Brixton news, rumour and general chat - August 2014

[editor]

I lived in Pimlico and several of my neighbours lived in (Georgian) reduced rent accommodation through a housing association.

So why on earth should that bother you?

And what does the style of architecture have to do with anything? Would it be OK if they were living in Victorian or Modernist homes? Georgian style does not automatically equate to some kind of luxurious living.

 

[leanderman]

Coldharbour does have greater levels of council/social housing than probably 95%+ of England but I think the situation in Coldharbour is similar to wards in the Brixton area generally - Vassall, Stockwell, Tulse Hill, Larkhall etc - its places like Streatham and Clapham that are significantly different in terms of greater numbers of owner occupiers, fewer social housing tenants etc.

So - in the interests of mixed communities - new social housing should be targeted in Streatham and Clapham and, for that matter, Knightsbridge and Chelsea.

 

[SpamMisery]

So why on earth should that bother you?

And what does the style of architecture have to do with anything? Would it be OK if they were living in Victorian or Modernist homes? Georgian style does not automatically equate to some kind of luxurious living.

Errr...... Because I'm envious? Really you should read my posts more closely. Here, let me quote you quoting me saying that.

And I've said before I'm a sucker for architecture hence why the architecture matters to me.

And I know for sure this will cause blood to boil, but I can't help feeling that if you require social housing, then your expectation to live a desirable area is secondary to your desire to live in state funded accommodation? I should point of out that whilst I agree with preventing ghettoisation(sp?), I do find it hard to walk past the Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London handed over to social housing without some envy.

 

[Gramsci]

There were some people on basements on Railton rd you were flooded by sewer water up to ground level about 6 or 8 ft in some cases.

I helped dig up a blocked drain about half way up Railton Road years ago. Go down a bit and its wet clay. The sewer is the old river.

 

[editor]

Errr...... Because I'm envious?

Poor you.

 

[SpamMisery]

Well, that was editors attempt to help me understand the right to buy situation. Grateful for any views from the original posters (or others) who might improve on editors attempts

 

[editor]

Well, that was editors attempt to help me understand the right to buy situation. Grateful for any views from the original posters (or others) who might improve on editors attempts

Keep me out of your disingenuous and disruptive antics please.

If you sincerely want to understand the ethics and arguments about Right To Buy there's plenty of sources on the web. You could start right here. Read it carefully please.

Safe as houses
When it was introduced almost 30 years ago, Right to Buy was hailed as 'one of the most important social revolutions of the century'. But far from seeing council estates transformed by their home-owning former tenants, it has led to fractured communities, the rise of exploitative landlordism and a lack of housing so severe that some councils are now trying to buy their old homes back.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/sep/30/housing.houseprices

 

[SpamMisery]

I'll be sure to check it out. Shame you didn't post it 10 or so posts earlier in answer to my original question; we could have saved ourselves an hour or silly point scoring

 

[Gramsci]

So - in the interests of mixed communities - new social housing should be targeted in Streatham and Clapham and, for that matter, Knightsbridge and Chelsea.

The Council did own property in Clapham but its been selling it as these properties command high prices.

I agree that new social housing should be targeted in areas like Knightsbridge. One Hyde Park should have had some but it does not. Developers fight to stop it.

 

[leanderman]

Keep me out of your disingenuous and disruptive antics please.

If you sincerely want to understand the ethics and arguments about Right To Buy there's plenty of sources on the web. You could start right here. Read it carefully please.

One of the depressing things about right to buy is how many such homes are now in the hands of the family of the Tory minister who pioneered the scheme.

 

[editor]

One of the depressing things about right to buy is how many such homes are now in the hands of the family of the Tory minister who pioneered the scheme.

I can't hide my disgust and contempt for these profiteering scum.

Great Tory housing shame: Third of ex-council homes now owned by rich landlords

The multi-millionaire son of a Tory minister who presided over the controversial “right-to -buy” scheme is a buy-to-let landlord owning scores of former council flats.

A Daily Mirror investigation found a third of ex-council homes sold in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher were now owned by private landlords.

In one London borough almost half of ex-council properties are now sub-let to tenants.

Tycoon Charles Gow and his wife own at least 40 ex-council flats on one South London estate.

