wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
this
+
it would have very quickly become drug abuse central if it had not been squatted.
let's wait for the "jump the queue" bit
Brixton Clifton Mansions former squats - background, 2011 evictions and latest news
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
this
+
it would have very quickly become drug abuse central if it had not been squatted.
let's wait for the "jump the queue" bit
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Oh, so the squatters were acting out of charity! My mistake. I thought they were just a lawless mob who wanted something for free instead of paying for it like the rest of us.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
To put this in perspective this comment is from a member of a party which gave Bankers a big helping of "Corporate Welfare" as the economist Stiglitz calls it.
girasol
Addicted to handstands!
It's all about perspective and common sense really. I see them as people who can't afford the really expensive rents in London but who have the initiative and courage to do something about it. If the properties are empty why shouldn't they be put to good use?
oh, no, sorry, they should be sold to a developer who can then make tons of money instead, yeah, that's the right way of doing things...
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
"the rest of us"
bit of a simplistic view you have no?
1. do you think it is good/decent/maskes economic sense to leave such buildings empty and rotting?
2. do you think people living in and looking after such buildings is a better option than leaving them empty and rotting?
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
"the rest of us"
bit of a simplistic view you have no?
Most people pay for where they live.
No. It should have been sold years ago.
It doesn't seem like they were looking after the building to me.
What makes you say that ?
Casaubon
Well-Known Member
If anyone wants to debate the morality of squatting in Clifton mansions I think they need to understand the history, so I've pasted below a section of my post from March 2009. Full post at:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-Rushcroft-Road-Brixton?p=8869080#post8869080
Please bear in mind that any reference to Rushcroft Rd applies equally to Clifton Mansions, as they both formed part of the deal with London and Quadrant, and the ensuing shambles.
' June ’09 will be the tenth anniversary of the case in the House of Lords that was meant to definitively resolve the tenure/occupation issues of Rushcroft Rd (edit: and Clifton Mansions)
I was intending to end my long lurk by using the boards to ask whether there have been any developments on Rushcroft, as I’ve been horrified that Lambeth council still hasn’t resolved the issues – TEN YEARS AFTER THE HOUSE OF LORDS JUDGEMENT.
Now it seems that Lambeth have decided to act, in typically insensitive and stupid fashion.
Does anyone know if Lambeth has any coherent or realistic plans for Rushcroft Rd (other than dumping the properties at auction as soon as possible)?
I think it’s worth pointing out that the situation on Rushcroft Rd (and Clifton Mansions) has been a scandal since at least 1979.
- Around 110 flats in Rushcroft and Clifton were handed by Lambeth to London & Quadrant (L&Q) without any formal agreement or contract (back of an envelope in the Trinity Arms is my bet).
- From around ’79 Lambeth ceased to collect any rent for these properties. All rent was kept by L&Q
- L&Q never carried out any meaningful maintenance on the properties, because they never had any sort of long-term tenure. Most of the blocks have deteriorated shockingly.
- L&Q and Lambeth maintained the fiction that occupants were not tenants, but ‘Short-Life Licensees’, with no security of tenure beyond 28 days. Some people lived with this ‘security’ for more than 20 years.
- The House of Lords decision destroyed the ‘short-life’ sham, and said that the L&Q ‘licencees’ had always been tenants of L&Q, and actually had some rights, contrary to what we were told for 20 years.
- L&Q reacted to the Lords decision by simply running away, renouncing any tenures that may have existed. Lambeth, instead of insisting that L&Q rectify the results of their neglect, paid L&Q’s legal bills as well as their own. (Around £200K for this one case alone. And there were several others going on simultaneously)
- L&Q tenants (around 90 on Rushcroft by 1999) were told that their tenancies with L&Q were void, and they were now illegal occupiers.
- Lambeth refused to accept rent from the occupiers, as this would establish a new tenancy
- Lambeth hasn’t had a penny of rent from around 90 flats for 10 years, the properties have decayed to a genuinely alarming extent, and the households of Rushcroft Rd have had to put up with 10 unnecessary years of stress.
The community of Rushcroft Rd provided a relatively stable and peaceful population in a ‘difficult’ part of Brixton, during the most difficult period of Brixton’s history.
The community should have been supported by Lambeth – not for any ‘worthy’ reasons, but because it had evolved organically into a functioning community which could have provided a meaningful basis for regeneration.
Instead, Lambeth council has spent years, and hundreds of thousands of pounds, destroying the community while watching their property fall apart.'
Casaubon
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-Rushcroft-Road-Brixton?p=8869080#post8869080
Please bear in mind that any reference to Rushcroft Rd applies equally to Clifton Mansions, as they both formed part of the deal with London and Quadrant, and the ensuing shambles.
' June ’09 will be the tenth anniversary of the case in the House of Lords that was meant to definitively resolve the tenure/occupation issues of Rushcroft Rd (edit: and Clifton Mansions)
I was intending to end my long lurk by using the boards to ask whether there have been any developments on Rushcroft, as I’ve been horrified that Lambeth council still hasn’t resolved the issues – TEN YEARS AFTER THE HOUSE OF LORDS JUDGEMENT.
Now it seems that Lambeth have decided to act, in typically insensitive and stupid fashion.
