Who is at "fault" for the gentrification of Brixton?

[Brixton Hatter]

Have I missed something or didn't she stop being Prime Minister 13 and a half years ago?

Oh, I must have missed the news or something

Come on Mr BC, you know better than that!

 

[Mr BC]

Oh, I must have missed the news or something

Come on Mr BC, you know better than that!

I know. But can't we just stick with capitalism/market forces rather than ascribing all social ills to her? If only because it flatters her importance.

 

[miss minnie]

I know. But can't we just stick with capitalism/market forces rather than ascribing all social ills to her? If only because it flatters her importance.

was it not her gov't that encouraged councils to sell off their property to commercial interests?

edit: or should i say 'our' property?

 

[Mr BC]

was it not her gov't that encouraged councils to sell off their property to commercial interests?

edit: or should i say 'our' property?

She certainly encouraged council tenants to buy their own homes. I'd hardly call those tenants 'commercial interests' and neither would I describe those tenants' homes as 'yours'.

I doubt also whether it is former right-to-buy properties that are the main drivers of gentrification in Brixton (I accept that in parts of Westminster and K&C they are important factors in that).

 

[miss minnie]

She certainly encouraged council tenants to buy their own homes. I'd hardly call those tenants 'commercial interests' and neither would I describe those tenants' homes as 'yours'.

I doubt also whether it is former right-to-buy properties that are the main drivers of gentrification in Brixton (I accept that in parts of Westminster and K&C they are important factors in that).

as well as the right-to-buy, she wanted council's void properties to be sold off to developers at profit.

as a member of housing co-ops for the last 15 years and as part of the lambeth federation of housing co-ops, i was involved in trying to stave off such sales and have the short-life properties sold to the co-ops at discount instead.

empty council stock (residential and commercial), imo, belongs to the taxpayers.

 

[Streathamite]

Have I missed something or didn't she stop being Prime Minister 13 and a half years ago?

true...but - and sorry to digress here - but I get the overwhelming impression that her party is still in thrall to her. Given that Howard was one of her proteges, it strikes me that the Conservative party is now essentially, the Thatcherite party, which is a very different beast to that envisaged by, for instance (and plucking a name entirely at random), Rab Butler
Back on-topic...I'd have to say that the previous Labour council are every bit as culpable as the current mob. They MUST have seen this coming, and truly fell asleep on their watch

 

[Anna Key]

The net effect may mean precisely that, but that ain't the same thing. This merely makes them pawns of Capitalism's wicked ways.

I've taken a concept in employment law - indirect race discrimination - and applied it to the housing/gentrification field.

In employment law:

It is indirect race discrimination to set conditions or requirements for a person to meet which may seem to apply to everyone, but may place people of a particular racial, ethnic or national group at an unfair disadvantage.

An example would be if an employer insists that candidates for a job should speak faultless English when this is clearly not needed for the type of work... or an employer insisting that a person has qualifications obtained only in the UK.

Source

So those who gentrify Brixton and drive out BME residents in favour of whites are, by analogy, indulging in indirect race discrimination.

The effect of Brixton gentrification is to drive out black residents. I fail to see how this cannot but be indirect race discrimination.

In my book, someone who indulges in indirect race discrimination is a racist. He may not mean to be - and may by shocked and horrified when he discovers the indirect racist effect of his behaviour - but that doesn't stop the behaviour from having an indirect racist effect.

Shouldn't people be judged according to their actions? I think they should. And when it's pointed out to them that their actions are having an indirect racist affect they should stop the behaviour.

An employer indulging in indirect race discrimination can have his arse roasted by an employment tribunal from day zero of the employment contract (or before, should he discriminate at appointment stage).

A fail to see why a racist employer should have his arse roasted while a racist property developer in Brixton gets away scott free - with stuffed pockets.

If indirect race discrimination is wrong in employment surely it’s wrong in housing?

The fact it’s illegal in the former case but – probably - legal in the latter is irrelevant.

So there!

 

[Mr BC]

it strikes me that the Conservative party is now essentially, the Thatcherite party, which is a very different beast to that envisaged by, for instance (and plucking a name entirely at random), Rab Butler

<Mr BC sighs whistfully at mention of Rab>

There's some truth in what you say but there are still plenty of tories prepared to fight for a non-Thatcherite Tory Party and, in some limited but significant respects, the Tory Party has moved a long way from the tacit racism and homophobia of the old Thatcherites.

 

[miss minnie]

The effect of Brixton gentrification is to drive out black residents. I fail to see how this cannot but be indirect race discrimination.

when it comes to squatting, should a group of squatters try to ensure that squats are filled to ensure an ethnically diverse mix. surely if white squatters get their white friends into empty squats without taking into account this mix then they too are racist? just thinking out loud.