His father Ian Gow was one of Mrs Thatcher’s top aides and was Housing Minister during the peak years of right-to-buy.

Other wealthy investors own scores of ex-council properties via offshore holding firms in tax havens in the Channel Islands, the GMB union has found.

Boss Paul Kenny said: “You couldn’t make it up. The family of one of the Tory ministers who oversaw right-to-buy ends up owning swathes of ex-council homes.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338

 

[editor]

And these stories make me sick too:
Ex-council homes: how to buy a bargain
A new proposal to sell off council housing in some of Britain's best postcode areas could be a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity. It is no time for snobbery, says Graham Norwood.

 

[Gramsci]

Errr...... Because I'm envious? Really you should read my posts more closely. Here, let me quote you quoting me saying that.

And I've said before I'm a sucker for architecture hence why the architecture matters to me.

Can you clarify whether it is that you are envious of those who live in social housing in an area you quote below or you think that social housing should not be provided in those areas?

As its the second is how I read what you posted below.

and I know for sure this will cause blood to boil, but I can't help feeling that if you require social housing, then your expectation to live a desirable area is secondary to your desire to live in state funded accommodation? I should point of out that whilst I agree with preventing ghettoisation(sp?), I do find it hard to walk past the Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London handed over to social housing without some envy.

BTW if you are referring to Pimlico I guess its one of the old estates run by Peabody. In which case its not state funded. They are old philanthropic charity who acquired land years ago.

 

[editor]

I'll be sure to check it out. Shame you didn't post it 10 or so posts earlier in answer to my original question; we could have saved ourselves an hour or silly point scoring

If you're too lazy to bother with even basic research, I'll be fucked if I'm going to dance around to your stupid, disingenuous and faux-innocent questions. I'm certainly not fooled by your antics here, and I'll suggest you carefully read the rules about trolling again.

 

[editor]

BTW if you are referring to Pimlico I guess its one of the old estates run by Peabody. In which case its not state funded. They are old philanthropic charity who acquired land years ago.

Almost certainly.

Peabody (Peabody Trust), founded in 1862, is one of London's oldest and largest housing associations with around 27,000 properties. It is also a charity and urban regeneration agency.

 

[SpamMisery]

If you're too lazy to bother with even basic research, I'll be fucked if I'm going to dance around to your stupid, disingenuous and faux-innocent questions. I'm certainly not fooled by your antics here, and I'll suggest you carefully read the rules about trolling again.

Classic editor

 

[SpamMisery]

Can you clarify whether it is that you are envious of those who live in social housing in an area you quote below or you think that social housing should not be provided in those areas?

As its the second is how I read what you posted below.

It's the second (ish) in the sense that I work hard but will never afford a property like that; and that is a bit grating. And it's ish in the sense I don't disagree with social housing in any part of London, just that selling off the property for maximum gain in order to build cheaper housing (acknowledging what was said before about that not being done) would be my preferred option

 

[shifting gears]

It's the second (ish) in the sense that I work hard but will never afford a property like that; and that is a bit grating. n

Aka "people in council housing are lazy and feckless and don't work hard"

Get fucked eh?

 

[boohoo]

Aka "people in council housing are lazy and feckless and don't work hard"

Get fucked eh?

Getting angry at someone who doesn't understand doesn't help.

SpamMisery

I grow up in a council house that is a 150 year old Victorian property - there were quite a lot where I lived. I'm not sure how the council acquired them (and I am interested to find out). But the area was interspersed with posh home owners, squats, derelicts, various homes like the old people's home, prefabs, the regular burnt out cars and a fair amount of tension in the street. But as a kid I think I would have rather lived on a quiet estate than a Victorian property where aggression happening outside the house was a fairly regular occurrence. The area has changed since then - the old people's home and the other homes got removed and turned into fake Victorian terraces and houses, the sites of the prefabs also got developed. The burnt out cars went as did the derelicts and squats. Some of the social housing went under RTB and the rest is now RSL - and the area is very wealthy middle class now. Places change.

