Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Fuck Gentrification - Join the Fuck Parade...Part 3!

similar principle to scabbing in a strike situation. What's good for the individual is bad for the wider community and plays into the tories hands in terms of furthering their ideological agenda and transferring public assets into private hands.
I guess one difference is that if you scab, the people you're fucking over are right in front of you. You can name them. If you exercise rtb and sell on, you're contributing to the malaise, but you're fucking over a whole generation, really. You can't name them. And if you don't do it, you're possibly not giving your best to your kids. Most people will sacrifice a lot of principle if what they do will help their kids - and it's a case of fuck or be fucked, which isn't the case with scabbing really.

But yes, the collapse of solidarity is part of this.
 

Paywalled. Full text of the article which is quite interesting IMO.
Right to Buy to Let
14 August 2015 | By Pete Apps

Exclusive Inside Housing research reveals almost 40% of ex-council homes sold under the Right to Buy are now in the private rented sector. Pete Apps considers the impact of the move from Right to Buy to buy-to-let

There is a two-bedroom flat listed on Zoopla, which sums up – in a nutshell – why so many people paying attention to housing policy in the UK get annoyed about the Right to Buy.

It is a first-floor flat in Bermondsey, south London, just a short walk from Tower Bridge and Boris Johnson’s glossy headquarters on the south bank of the Thames.

It has a small, well-fitted kitchen, a lounge and a balcony. From its brown-brick exterior, it is unmistakably part of London’s 1960s council house building boom, but according to its description on the property listings site, it is now “ex-local authority”.

The letting agent is offering the flat for £1,712 per month, a 409% mark-up on the average rent for a council flat in Southwark of £418.

This rent increase is extreme, but the move into the private rented sector (PRS) is a trend that exclusive research by Inside Housing demonstrates is being replicated all across England.

Freedom of Information Act responses from 91 councils show they have sold a combined 127,763 council flats and maisonettes since the Right to Buy was introduced in 1980.

Among these, 47,994 leaseholders are registered as living away from the property – a strong suggestion that they are renting it out privately. This means 37.6% of the council homes which were sold off at a discount in the hope of fulfilling a homeownership dream, are now back in the rental sector. Just for much higher rents.

Inside Housing arrived at the figure by asking councils how many residential leaseholds have been sold. This occurs where a flat or maisonette is sold to a tenant under the Right to Buy – with the council continuing to own the freehold of the block.

Councils were then asked how many leaseholders have registered an away address, which indicates the property is being sub-let. While this does include a small margin for error where, for example, family members live in the home free of charge, it provides the best possible estimate and is the figure some local authorities use to estimate how many homes are being rented privately.

Changing estates
So what is the impact of so many ex-council flats going into the private rented sector?

The first is that the higher rents are railroading through changes to the traditional make-up of estates, especially in high-value areas like London.

“It is fundamentally changing the nature of former social housing estates, because the people who can afford the private rents are not the same people who could afford social housing rents,” says Karen Buck, Labour MP for Westminster North.

“Over the years, I have seen many of our estates become virtual honey pots for estate agents and landlords,” adds Pat Callaghan, cabinet member for housing in Labour-led Camden – where 36% of the 8,922 leasehold properties are sub-let.

She says estate agents flyer estates, particularly seeking older tenantswho want to move out of the city. They then fund the purchase, allow them to move and the property goes straight into the private rented sector.

“The landlords want to get as much money as they can for the property, so they split it up and let it out, often to a group of students to share,” she says.

Philip Glanville, cabinet member for housing in Hackney (7,423 leaseholders, 26% sub-letting) agrees.

“When I first got elected in 2006, the estates were mainly people who owned the home or council tenants,” he says. “Now there are a lot of professional sharers and students.”

This trend is not confined to London. Nick Atkin is chief executive of Halton Housing Trust, which owns 6,400 homes in Cheshire following a transfer from the council, and many of them remain subject to the Right to Buy.

“One in four sales is made to someone who is in receipt of housing benefit, so they are often not the person buying the home,” he says.

“It can be friends and family, but it is also companies who offer to purchase the home on their behalf.”

Catherine Hand, a partner at Trowers & Hamlins solicitors, explains that while there are restrictions on when a tenant can sell their Right to Buy home, there is nothing councils can do under the current system to prevent immediate sub-letting.