 

[Domski]

I've taken a concept in employment law - indirect race discrimination - and applied it to the housing/gentrification field.

In employment law:

So those who gentrify Brixton and drive out BME residents in favour of whites are, by analogy, indulging in indirect race discrimination.

The effect of Brixton gentrification is to drive out black residents. I fail to see how this cannot but be indirect race discrimination.

In my book, someone who indulges in indirect race discrimination is a racist. He may not mean to be - and may by shocked and horrified when he discovers the indirect racist effect of his behaviour - but that doesn't stop the behaviour from having an indirect racist effect.

Shouldn't people be judged according to their actions? I think they should. And when it's pointed out to them that their actions are having an indirect racist affect they should stop the behaviour.

An employer indulging in indirect race discrimination can have his arse roasted by an employment tribunal from day zero of the employment contract (or before, should he discriminate at appointment stage).

A fail to see why a racist employer should have his arse roasted while a racist property developer in Brixton gets away scott free - with stuffed pockets.

If indirect race discrimination is wrong in employment surely it’s wrong in housing?

The fact it’s illegal in the former case but – probably - legal in the latter is irrelevant.

So there!

In that case the law is an ass I'm afraid...

Anna - I find it very amusing that you use the law to try and back up an argument in the context of your user name AND much more importantly in the context of your current campaign for Clifton Mansions which if I'm not mistaken is a direct assault on current property rights legislation...

I honestly don't think that you can make the leap from 'employment law' to 'housing law' in any case.

Just out of interest Anna - what is your view on:

1. Equal opportunities

vs

2. Positive discrimination

I am firmly in camp 1 and find the concept of 2 loathsome BTW.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

I know. But can't we just stick with capitalism/market forces rather than ascribing all social ills to her? If only because it flatters her importance.

He he, I'm often pleasantly surprised by you Mr BC!

 

[Pickman's model]

when it comes to squatting, should a group of squatters try to ensure that squats are filled to ensure an ethnically diverse mix. surely if white squatters get their white friends into empty squats without taking into account this mix then they too are racist? just thinking out loud.

i'm not certain thinking comes into that ^

as i've said above, i feel it's a class thing, not a race thing, gentrification. or do you know different?

 

[Pickman's model]

miss minnie

why d'you think they call it "gentrification" and not "ethnic cleansing" or similar?

 

[miss minnie]

i'm not certain thinking comes into that ^

as i've said above, i feel it's a class thing, not a race thing, gentrification. or do you know different?

here come the insults.

i'm merely extrapolating one of anna key's arguments.

 

[Anna Key]

Domski; Don't get too wound up about this. Anna lit on the 'gentrification is racist' argument sometime last autumn as further string to his Rushcroft bow, and is playing it for all it's worth.

So, Pooka, I take it you consider the deployment of market-led gentrification in Notting Hill as not having had a racist outcome? LOL!

Have you seen the film Notting Hill? How many black people are in it?

I can tell you.

One.

He carries Julia Robert’s shopping, or performs some other menial task. He certainly doesn’t get to tupp La Roberts, at least not on camera.

[God what a horrible thought. I’d pay to avoid having sexual relations with Julia Roberts.]

Should people who are moving to an area ask themselves as their first question:

"Will I be driving the existing ethnic community out of their homes?"

I moved to Brixton based on some great experiences of the place and on what I could (barely) afford.

You know what - I also wanted to get away from the 'singularity' of what I perceived to be my own (fairly narrow) background and be somewhere a bit more diverse.

I may be wrong, but get the impression Domski feels he’s under attack for being financially successful and living in Brixton.

Honest Domski: I think it’s great you’ve got a spot of boodle and reside in the neighbourhood. That’s the whole point of diversity: everyone is welcome - except those who attack that diversity - even you!

To attack market-led gentrification isn’t to attack those with a bit of dosh who enjoy living in a diverse area.

It’s to attack those who want to strip that diversity away - for venal-economic or right-wing-political reasons - and replace it with a “Notting-Hill-South-of-the-River” playground/dormitory for the rich.

Take my street for example. It’s about 50-50 social-private housing. No one is arguing - apart from Ernestolynch perhaps - that the private owner-occupiers should be turfed out and their homes given to the poor.

But people are arguing - and actually managed it with one block of 8 flats in 1998 - to evict poor people and install the wealthy in their homes.

The poor were evicted, the block sold for £830,000 and the flats now sell for up to £300,000 each.

No one knows what happened to the £830,000. It certainly wasn’t invested in the remaining public sector blocks.

