reference please
incorrect. governments running deficits year after year, while deregulating the banks and causing an expansionary credit bubble "real growth"
Say hello to Barratt Homes' 'Brixton Square' on Coldharbour Lane (old Cooltan site)
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
reference please
incorrect. governments running deficits year after year, while deregulating the banks and causing an expansionary credit bubble "real growth"
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Who cares whose fault? We are all innit together
editor
hiraethified
Who's living in 'subsidised/free housing'?
I'm pretty sure it's not. Our government is borrowing more than ever.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Maybe best not to let the thread get derailed into the same shit that's been gone over hundreds of times with all the other identical right wing fuckwits.
Yep they do...
But I was referring to Lambeth Council - no cash for them to pay out.
I said: "All that achieved without having to raid council funds (which are probably fairly scarce at the moment)."
Here's my reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_association#Funding_and_regulation
Wikipedia... Must be true!
Partly funded by the GLA. But also obtain funding from banks and the capital markets:
"Housing associations borrow money to pay for new homes and improvements. After the Housing Act 1988, the proportion of the cost of new homes met by capital grant was scaled back by the Government, so borrowing became the primary source of funding for investment. Much of this was simply borrowed from banks and building societies, but after the late-2000s financial crisis these institutions ceased to offer long-term loans, so developing associations are increasingly turning to corporate bonds to raise funds for expansion.[6]"
Plus developers sell at less than market prices - so the cheaper housing is effectively a cost to them which reduces profits...
The point is, that this is a very efficient way of providing affordable housing.
* NB: councils can set up RSL's - but they would still have access to wider funding sources...
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Unlike most of the rest of us, myself included, it seems you've actually proactively done quite a lot of stuff in the real world to get questions asked and so on, and possibly can take some of the credit for those last minute alterations to the agreement. I'm impressed - good work.Also my ward Cllr Matt Parr had emailed the officer a series of questions about this application. Which is also why I thought the officers came up with this last minute information.
As you say we will have to wait for the minutes. They need to be checked. The officers changed the proviso that I queried that the RSL who had the flats could alter the % later on up to 80% of market rate to one linked to RPI. This was last minute ( on day of meeting) and I did not see this worded in writing.
Ur are spot on it was drip feed. The officers report imo was poor. Cut and paste history of site and then outline of changes to section106.
Nor was the "viability doc" there or discussed at the planning committee meeting. At the very least officers should have presented a summary of it a meeting. As Barratts and officers both said it was the rational behind the need for a change to the section106.
Nor am I happy about the cozy working relationships that officers and developers can have. Both Barratts and officers had clearly thought that this should have gone through with no fuss. Like the one for Streatham hub. That is why the guy from Barratts was upset I think. From his point of view Barratts had worked constructively with officers and had come to a compromise. Then these pseky residents turn up complaining and get Cllrs asking questions. It was all running so smoothly before that.
I still do not understand why social rented units as per the original Section106 where not "viable". This was never explained.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
You are derailing this thread.
Answer to your question is reading some economics. Stiglitz "Freefall" would be good idea. Or Paul Mason
Anyway here is Stiglitz on Europe in general ( Banking crisis is world wide due to globalisation)
Come back when you have read the books.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that info.
It is a cost to developers which is why they go back to renegotiate Section106 agreements. That is the point of Section106 agreements. It does reduce profits for a developer. Whether its for housing or money for local amenities. The idea of Section106 is that a large developer (Section106 only applies to larger developments) is making a big enough profit for some of this to be taken off them for use in local area or for housing. Its a way to control a rampant free market. Its not in the financial interest of a developer to build a park near flats or part fund a school. Business is business.
The fact is from what I've seen (Tescos ice rink etc) is that its a continual battle between Council and developers. And the developers get what they want in Lambeth. This alteration to the Section106 waters down the previous Section106.
Officers and Barratts imo should have justified it more in that case. The attitude was that the new housing regime set down by central government is a given. Thats just how things are. When it was in fact about Barratts realising they were going to lose money on this if the original Section106 went through.
edited to say I would like some clarification from officers about whether the rented affordable housing was in danger if the original Section106 was kept.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I do this kind of thing every now and then. Also credit to Ed and Zoe of Brixton Blog for making sure it was made public issue.
I also think that all those who contributed to this thread make a difference. This is one of the more important recent threads. Council does lurk here.
ed Brixton Blog
My view is that I should not really have to do this. The Council should take on developers. It should set 50% affordable housing on large developments. If Labour Cllrs are not happy about enough affordable housing then they should say so more.
Cllrs are elected to take up issues. Officers to research reports and look at how to put what the Cllrs want as policy into practise .It realistically cannot be up to ordinary people to do this all the time. Most of us other commitments or are just keeping our heads above water. Also we do not have the resources of Council or developers.
I was pleasantly surprised that my ward (Labour) Cllrs took an interest. I think the joint U75/ Brixton Blog statement made a big difference.
I was not impressed by officers at the meeting. They are supposed to be working for the people. At the meeting both the officers and Barratts were well pissed off about the objections and comments from the 2 LD Cllrs. The officers and Barratts were supporting each other to get this through.