Knock-on effect
This has a knock-on effect on estate management. Social landlords remain responsible for the upkeep of the estate as a whole, but not the homes in the private sector.

“We have invested £130m into our homes and neighbourhoods, and some private landlords obviously don’t invest to the same standard,” says Mr Atkin.

Ms Callaghan explains that the council spends time and legal resources tracking down private landlords to repair properties – and also picks up the tab where their actions damage surrounding stock.

“One landlord moved a group of four students into what was originally a two-bedroom flat,” she says. “The tenant below contacted us, because it flooded the sewage system and she had urine running down her walls.”

There is also the cost to the public purse in housing benefit and temporary accommodation. Both Camden and Hackney, and many councils all across the country rent back the homes they sold at a discount to provide temporary accommodation to tenants.

This means there is a hit to the housing benefit bill – as the private landlord charges a market rate for the property and the taxpayer picks up the cost.

Inside Housing’s research comes as the Conservative government prepares to extend full Right to Buy discounts to 1.3 million housing association tenants – and sell thousands of high-value council homes to fund it.

During the election campaign, David Cameron made this extension one of his flagship policies, saying: “Conservatives have dreamed of building a property-owning democracy for generations.”

But with nothing in place to prevent homes going into the private rented sector, Mr Cameron may in fact be subsidising a new generation of buy-to-let landlords.

Indeed, the research shows that across the 91 councils, 2,020 leaseholders have bought their home since discounts were raised in 2012, and already registered an away address.

Kathleen Kelly, assistant director of policy and research at the National Housing Federation, says this demonstrates one of the reasons why it is keen to explore changes to the planned extension.

“Clearly once a home is sold through Right to Buy, owners are free to sell the property on after a period of time and many of these homes do end up in the hands of private landlords,” she says.

“That is why we are keen to explore with government the other ways that housing associations can help more families get on the path towards buying their own home, such as shared ownership and buying smaller stakes.”

Government’s defence
In response to the research, Brandon Lewis, housing minister, re-issued the government’s explanation of its plan to extend the Right to Buy, saying: “It is important that councils make the best use of their assets and manage their housing stock as efficiently as possible. So it is right that as high-value council homes become empty, they should be sold to fund new affordable housebuilding in the same area.”

The Department for Communities and Local Government refused to comment in any further detail on the findings.

The research follows a similar study by the Daily Mirror two-and-a-half years ago, which looked at the figures from 13 large metropolitan areas, and concluded a third of homes were in the private rented sector.

Further research by London Assembly member Tom Copley last year showed an average of 36% of homes across London boroughs.

But Inside Housing’s is the most comprehensive nationwide study – and suggests an increasing trend.

Of the 13 London boroughs that responded to both Mr Copley and Inside Housing, nine showed an increased proportion of likely sub-lets in just 12 months. The most marked rise was in Brent, which saw an additional 200 leaseholders with away addresses in the year – going up from 25% to 32.9% of properties sold.

Nationwide, six local authorities have now reached a tipping point where more than half the flats sold under Right to Buy are being rented privately. In Milton Keynes, the most heavily affected, 69.6% of the 1,610 leaseholds sold have away addresses [see box].

To test the theory that these homes are out of reach of the working poor, Inside Housing telephones the letting agent for the Bermondsey property described above. We pose as a local teaching assistant and requested a viewing of a home – once built at the public’s expense to house London’s working poor.

“I’m not being rude, but how much do you earn?” the letting agent asks. We say £18,000 per year, and explain that we hope to qualify for housing benefit to help pay the rent.

“We don’t take tenants on housing benefit,” the agent responds curtly and ends the call. It appears the fears are justified.

Top 10 areas of Right to Buy sub-letting
Rank Local authority Leaseholds sold Away address registered Approximate % sub-letting
1 Milton Keynes 1,610 1,121 69.6
2 Stevenage 1,365 893 65.4
3 Blackpool 397 259 65.2
4 Corby 591 371 62.8
5 South Kesteven 128 73 57.0
6 Kingston 1,497 752 50.2
7 Enfield 4,670 2,264 48.5
8 Northampton 808 384 47.5
9 Nuneaton 430 204 47.4
10 Stoke 348 165 47.4
Source: Inside Housing research
 
I guess one difference is that if you scab, the people you're fucking over are right in front of you. You can name them. If you exercise rtb and sell on, you're contributing to the malaise, but you're fucking over a whole generation, really. You can't name them. And if you don't do it, you're possibly not giving your best to your kids. Most people will sacrifice a lot of principle if what they do will help their kids - and it's a case of fuck or be fucked, which isn't the case with scabbing really.