The irony is that Rushcroft Road is not currently noted as being exemplery in terms of equal ops.

I, together with my neighbours, have never seen a black person enter or leave the privatised block since it was sold, except to perform a menial task for the wealthy white occupiers.

There was an academic study a while back - the Robson-Butler report* - which discovered some of Brixton’s middle-classes to be a rather interesting bunch.

The academics describe them as a ‘pioneering middle-class’ who came to Brixton to escape the oppressive cultural values of Middle-England: the values and aspirations of Mrs Bucket which so frighten Labour Party election strategists.

These ‘pioneering middle-classes’ bought homes in Brixton partly because the housing was cheap, but also because they were ‘in flight’ from the blandness, the homogeneity, the sheer curtain-twitching tedium of middle-class Britain and wanted to live in a diverse neighbourhood.

That very diversity is now threatened by market-led gentrification, together with the Lambeth politicians who allow it to happen.

A petition was signed last year by hundreds of central Brixton residents and business people, some of them members of the wealthy middle-classes. So just because you’re middle-class doesn’t mean you have to behave like a bastard and destroy Brixton’s diversity.

So rid yourself of that middle-class guilt, Domski old bean - life’s too short to feel guilty - and enjoy (and defend) the diversity of Brixton!

Here’s that petition. Sorry about the word ‘vibrant’ - it was drafted by a committee.

We the undersigned agree:-

Brixton is renowned as an open, tolerant, multicultural area. It is home to a diverse range of residents and a unique collection of small independent retailers. Both groups have helped sustain Brixton as a vibrant area through good times and bad.

We are concerned that the increasing popularity of Brixton as a place to live and work has led to a large increase in property prices. The sale of public housing stock and increased rents threaten both residents and retailers.

We urge the Council to:-

- Protect the central Brixton community from eviction, in particular the occupants of public sector residential blocks in Rushcroft Road and Clifton Mansions on Coldharbour Lane.

- Retain existing Council-owned property and land in central Brixton for affordable housing and social use.

- Bring back into use abandoned Council-owned property and land in central Brixton.

- Use planning and licensing guidelines to protect the smaller central Brixton retailers.

- Work closely with Apt Self Help to secure these objectives.

I’m pleased to report that since a local campaign prevented a yuppie nightclub colonising the old Brixton Cycles Co-op building on Coldharbour Lane, commercial rents on that section of the street have dropped by some 10-15%.

So when you fight the colonising yuppies and their property-developer Praetorian Guard, you also defend Brixton’s unique collection of small independent shops.

Does anyone really want to see Book Mongers replaced by Starbucks? It will be if the gentrifiers aren’t given their marching orders.



* Butler T and Robson G (2001) 'Social Capital, Gentrification and Neighbourhood Change in London: A Comparison of Three South London Neighbourhoods' Urban Studies 38(12), 2145-2162.

Another good one is:

Barry, J. and Derevlany, J. (eds) (1987) Yuppies invade my house at dinnertime: a tale of brunch, bombs and gentrification in an American city (Big River Publishing: Hoboken, NJ.).

 

[Pickman's model]

here come the insults.

i'm merely extrapolating one of anna key's arguments.

yr taking things to an illogical conclusion and - again - focussing on race, which issues are not central to gentrification.

and if you think that was insulting, you should have seen the post in its original form. my post wasn't insulting, whereas yr's 2 ak was, imo.

 

[Ms T]

Anna Key said:

"Have you seen the film Notting Hill? How many black people are in it?

I can tell you.

One. "

I find your analogy with gentrification and racism interesting, and relevant up to a point, but I don't think this really supports your argument.

The "ethnic cleansing" of Notting Hill was an act of racism by the makers of the film, not the people who live in Notting Hill.

As you were.

 

[tom796]

In my book, someone who indulges in indirect race discrimination is a racist. He may not mean to be - and may by shocked and horrified when he discovers the indirect racist effect of his behaviour - but that doesn't stop the behaviour from having an indirect racist effect.

you sound like a Stalinist informer

 

[Anna Key]

when it comes to squatting, should a group of squatters try to ensure that squats are filled to ensure an ethnically diverse mix.

Yes.

surely if white squatters get their white friends into empty squats without taking into account this mix then they too are racist?

I agree.

just thinking out loud.

Good.

In defence of the Rushcroft/Clifton situation the neighbourhood association Apt Self Help - which includes squatter members (Apt excludes no resident on the estate) has actively sought a revised equal opportunities lettings policy from Lambeth Council.

Quote: "Apt seeks both to retain the estate as social housing and to agree with Lambeth Council a strengthened equal opportunities lettings policy to ensure that new tenancies offered on the estate to people from the housing register reflect fully Brixton's unique ethnic and cultural mix."

