extra effort at keeping the place in good nick. Most squatters do, the ones that don't ruin things somewhat for the majority.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
your posts interesting Aquamarine. AS you know about the housing sector.
I think Emet is part of the squatters who moved in after the London & Quadrant "Short Life" residents moved out. Along with Rushcroft Road Action Group (RAG) the Short Life residents tried to show that they had security of tenure. The reason that the Council did not want to receive rent from them was that it would prove they had security of tenure- that they were in fact Council tenants. There was a whole protracted legal battle over this.
Short Life was used to provide occupancy of buildings that the Council had no immediate plans to use. It meant they got Council Tax on those properties. It also meant that some of the problems that can happen with squatting ( though this is not always the case) were avoided.
Short Life was a good way to keep otherwise empty buildings occupied.
See here on House of Lords judgement :
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990624/bruton.htm
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
For it to be a principle, there needs to be demonstrable mass applicability of your theory.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Who owns local authority social housing?
Ultimately, the people of the borough. The people the housing is effectively held in trust for.
Similar threads
