Twattor
Well-Known Member
???yeah cos there's so much new council housing being built in K&C
Actually ???
Non sequitur. Please. You're worth more than that
???yeah cos there's so much new council housing being built in K&C
My understanding is that planning policy is always towards integration of tenures. From the management side I understand the separation of cores simply to reduce costs. This is something that urbs seem to find horrific. Tbh I consider this stupid politicising - who wants to spend more for nothing?
I've not been working in the social housing world for long, but from my experience we've spent the last 10+ years trying to build balanced communities. It just feels that a lot of nimbys are hugely prejudiced against anything that isn't a squatNo not at all. I'm all for old-school mixed housing with plentiful social housing occupied full of people from all backgrounds and classes. But do I find it offensive when one luxury, exclusive gated development after another opens up in one of the most deprived communities in London? Yes, I fucking do. I find it divisive. It also contributes to the tearing apart of established communities, where locals can no longer afford to live in their own community. That's how I feel. How about you?
Wow. Are you actually promoting ghettoisation? Let's keep the poor people in their ghetto while the rich keep Kensington and Chelsea.
I've not been working in the social housing world for long, but from my experience we've spent the last 10+ years trying to build balanced communities. It just feels that a lot of nimbys are hugely prejudiced against anything that isn't a squat
Nope. I've seen the maths. Social service charges are capped. Legislation stipulates that a freeholder can only charge tenants for specific elements relating to them. Discrimination isn't allowed. Everything comes down to minimising costs - separate stair cores with robust finishes won't cost thousands.Separation of cores is because developers feel that mixing social housing with market price housing will reduce the "desirability" of market price housing. Thus reducing there profits. To say it's simply about management costs is naive. It's a class issue. I don't understand why you can't see this.
Nope. I've seen the maths. Social service charges are capped. Legislation stipulates that a freeholder can only charge tenants for specific elements relating to them. Discrimination isn't allowed. Everything comes down to minimising costs - separate stair cores with robust finishes won't cost thousands.
Then you get idiots with entitlement issues who think that they shouldn't have to pay for any of this
Disappointed that you should feel that way as I consider you to be one of the more considered posters here.This is bollox.
As ViolentPanda in Cressingham Gardens knows talk of "balanced" communities is code for to much social housing.
Some of us posters here have aldo been working (unpaid) in the social housing sector in a voluntary capacity representing residents. So know what we are talking about.
Your post is just insults.
Entitlement issues. Fuck you.
You work in social housing sector and say this. Fucking piece of shit.
Again that surprises me. We've often had good conversations about stuff and I'm surprised to be on the receiving end of such vitriol.
Ok maybe I didn't express myself as clearly as I might, and I know it has been discussed on the boards before, but in service charge terms your apportionment comes down to what you occupy."entitlement issues" that says it all. I've had it up to here with reading housing stuff about "mixed communities" etc. This is straight out of New Labour types like Adonis. Tories are just continuing what New Labour started and you are buying it.
Btw I'm not slagging off all those who work in social housing sector. Talked to one recently and says he doesn't like his job now. It's not why 25 years ago he started his career in housing.
Where are you getting this ridiculous bullshit from? No one here has presented such a ridiculous argument and that goes for that offensive "entitlement" crap you're spouting too. And then you wonder why Gramsci gets annoyed. You sound like a controversy-courting right wing columnist in The Sun.It just feels that a lot of nimbys are hugely prejudiced against anything that isn't a squat
You see this "all the time"? Sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. I know plenty of people who are desperate for housing and whether there's a TV on offer or not is just about the absolute last of their considerations.It always surprises me that people reject huge flats because no-one is giving them a TV. That is the sense of entitlement I'm talking about, and I see this all the time.
it's not in the slightest bit a non sequitur - gentrification is a one way street, council house building in areas both rich and deprived would serve to counteract this???
Actually ???
Non sequitur. Please. You're worth more than that
It always surprises me that people reject huge flats because no-one is giving them a TV. That is the sense of entitlement I'm talking about, and I see this all the time.
There's regularly incidents there. A few days ago there was a traffic jam back to the POW because some very young guy - stripped to the waist - was having an altercation with people outside the shop. They were restraining him, and he was raving.Looks like there was some sort of assault involving women (doing the assaulting) in the supermarket opposite the Barrier Block. It's been taped off.
I've not been working in the social housing world for long, but from my experience we've spent the last 10+ years trying to build balanced communities. It just feels that a lot of nimbys are hugely prejudiced against anything that isn't a squat
This is bollox.
As ViolentPanda in Cressingham Gardens knows talk of "balanced" communities is code for to much social housing.
Some of us posters here have aldo been working (unpaid) in the social housing sector in a voluntary capacity representing residents. So know what we are talking about.
Your post is just insults.
Nope. I've seen the maths. Social service charges are capped. Legislation stipulates that a freeholder can only charge tenants for specific elements relating to them. Discrimination isn't allowed. Everything comes down to minimising costs - separate stair cores with robust finishes won't cost thousands.
Then you get idiots with entitlement issues who think that they shouldn't have to pay for any of this
Ok maybe I didn't express myself as clearly as I might, and I know it has been discussed on the boards before, but in service charge terms your apportionment comes down to what you occupy.
In private developments the developer may want bells and whistles to attract purchasers, and expensive but vulnerable finishes can be charged back to purchasers
In social cores the priority is to keep finishes and fittings robust so occupiers don't get crippling service charges.
The annoying thing is that a high proportion of social applicants are dissatisfied because they haven't been given white goods, furnishings etc.
It always surprises me that people reject huge flats because no-one is giving them a TV. That is the sense of entitlement I'm talking about, and I see this all the time.
yes I'm sure people are rejecting huge flats all the time
I know some of the staff there and they are lovely people but the proximity of an expensive (and therefore exclusive) cocktail bar smack bang in front of a particularly poorly off council estate will continue to rile me.I tried the Shrub and Shutter at the weekend. It was great, such tasty food and drinks and the staff were friendly. They catered well for a vegan with no notice, just adapting the vegetables dishes. She was very happy with her grub. It's small and gets right noisy and quite young later, so if you don't like that, eat early like I did to avoid the worst.
I completely understand.I know some of the staff there and they are lovely people but the proximity of an expensive (and therefore exclusive) cocktail bar smack bang in front of a particularly poorly off council estate will continue to rile me.