Does anyone know if Lambeth has any coherent or realistic plans for Rushcroft Rd (other than dumping the properties at auction as soon as possible)?
I think it’s worth pointing out that the situation on Rushcroft Rd (and Clifton Mansions) has been a scandal since at least 1979.
- Around 110 flats in Rushcroft and Clifton were handed by Lambeth to London & Quadrant (L&Q) without any formal agreement or contract (back of an envelope in the Trinity Arms is my bet).
- From around ’79 Lambeth ceased to collect any rent for these properties. All rent was kept by L&Q
- L&Q never carried out any meaningful maintenance on the properties, because they never had any sort of long-term tenure. Most of the blocks have deteriorated shockingly.
- L&Q and Lambeth maintained the fiction that occupants were not tenants, but ‘Short-Life Licensees’, with no security of tenure beyond 28 days. Some people lived with this ‘security’ for more than 20 years.
- The House of Lords decision destroyed the ‘short-life’ sham, and said that the L&Q ‘licencees’ had always been tenants of L&Q, and actually had some rights, contrary to what we were told for 20 years.
- L&Q reacted to the Lords decision by simply running away, renouncing any tenures that may have existed. Lambeth, instead of insisting that L&Q rectify the results of their neglect, paid L&Q’s legal bills as well as their own. (Around £200K for this one case alone. And there were several others going on simultaneously)
- L&Q tenants (around 90 on Rushcroft by 1999) were told that their tenancies with L&Q were void, and they were now illegal occupiers.
- Lambeth refused to accept rent from the occupiers, as this would establish a new tenancy
- Lambeth hasn’t had a penny of rent from around 90 flats for 10 years, the properties have decayed to a genuinely alarming extent, and the households of Rushcroft Rd have had to put up with 10 unnecessary years of stress.
The community of Rushcroft Rd provided a relatively stable and peaceful population in a ‘difficult’ part of Brixton, during the most difficult period of Brixton’s history.
The community should have been supported by Lambeth – not for any ‘worthy’ reasons, but because it had evolved organically into a functioning community which could have provided a meaningful basis for regeneration.
Instead, Lambeth council has spent years, and hundreds of thousands of pounds, destroying the community while watching their property fall apart.'
Casaubon
ajdown
Posting in this thread
Shall I do this for Laughing Toad now?
"These evil squatting layaboutsjump the housing queue ahead of ordinary decent hard working families."
Don't they also take all our jobs, claim benefits we aren't able to, and steal all our women too?
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
so paying people to live there instead is a better solution is it?
and the manpower and expense of yesterday is also justified?
what do you know about whether they looked after the building or not?
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
out of charity: I guess not tbh.
lawless mob? ffs, which world do you live in?
There were families living there with kids, hardly your idea of what squatters are I guess. But if your only source of misinformation is the general press you'll never see the true picture.
I'm not going to say that all squatters are angels of do-goodery, just like in any randomly selected sub section of the whole population you will get idiots/rude/criminal types. The thing is it's only those that ever get reported in the papers, hardly ever will you find a positive story about squatters who happen to be well integrated within the local community and actually earn respect from their neighbours because there are nice and considerate.
Most squatters given the choice of paying rent for where they live would actually do so, they just happen to generally fall into the categories which mean they are pretty much at the bottom of the housing list forever and they also don't have the means to pay the outrageous rent charged by most private landlord (buy to let, ffs) so they get on their bike (as someone said) and find an empty property to live in; more often than not this implies spending time money and effort fixing the place up to a decent standard simply because you're likely to keep a squat a lot longer if you go for a run down property than a fully fitted up ready to move in one.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
For instance, on the night before they were evicted, they had a big party, at which people were apparently throwing things off the roof. I don't let people in my home if I think they're likely to put hot cups on the living room table, let alone lob random projectiles off my roof.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
so nothing to do with the other 20 yrs they lived there then?
might you let people put hot cups down if you were being evicted the next day?
Hijacked by idiots after pretty much everyone had already moved themselves out means that they didn't look after the building? Righto...
And how exactly would you have stopped these people from running riot? Cos the Police sure didn't want to know at the time.
editor
hiraethified
Really piss-weak, feeble, ignorant stuff.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
You said taxpayers are essentially paying bills for squatters. What bills? What costs of owning building?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Shift goalposts much?
TruXta
tired
You're one anal cunt aren't you?
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
My only source of information is this thread.
I also would like to live in a home better than I can afford, without paying any rent.
girasol
Addicted to handstands!
You think squats are luxury homes? have you ever actually been in one? lol
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
No.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
No, sorry, can't quite work that one out...
Laughing Toad - I see you hate people getting something for free. If you pay for it, so should everybody else, right? Why not the other way round? What's so crazy about a desire for lowering the cost of housing for everyone?
HandinHand
New Member
Enough said I assume.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
The costs of owning a building. I've said that already.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
specifically, what costs? You must know.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
No, sorry, can't quite work that one out...
Laughing Toad - I see you hate people getting something for free. If you pay for it, so should everybody else, right? Why not the other way round? What's so crazy about a desire for lowering the cost of housing for everyone?
Yes, lower the cost of housing for everyone. Increase supply, build on greenbelt etc. I'm with you there. There was a leading article in the Economist advocating just that a while back.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Similar threads