Which is more than Lambeth Council has ever done. They haven't given a damn about the ethnic composition of the estate. And they've had 100% nomination rights since 1975.

So dood for the squatters for trying to get the ethnic composition right.

 

[Domski]

miss minnie

why d'you think they call it "gentrification" and not "ethnic cleansing" or similar?

TBH Pickman's, I didn't think this thread had anything to do with race at all until AK brought it in - anyway, since when are U75 threads supposed to stay rigidly on track.?

As far as the 'class' element of gentrification is concerned - I'm afraid I've always ascribed to the belief that 'you are what you make of yourself' - plenty of people in this world have got where they have from priviledge (given - a large amount, and I include myself in that to a certain extent) but there are some excellent examples of people who have made their way in the world without any privilidge at all.

Applying this to Brixton, people who have lived in the area for years who find themselves priced out of the market... HOW are they being priced out of the market? If they are being booted out of their council houses to flog to developers THAT IS WRONG! That's the only way I can fathom that people are truly being priced out as they cannot then afford the market rates on other properties if they can't find another council house...

I'd like to know what other ways the gentrification of Brixton is 'pricing' people out of the market other than the tedious ones about the price of beer in bars

When Hatboy talks about 'being poor' and the 'poor being marginalised', I've often wanted to ask him what he does, and why he is poor... because I'd really like to understand. People who are poor because they are incapable of making 'their way in the world' deserve support from all of us, and that includes those who follow vocations like teaching, medicine, etc... (...very long list...)

Those that are poor through their own deliberate fault do not deserve support.

I'll probably get branded a right wing cunt for that but to me it's a fairly liberal understanding of things, given the liberal wishywashy type that I believe I am.

 

[Anna Key]

whereas yr's 2 ak was, imo.

I don't feel insulted. Should I Miss Minnie? Were you trying to insult me? If so, you failed.

 

[Pickman's model]

you sound like a Stalinist informer

"a good communist is a good chekhist"
--v i lenin

 

[Pickman's model]

Should I Miss Minnie?

do you?
. .

 

[Anna Key]

you sound like a Stalinist informer

You sound like an idiot. But I forgive you.

 

[editor]

In other words, those who gentrify Brixton are racists..

So is the black owner of the Lounge a racist too?

After all, his kind of laid back, NY-style café would never exist if Atlantic Road hadn't seen huge investment.

And how about the black owner of the Brixtonian: a gentrified, upmarket bar if ever I saw one? Is he a racist as well?

And how about all the black businessmen investing in the area. Racists too?

 

[tom796]

too kind, AK, too kind...

 

[Pickman's model]

TBH Pickman's, I didn't think this thread had anything to do with race at all until AK brought it in - anyway, since when are U75 threads supposed to stay rigidly on track.?

As far as the 'class' element of gentrification is concerned - I'm afraid I've always ascribed to the belief that 'you are what you make of yourself' - plenty of people in this world have got where they have from priviledge (given - a large amount, and I include myself in that to a certain extent) but there are some excellent examples of people who have made their way in the world without any privilidge at all.

eh? didn't realise yr a rugged individualist! but not privileged enough...

Those that are poor through their own deliberate fault do not deserve support.

I'll probably get branded a right wing cunt for that

i wouldn't bother with the "right-wing" bit...

 

[tom796]

Domski, I wouldn't want to be the bureacrat whose task it is to judge whether people's poverty is their 'deliberate fault'...

 

[Anna Key]

So is the black owner of the Lounge a racist too?

After all, his kind of laid back, NY-style café would never exist if Atlantic Road hadn't seen huge investment.

And how about the black owner of the Brixtonian: a gentrified, upmarket bar if ever I saw one? Is he a racist as well?

And how about all the black businessmen investing in the area. Racists too?

Are you arguing that non-white people can't be racist?

Oh deary me. You should hear how my Jamaican neighbour talks to the African traffic wardens when they ticket her car.

 

[Domski]

eh? didn't realise yr a rugged individualist! but not privileged enough...
[/i]
i wouldn't bother with the "right-wing" bit...

I wondered when you'd start Pickman's - this thread has been pretty good so far (IMO of course) - there's no need for that sort of shit is there? However, if that's how you'd rather have it I'd be happy to kick off

Back on topic

AK - I think you're partly right on the guilt front - much of which stemmed from reading stuff on here - as far as I was concerned, I'd just bought a flat in Brixton because I really liked the place and I could (only just) afford it...

Imagine my surprise when I found out that I was a 'racist gentrifier pawn of capitalism driving out the oppressed poor'

That was a label that fucked me off quite a lot to be honest.