BTW CH1 CH1 came along to give support. Really glad about that.
Unfortunately the concessions were minor. I am afraid a precedent has been set for other developments in the Brixton area. As developers look at what has been agreed on other sites when devising there own plans.
colacubes
Mr Hot Cookie
Gramsci is a proper real life star and campaigner on this shit. He should get a fuck load of respect for what he does for the local community
And in fairness I think I've only met him properly once (at a planning meeting tbf
), but his dedication to the local community, amongst people I know locally, and particularly in the town centre, is really well respected. And rightly so People may disagree with him. And that's fine. But he properly puts the hours in and is a bigger/better/more knowledgeable campaigner than most of us
is this the pithy equivalent of no u r, no backsies? My opinion is that you are not correct, please deal with it.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
I think he's one of the hardest working people in Brixton, year in, year out. Not for money, love or glory but because he genuinely loves the place he calls home.Gramsci is a proper real life star and campaigner on this shit. He should get a fuck load of respect for what he does for the local community
And in fairness I think I've only met him properly once (at a planning meeting tbf
People may disagree with him. And that's fine. But he properly puts the hours in and is a bigger/better/more knowledgeable campaigner than most of us
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
cuppa tee
Well-Known Member
maybe here......... http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/benefit-myths-and-those-who-fall-for-them.304486/ .......would be as good a place as any.
editor
hiraethified
Solomon Smith is a real unsung hero too, as are one or two people on my estate:
http://southwyckhouse.wordpress.com...tchen-serving-hot-meals-from-southwyck-house/
http://southwyckhouse.wordpress.com...tchen-serving-hot-meals-from-southwyck-house/
what is his job..local councillor?
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
No, an ordinary resident.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Yes, he was a bit of a conversion on the road to Damascus. He was a nightmare teenager. Turned his life around.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I don't want your apologies or your sympathy. What I'd like is for you to open your mind.
That's unlikely, given your use of the "Blame game" in your post.
How do you know where fault lies? You don't. You're just trotting out another ill-informed opinion - the one that says that everyone has so much control over their lives that "bad shit" is all their own fault, because of ignorance, lack of effort, yada yada yada.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You obviously don't grasp the basics of macroeconomics, if you think that a single government in a single nation-state is to blame for the "messed up" financial "environment".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I suspect that Tony is under the impression that developers "gift" these properties to social landlords/local authorities, rather than forming their own RSLs or collaborating with existing ones, in order to shorten the money chain.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So, nothing to do with the worldwide "credit crunch", then, and the knock-on effects from that?
Labour might have run up the structural deficit, but most economic predictions prior to the "credit crunch" saw the deficit as easily repayable further into the economic cycle, and the running up of the debt in the first place as "safe". Notice, for example, how none of the ratings agencies were marking down UK debt between 2004-2008, the years when the structural deficit increased.
Labour aren't blameless. Their unwillingness to re-regulate parts of the financial sector that had been deregulated by the Tories directly contributed to the financial products that caused the "credit crunch", but that's regulatory as opposed to economic incompetence, and anyone who understood or understands the economic agenda Labour signed up to (neoliberalism, the same agenda the Tories were already signed up to) in order to get business support in the run-up to '97, knew that hitting The City was vanishingly unlikely except in the form of the one-off "Windfall Tax".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I might have guessed you'd be daft enough to make the argument that council housing is either subsidised or free. Charging a sub-market rent for a fully paid-for asset (which given that hardly any LA social housing was built post-'86, is 90% of it) isn't subsidy, because a return is still achieved from the asset, however loudly the Adam Smith Institute and the likes of the Taxpayer's Alliance argue otherwise. That a "market-level" return isn't made on the asset is immaterial. There's no legal obligation for the owner of any property to achieve the maximum possible return on their assets.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I can see why people who rent homes on the open market whilst contributing into a system which supports some but not others by giving them access to non-private sector rents feel they are subsidising others even if, as you correctly point out, the proper definition of the word 'subsidise' does not accurately describe the transaction or relationship. I suppose a better term would be that some are supporting others by giving them privileged access to non-private sector rents which they don't have access to themselves. Getting too bogged down in the technicalities of the term 'subsidise' seems to miss the real point being made.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'd contend that the term "subsidise" is of key importance to the sort of narrative that secateurz is retailing, specifically because it represents the transaction as exactly that - subsidy of "the poor".
As for "privileged access", the "privilege" is entirely a result of the deliberate decision to cease the construction of local authority social housing (part of a wider attempt to socially-engineer a "property-owning democracy") that has meant that access is needs-based and therefore exclusionary when previously it was inclusive.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I can't speak for secateurz but it looks to me like you are getting caught up in the rhetoric rather than being open to understanding the general point someone else is making, even if not as precisely and eloquently as you.
As for your second point - yes - it is a result of there not being enough council owned properties to give to everyone who wants one. But the reason behind it doesn't make it any less of a privilege for those who have that benefit.