But yes, the collapse of solidarity is part of this.
with RTB you're doing it to your neighbors kids
 
with RTB you're doing it to your neighbors kids
That's the evil genius of rtb. It undermines solidarity, no doubt whatever. But I can't blame anyone for taking it up. I admire anyone who hasn't on principle, but I'm certainly not going to judge anyone who has. That's what's so fucking evil about it - there are lots of ways your neighbours' kids are being fucked over, mostly by people far richer than the rtb council tenants, so it's really not fair to lay that one on them.

It reminds me of a logic from Catch22:

'What if everyone did what you are doing?'

'If everyone was doing what I'm doing, I'd be mad not to.'
 
That's the evil genius of rtb. It undermines solidarity, no doubt whatever. But I can't blame anyone for taking it up. I admire anyone who hasn't on principle, but I'm certainly not going to judge anyone who has. That's what's so fucking evil about it - there are lots of ways your neighbours' kids are being fucked over, mostly by people far richer than the rtb council tenants, so it's really not fair to lay that one on them.
RTB was probably the worst fuck over of the working class. Fucked over and make sure they blame each other, not the proponents.
 
Essentially it's a tory induced tragedy of the commons* type attack on the working class, pitching self interest against the interest of the wider community / class.

It would have been hard to do it, but it could have been opposed at a grassroots level with a campaign to persuade people not to do the RTB thing. I don't know if this was attempted, would be interested to know more if it had been at some point.

Then again a lot of the issues were exacerbated by the government refusing to allow councils to use the proceeds to build further council houses (IIRC forcing them to use the proceeds to pay off existing loads, but not allowing them to take out further loans).


*yes I'm aware of the limitations of the tragedy of the commons analysis, but it seems reasonably apt here.
 
RTB was probably the worst fuck over of the working class. Fucked over and make sure they blame each other, not the proponents.
yep. And its effects are becoming ever clearer every year. It's a slow-burner fuck-up legacy from Thatcher. One for her to enjoy from the grave. :(
 
yep. And its effects are becoming ever clearer every year. It's a slow-burner fuck-up legacy from Thatcher. One for her to enjoy from the grave. :(
It gets even worse though, if you read what marty's saying. It's not the whole story though and we shouldn't concentrate on it as if it was.
 
That's the evil genius of rtb. It undermines solidarity, no doubt whatever. But I can't blame anyone for taking it up. I admire anyone who hasn't on principle, but I'm certainly not going to judge anyone who has. That's what's so fucking evil about it - there are lots of ways your neighbours' kids are being fucked over, mostly by people far richer than the rtb council tenants, so it's really not fair to lay that one on them.
Sure, most of my school mates' parents did it. I don't really blame them either, but what pisses me off no end now though (and I've had some heated discussions with good mates), is how some of them are now moaning that their kids can't get on the ladder and that they dread the thought of them having to live up north.
 
Sure, most of my school mates' parents did it. I don't really blame them either, but what pisses me off no end now though (and I've had some heated discussions with good mates), is how some of them are now moaning that their kids can't get on the ladder and that they dread the thought of them having to live up north.
Tell them that their kids will get on the ladder when they die.
 
Sure, most of my school mates' parents did it. I don't really blame them either, but what pisses me off no end now though (and I've had some heated discussions with good mates), is how some of them are now moaning that their kids can't get on the ladder and that they dread the thought of them having to live up north.
I once had a stand-up drunken row with a colleague about it. I mentioned more or less what I said above and he took massive personal umbrage at it cos his parents had done it, and it was the best thing that had ever happened to them, blah, blah. He didn't get the nuance, but I think that's doubly why you shouldn't blame individual rtbers. Good to get people to join some dots, though. (and he was a massive tory twat)
 
Wtf are you telling me what I put on the thread fucking days ago and linked to the actual report that John Biggs was talking about, just this morning.
It'd help if you could state your position a little more coherently when asked, but also I haven't read every post on this 60 page thread and don't intend to.
 
