Rushcroft road: notice to quit

[ViolentPanda]

I just posted a reply to Pete's comments: http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958

I've now replied to "Ed's" reply to my reply on there.

 

[ViolentPanda]

IIRC when squatting you are "technically" homeless, for housing list and other legal purposes

Unfortunately, leaving a squat before you're evicted from it, "technically homeless" status notwithstanding, counts as "voluntary homelessness". and can be used as a reason to disqualify you from the local housing list and/or emergency housing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Remember the ALMO!

A pun that's almost awful, but not quite!

 

[Gramsci]

I've now replied to "Ed's" reply to my reply on there.

who is "Ed"? Its not the guy who runs BB with Zoe is it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

who is "Ed"? Its not the guy who runs BB with Zoe is it?

No. Ed is the person I'm "debating" ( ) in the "comments" section on that blog page (I'm Sherman on there, by the way). I don't think Ed is Tim (the blog owner), anyway.

 

[Gramsci]

Thanks for clearing that up. I realised ur Sherman.

 

[EastEnder]

Unfortunately, leaving a squat before you're evicted from it, "technically homeless" status notwithstanding, counts as "voluntary homelessness". and can be used as a reason to disqualify you from the local housing list and/or emergency housing.

So the council are effectively asking people to put themselves in a position where they're homeless and not eligible for housing assistance, rather than wait to be evicted and have more chance of getting help? That's seriously immoral.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So the council are effectively asking people to put themselves in a position where they're homeless and not eligible for housing assistance, rather than wait to be evicted and have more chance of getting help? That's seriously immoral.

Yup. Unfortunately (from what I gather from an "insider") local authorities aren't bound by much rigid legislation as who they prioritise for service, just that they prioritise according to need, and a squatter who gives up a perfectly good squat (even though they're under imminent threat of eviction) can be viewed as (and I've stressed that, as opposed to "is defined as") having made themselves "intentionally homeless", and therefore the local authority has no obligation to them w/r/t accommodation.
Immorality born of a fucking awful system that means that social housing is rare as hen's teeth. A mate at Westminster reckoned they'd regularly sit down each day with 100 or so case files, and have to find the 2 or 3 "most deserving" cases, often by finding all sorts of nit-picking reasons to refuse other applicants.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

So if they evict everyone without a tenancy, the council tenants (some of whom I understand are quite elderly) will be in empty blocks, without support of neighbours with the joy of looking forward to the relentless reverberation of refurbing. Or are they being moved out too, to make things easier for the council?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I think some of those flats are owned too, old-time owner occupiers. Will they be CPOed?

 

[colacubes]

I think some of those flats are owned too, old-time owner occupiers. Will they be CPOed?

Not as far as I'm aware from what I've heard on the grapevine. They'd just be doing work to the squatted flats rather than CPOing whole blocks.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Not as far as I'm aware from what I've heard on the grapevine. They'd just be doing work to the squatted flats rather than CPOing whole blocks.

God, poor them. The noise and dust will be awful. Plus all the usual security worries of main entrance doors being left open and workers with tools wandering in and out. Opportunist burglars paradise

 

[colacubes]

God, poor them. The noise and dust will be awful. Plus all the usual security worries of main entrance doors being left open and workers with tools wandering in and out. Opportunist burglars paradise

From what I understand some of them are not best pleased about the whole situation (evictions through to refurb etc). But that's 3rd hand so have not idea whether true or not.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Well, I've lived through refurbs in a nearly empty block so I have sharp memories of what that was like. I was much younger then too. I don't think I'd cope as well now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So if they evict everyone without a tenancy, the council tenants (some of whom I understand are quite elderly) will be in empty blocks, without support of neighbours with the joy of looking forward to the relentless reverberation of refurbing. Or are they being moved out too, to make things easier for the council?

Not sure, but I suspect that the council tenants have already been shifted, or are in the process, because NO private developer is going be interested in taking on a project that included working around sitting tenants.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

But there definitely are sitting tenants....

 

[ViolentPanda]

But there definitely are sitting tenants....

Fuck that for a lark!

If that's the case, then the degeneration of the fabric of the building can't be anything like as bad as has been sometimes bandied about, though.
More bullshit from Lambeth, then.

 

[Choc]

at least one can say -it all lasted a long long time. my (lovely lovely lovely) ex still lives there and they all have been there a long time. lucky in squatter terms (i have been one myself some years ago but ours only lasted about 2 years. that is already quite long. a true squatter will find a good new place. of course one needs to be fit and healthy to embark on such adventures and i guess move further out..

 

[Mrs Magpie]

More bullshit from Lambeth, then.

Is there ever anything else?

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

Fuck that for a lark!

If that's the case, then the degeneration of the fabric of the building can't be anything like as bad as has been sometimes bandied about, though.
More bullshit from Lambeth, then.

