"Young professionals" to infest flats above Iceland

[IntoStella]

Arggghhh! Who has said this? What have they said? Where did they say it?

Here's at least a couple of straw men - and a dog -- to be going on with.

 

[editor]

As a new poster

Is Anna Key sat right next to you then?

 

[Preacher]

Is Anna Key sat right next to you then?

Pardon?

Bless you my son!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Here's at least a couple of straw men - and a dog -- to be going on with.

It's like belief in God, in a way. When people consistently - and sincerely - continue to put forward an argument which they cannot support with evidence, even one which may be entirely absurd, then there has to be reason for this, a reason of the deep-seated sort. I am working toward a fuller understanding of what this reason is and how the process works.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

They're trying to subvert the 25% social housing rule by carving the estate into "12 unit" bite-sized chunks.

They withdrew their 59 unit plan last June because - shock horror - they'd have to provide 15 flats - Ken Livingstone's 25% social housing rule - for people off the council list.

Every normal, thinking person knows that a 25% social housing provision would not only reduce the developer's profits, but the people spending, say, £200,000 on a flat by Brixton tube, would have their resale profits reduced by the mere presence of social housing in their block.

The developers are trying to push through a phased "social housing free" development at Lambeth planning committee tonight to increase their profits, to increase the resale value to the yups who shell out £200,000 per flat, and to keep poor or vulnerable people on Lambeth Council's housing waiting list.

Thank you. The meeting starts in 1 hour 50 minutes.

I don't think it is a "social housing rule", but an "affordable rule", where those flats have to be cheaper to buy than the other. of course, they're still expensive.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You're right, but these days it's damned hard to distinguish the two concepts. You've got to knock so much off the market price for someone like me to be able to afford it, it's essentially social housing anyway.

 

[editor]

Pardon?

Bless you my son!

Oh fuck off, you deceitful, lying tosser.

 

[chegrimandi]

I know which I consider to be the more important pressing issue:

families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing - a few young people getting slagged off on an internet board....

hmmm tricky one that, really tricky.

 

[editor]

I know which I consider to be the more important pressing issue:

families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing - a few young people getting slagged off on an internet board....

hmmm tricky one that, really tricky.

Funny. I haven't seen you start many threads on "families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing" recently.

Why is that?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Funny. I haven't seen you start many threads on "families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing" recently.

Why is that?

I would guess it was because they didn't really give a monkey's about it.

 

[editor]

I would guess it was because they didn't really give a monkey's about it.

Who is "they"?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It's a third person plural standing in for a third person singular.

 

[chegrimandi]

Funny. I haven't seen you start many threads on "families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing" recently.

Why is that?

wtf has that got to do with anything!!

If I started a thread on everything I believe to be a social ill I dunno how happy you'd be. Stop starting irrelevant arguments! Am I to take it that if one doesn't start a thread on a subject, one is not concerned by it

 

[Stobart Stopper]

What I meant was, in the last post, is that people can't go around dictating to others as to where they can and cannot live, based on that person's class/occupation and income.

 

[newbie]

Well said Newbie. Gawd knows, many of us are passionate about Brixton, but there's far too much drawbridge pulling-up around here for me. Everyone has their idea of the halcyon days of Brixton - rarely would the memories actually meet.

absolutely. Which would be fine if there wasn't a whiff in the current wave of would-be Canutes that they don't have any interest in the people on the estates. At all. Their interest in preventing 'yups' arriving is to preserve their own particular scene for as long as possible.

The remarkable thing for me is that most of the posters arguing vigorously here were probably attracted by the vibrancy/youthful liveliness of the place to begin with. Equally importantly they were probably pleased with the tolerance and acceptance of others once shown in Brixton. Now they seem to be raging against largely the same qualities, while all too happy to make sweeping generalisations about broad swathes of people and make sloppy jibes about them as 'yuppies' or 'young professionals' without entertaining the idea that they may actually be individuals with as much right to live in the area as they do...

Oh yes. 'My boozer is authentic, yours is a style bar' and 'everyone should be open and accepting, so yups aren't welcome'.

They've devalued the arguments and made it possible for the 'I can afford it so I must be entitled to it' brigade to sound faintly reasonable.

 

[dogmatique]

This thread is going...

nowhere

*sigh*

 

[editor]

It's a third person plural standing in for a third person singular.

Fascinating.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

This thread is going...

nowhere

*sigh*

over 350 posts in two days in a quieter forum over a block of flat

 

[tommers]

I've been out of brixton for a year, I take a look back at this board and this fucking argument is still going on.

 

[Mr Retro]

I tried to shape Brixton when I arrived here. I asked the local West Indian shop owner to sell bacon and cabbage instead of patties. He told me to fuck off

 

[dogmatique]

I've been out of brixton for a year, I take a look back at this board and this fucking argument is still going on.

Ex-fucking-zactly!

 

[Mr Retro]

What I meant was, in the last post, is that people can't go around dictating to others as to where they can and cannot live, based on that person's class/occupation and income.