It'd help if you could state your position a little more coherently when asked, but also I haven't read every post on this 60 page thread and don't intend to.
Please don't blame me for (a) your lack of understanding; and (b) your lack of reading posts. A simple, oh, apologies, I missed that, would have sufficed.
 
Tell them that their kids will get on the ladder when they die.
Well this is the ridiculousness of all defenses to inheritance policy or other policy on the grounds of inheritance. I know people like the idea of helping their kids but what is the point of fucking them over on a national, social scale for their first 40 or 60 years just so they can get an inheritance in their middle or old age?
 
Fair enough. Not much. :oops:

And I'm not claiming that the coco pop twins are some kind of equivalent to this. They're clearly not.

There is a point about how people get coopted into the system, though, whether that's home ownership or starting your own business. I'm certainly not going to have a go at everyone who starts their own business if the alternative is some crap job with a crap boss.
all bosses are bastards
 
the 99p menu has fallen drastically in range and I can't remember the last time there was a deal voucher on the back of my bus ticket. Don't be fooled by the clowns new wraps and real meat. Still slyly hiking the prices for the classics back up to the bad old days.
Can't beat their Fillet o fish though
 
IMO it happens less now more due to the fact that in those years larger demos happened, and these tended to have a element that was able to trash windows under the cover of a larger mass, and of course McDonalds was a clear symbol of the corporate face of globalization that lots of these demos were (in part) about.

As someone said at the time, breaking McDonalds windows was the '90s equivalent of burning the US flag.

As well as that I think there's other issues to do with animal rights being a more significant part of the radical political scene then than it is now, and hopefully a maturing of the attitudes around being simplistically critical of the lifestyle politics that also McDonalds in part represented.

Apart from ' can't be bothered to cook' what lifestyle politics do people who go to McDoalds represent ?
 
Well this is the ridiculousness of all defenses to inheritance policy or other policy on the grounds of inheritance. I know people like the idea of helping their kids but what is the point of fucking them over on a national, social scale for their first 40 or 60 years just so they can get an inheritance in their middle or old age?
Inheritance plays a big part in perpetuating inequality though.
 
similar principle to scabbing in a strike situation.
Just to come back to this, I think there's a massive difference. A scab is making a choice not to show solidarity. In the housing market, not exercising rtb isn't allying yourself with a group that is calling for solidarity. It's just not buying your house. If there were a huge self-help movement for people in council housing who refuse to buy, a group with whom to show solidarity, then there might be a valid comparison, but there isn't.
 
Just to come back to this, I think there's a massive difference. A scab is making a choice not to show solidarity. In the housing market, not exercising rtb isn't allying yourself with a group that is calling for solidarity. It's just not buying your house. If there were a huge self-help movement for people in council housing who refuse to buy, a group with whom to show solidarity, then there might be a valid comparison, but there isn't.
I did say 'similar principle' not 'exactly the same', and I agree that in the absence of such a solidarity campaign that such a stance taken by an individual is effectively whistling into the wind.

But we're on a thread discussing a campaigning action by a campaigning organisation, so it's surely valid to discuss the merits or otherwise of such a campaign vs the current actions. A starting point for which must be to discuss and understand the role that the use of RTB to transfer council houses into the private rented sector is playing / has played in the situation.

In terms of the wider political context that I've been attacked for not previously discussing, I'd view the following as being the key policy areas that are ultimately responsible for this situation, and need to be addressed if the gentrification situation is to be sorted out.

Rent controls
Availability of low cost decent quality council housing / social housing
House price to wage ratios, ie viewing massive housing price bubbles as a bad thing with policies to prevent it, rather than encouraging it because it notionally benefits those who already own their own homes and makes the GDP figures look better.
Availability of reasonably paid jobs suitable for those who live in the area (full employment as a serious political aim).
Benefits caps (rent controls and council house provision are far more effective at controlling benefits bills anyway).
 
Exactly my point. I'd love to eliminate it entirely.
It's going the opposite way, if I'm reading it right. From the low point in 2009 IHT receipts have been steadily increasing. Was it 2007 that there was the introduction of signing across IHT allowance to surviving partner? And now £175k family home allowance being added from next April ( and the other IHT plans from the Budget).

I can't find an in depth study more recent than 2005 though.
 
Back
Top Bottom