Well the one I know is [pretty tatty mould friendly dank flat, but I think the main reason is that they are now unfit to pass the regulatory minimum specs for accommodation which are in (or are coming into) force.

 

[Megglewel]

Hi, I'm from the Lambeth Weekender local paper (but the U75 editor said I could post on here!). We're writing a feature about 'squatting - is it a blight on the community?' following the recent change in the law and are looking for someone to speak for squatting. Maybe someone from Rushcroft Rd or Clifton Mansions? Casaubon are you still around? We need to speak to you tomorrow as we press tomorrow night (June 8). Would just need 15 mins with you on the phone. Could you email me megan@myweekender.co.uk or call me or Martha on 0207 231 5258. Thank you!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hi, I'm from the Lambeth Weekender local paper (but the U75 editor said I could post on here!). We're writing a feature about 'squatting - is it a blight on the community?' following the recent change in the law and are looking for someone to speak for squatting. Maybe someone from Rushcroft Rd or Clifton Mansions? Casaubon are you still around? We need to speak to you tomorrow as we press tomorrow night (June 8). Would just need 15 mins with you on the phone. Could you email me megan@myweekender.co.uk or call me or Martha on 0207 231 5258. Thank you!

Not really interested in representing the squatters, as they can speak for themselves, however:

I'm what you might call "old south London". I've always lived within 3-4 miles from Brixton, and squatting has rarely been a "blight on the community" for the community itself, although the local authority is a different story. In more cases than I can list and keep this post relatively short, I've seen squatting, from the late '60s-onward, bring housing back into use, revive areas and (unfortunately) activate processes of gentrification that end up ejecting the indigenes from their communities. I'm fortunate enough that the only squatting I've done amounts to about 3 weeks-worth in 20-odd years, but for every squat with mardy occupants who smashed the place up and/or left drugs paraphenalia all over the shop that I've seen, I've seen half a dozen squats where people repaired the fabric of buildings, renewed plumbing and sheeted or re-covered roofs that landlords had deliberately busted to accelrate delapidation.

personally, I think you're asking the wrong question (or else you're coming at the question with your answers already formulated, and just want an "alternative voice" to give your piece an appearance of balance. This is a conjecture, not an accusation, by the way). Given ahistory of squatting in Brixton and its' environs (from Clapham to Camberwell), which spans 50 or more years (up to 70 according to my late nan's stories about demobbed soldiers and their families squatting some of the bigger empty houses between the hills), I think you should be asking what squatting has contributed to the community, and whether the community-as-is, or even a whiff of it, will survive the liquidation of the squats in the coming wave of evictions.

 

[Brixton Blog]

Hi all,

Cllr Pete Robbins has responded to comments under the post about the Rushcroft eviction
- http://www.brixtonblog.com/rushcroft-rd-squatters-receive-notice-to-quit/4958

Thanks,
Z

 

[Brixton Hatter]

He has made definite assurance in the Blog that these properties will not be sold off to private developers.

Although in my experience assurances by politicians, whether on paper or verbally, are worth their weight in shit.

And lo and behold Mrs Magpie is right - Cllr Robbins confirms flats WILL be sold off.

 

[editor]

So, they're flogging off a load of them. What a surprise.

In an ideal world every single one of these properties would be brought back into use as social housing and let to people on the waiting list. But, as everyone is well aware, Lambeth’s budget is under huge pressure – capital budgets in particular (at a time when schools, roads, and libraries are all currently in need of investment). The main problem is that the properties in question are in pretty poor condition – it will cost a significant amount of money to bring them back up to a standard at which the council can legally let them to tenants. Because there is so little capital available to do this there is a need to dispose of some of the properties so we have the money needed to refurbish the rest and bring back them back into use as council flats (off the top of my head I think 24 flats will be brought into use, but I might be wrong).

 

[snowy_again]

Doesn't that contradict their own Cooperative Council approach?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

And lo and behold Mrs Magpie is right - Cllr Robbins confirms flats WILL be sold off.

It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to be right
It's borne of living in Lambeth for a very long time and the sharp memory of bitter experience. Many many bitter experiences in fact.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Doesn't that contradict their own Cooperative Council approach?

Of course it does, but they can hide behind the "budget cuts from evil Tories" argument for so long it makes no fucking difference, as long as the local electorate "buy" the excuse.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

it makes no fucking difference, as long as the local electorate "buy" the excuse.

Which makes no difference either. Tories, Labour, New Labour, SDP, Lib-Dems; they've all shat upon Lambeth from a great height.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Which makes no difference either. Tories, Labour, New Labour, SDP, Lib-Dems; they've all shat upon Lambeth from a great height.

Well, it makes a difference insofar as getting rid of one set of pricks, and giving another set of pricks yet another chance to bend us over and give us a rogering.