But people are dictating where people can live by standing by, doing nothing, while gentrification happens.

Isin't this the crux of Justins argument?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Okay. Trying to get away from the "young professionals" thing - what is it that one is supposed to do?

Organise a movement to force the council to block new development unless affordable housing is also built? It would have to be London-wide actually, otherwise developers would just go to another area.

As Justin has pointed out, something like limiting house prices isn't going to happen, because so many people have equity that they don't want to see disappear. The attitude of home as investment is still present even in people who are concerned about the community. My dad and stepmother, who were definitely bolshy in fighting for local issues, still sold up and retired to the coast (where they continue to be bolshy).

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Organise a movement to force the council to block new development unless affordable housing is also built? It would have to be London-wide actually, otherwise developers would just go to another area.

It is London-wide. Such a thing does exist. The problem is that the threshold is too high (fifteen dwellings Inner London twenty-five Outer London) and there are too many loopholes. It is a question of tightening those regulations - and of course of mobilising public support for such a move, otherwise the Standard will persuade us all that affordable housing threatens our futures.

As Justin has pointed out, something like limiting house prices isn't going to happen, because so many people have equity that they don't want to see disappear. The attitude of home as investment is still present even in people who are concerned about the community. My dad and stepmother, who were definitely bolshy in fighting for local issues, still sold up and retired to the coast (where they continue to be bolshy).

I suspect it will happen, actually, and in the usual stupid way, by a property crash, because the current market can't go on for ever. And, having gone on so long, the usual thing applies whereby the greater the boom, the greater the danger of a bust.

Moreover there is considerable public disquiet at the lack of availability of affordable housing, and eventually business will start making a noise, too, if they have to pay greater wages because of the cost of accommodation, or if they can't get their workers in on time because the business is in Chiswick but the employees can't afford to live closer than Swindon.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It is London-wide. Such a thing does exist. The problem is that the threshold is too high (fifteen dwellings Inner London twenty-five Outer London) and there are too many loopholes. It is a question of tightening those regulations - and of course of mobilising public support for such a move, otherwise the Standard will persuade us all that affordable housing threatens our futures.

Well, then, there needs to be greater public awareness of the problems and a campaign to make it a more public issue.

I don't really know anything about the legal issues. But I'll do you a website if you like....

I suspect it wil happen, actually, and in the usual stupid way, by a property crash, because the current market can't go on for ever. And, having gone on so long, the usual thing applies whereby the greater the boom, the greater the danger of a bust.

I've been saying that London house prices are unsustainable for as long as I've been aware of them, and been convinced that a crash is just around the corner, but they just seem to be getting higher and higher. I think they may be economically sustainable for longer than they are socially sustainable, if you see what I mean.

 

[newbie]

The attitude of home as investment is still present even in people who are concerned about the community. My dad and stepmother, who were definitely bolshy in fighting for local issues, still sold up and retired to the coast (where they continue to be bolshy).

And the attitude of social tenancy as trap is also present in people who believe in social justice. My parents have never had the option to sell up and move. They've been on a list for a bungalow for some years, everything they've been offered is unsuitable. Is it any surprise that home ownership is seen as positive?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I've been saying that London house prices are unsustainable for as long as I've been aware of them, and been convinced that a crash is just around the corner, but they just seem to be getting higher and higher. I think they may be economically sustainable for longer than they are socially sustainable, if you see what I mean.

Hah, I know, me too. I don't know how much of it is bubble, i.e. "I can buy for this price because I can sell for it" rather than "I can buy for this price because i can sustain the payments". Maybe none. But as I suggested, the bigger the boom the bigger the crash. Once people start losing confidence there's a long way to fall, and the nature of markets is that they bring everybody down toegther, "socially sustainable" or not. If you can't persuade somebody to buy, even though they could, in truth, probably manage it, because they see all the prices falling and get scared, then down comes your price with the rest.

 

[Giles]

I think that prices will just stop going up, maybe fall slowly.

I don't think that there will a big crash as in 1989 - 1991, because there are a couple of key differences:

First, interest rates are low and look like staying that way. Last time around, rates suddenly climbed to 10% making loans unaffordable.

Second, there was much higher (and climbing) unemployment last time, providing another reason why people could no longer afford to keep their houses. At the present time, the economy seems in pretty good shape.

The government have a huge vested interest in NOT bringing about a big crash in house prices (as well as those who will be in negative equity and/or immediate difficulties, it would bring about a general "feel-bad" factor with people spending less etc).

On the other hand, they would probably breathe a quiet sigh of relief if the market cooled a little, because it would help ease the crisis in affordability, especially for first-time buyers.

Giles..

 

[Mrs Magpie]

You are a property developer aren't you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Funny. I haven't seen you start many threads on "families living in hostels/temporary accomodation/people or families doing poorly paid jobs not being able to afford housing" recently.

Why is that?

Because it's generally something that is implicit in discussions/threads about the lack of social housing in the area, as you've no doubt noticed.

So, not "funny" at all really, is it?