Council housing has been stereotypes as a place where you have problem families and people who are fiddling the system - and this stereotype has been encouraged - it's a great way to resent those who have social housing and so when that housing is under threat, no-one wants to stand up and support them because they have been encouraged to believe that the people living there don't deserve it.

Because there is a decline in social housing, there is less opportunity for everyone to benefit from it if that is what they want.

 

[Ms T]

I live in a Victorian terrace - there's still loads of social housing on the street. I know this because a few years ago they were all painted at the same time. Our next-door-but-one neighbour at the time actually got paid by the council to paint her own house, and her boyfriend got the contract for quite a few of the others.

On a related topic - does anyone know what the rules are for council tenants keeping up their properties? Our next-door-but-one neighbour (a different one) has boarded up the windows in the basement, both back and front, for no apparent reason (like broken windows), and the garden is a complete wilderness. My next-door neighbour is seriously unimpressed. Tbh, I'd be more scared of her than of the council - she's lovely but one fierce lady!

 

[teuchter]

Here. Have a read.
Could you list all these 'Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London that have been handed over to social housing' that you've been walking past recently please? Thanks.

This post is where the aggressive tone was introduced to what was a perfectly reasonable discussion. Shortly thereafter, SpamMisery gets banned for being "disruptive".

 

[Rushy]

The Council did own property in Clapham but its been selling it as these properties command high prices.

I agree that new social housing should be targeted in areas like Knightsbridge. One Hyde Park should have had some but it does not. Developers fight to stop it.

Given the stupid values of that site I'd much rather see a contribution towards housing elsewhere nearby. The prices there are 5 million for a one bed flat up to 65 million for a single floor (I'm ignoring the £140,000,000 rumours). Within half a mile of SW1 you could buy 160 x 2 bed flats for the value of one floor. The immediate area is already devoid of anyone but the oil type rich (who don't seem to bother living there) so sticking a couple of isolated families in there on principle doesn't seem like best use of resources.

 

[Rushy]

This post is where the aggressive tone was introduced to what was a perfectly reasonable discussion. Shortly thereafter, SpamMisery gets banned for being "disruptive".

It was a bit like watching one of those bouncers in a queue who is secretly gagging for it all to kick off.

 

[leanderman]

Given the stupid values of that site I'd much rather see a contribution towards housing elsewhere nearby. The prices there are 5 million for a one bed flat up to 65 million for a single floor (I'm ignoring the £140,000,000 rumours). Within half a mile of SW1 you could buy 160 x 2 bed flats for the value of one floor. The immediate area is already devoid of anyone but the oil type rich (who don't seem to bother living there) so sticking a couple of isolated families in there on principle doesn't seem like best use of resources.

This is true. But my general point obtains, just about - that social housing should not be built only in 'cheap' areas.

 

[isvicthere?]

So - in the interests of mixed communities - new social housing should be targeted in Streatham and Clapham and, for that matter, Knightsbridge and Chelsea.

"New" social housing? Not sure that's even "a thing" in neoliberal-shit Britain.

 

[teuchter]

This discussion about the current housing crisis is well worth a listen for anyone interested:

http://www.sidrodrigues.com/2014/03/little-atoms-318-danny-dorling-naomi-alderman/

 

[leanderman]

Getting angry at someone who doesn't understand doesn't help.

SpamMisery

I grow up in a council house that is a 150 year old Victorian property - there were quite a lot where I lived. I'm not sure how the council acquired them (and I am interested to find out)

Same in this street. Intriguing. I guess people abandoned the road and the council bought up the properties.

 

[Rushy]

This is true. But my general point obtains, just about - that social housing should not be built only in 'cheap' areas.

As a general point, fine. But 1/2 mile from what is generally reputed to be the most expensive land in the world is not a cheap area by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[teuchter]

Same in this street. Intriguing. I guess people abandoned the road and the council bought up the properties.

Likewise near me there is a terrace of victorian houses (I think actually built as flats) which someone told me used to be council housing (maybe they still are - I don't know). I wondered how they came into council ownership, especially as they are a bit unusual in that each house contains more than one dwelling (if I remember correctly).

 

[Winot]

Branksome Rd (south off Acre Lane) has a lot of housing association properties in the Victorian terrace along its 'long' side. I only know this because all the window frames were replaced recently.