Discussion in 'Brixton' started by editor, Jul 22, 2014.
Non sequitur. Please. You're worth more than that
Separation of cores is because developers feel that mixing social housing with market price housing will reduce the "desirability" of market price housing. Thus reducing there profits. To say it's simply about management costs is naive. It's a class issue. I don't understand why you can't see this.
I've not been working in the social housing world for long, but from my experience we've spent the last 10+ years trying to build balanced communities. It just feels that a lot of nimbys are hugely prejudiced against anything that isn't a squat
Your wrong on Kensington and Chelsea. Even the Victorians thought that ghettoisation was a bad idea. They saw social conflict. Victorian philanthropy means there is social housing in Kensington and Chelsea.
Funnily enough it's under threat from the present day Tories if they have there way. Know it's why should looks on low incomes be allowed to live there.
This is bollox.
As ViolentPanda in Cressingham Gardens knows talk of "balanced" communities is code for to much social housing.
Some of us posters here have aldo been working (unpaid) in the social housing sector in a voluntary capacity representing residents. So know what we are talking about.
Your post is just insults.
Nope. I've seen the maths. Social service charges are capped. Legislation stipulates that a freeholder can only charge tenants for specific elements relating to them. Discrimination isn't allowed. Everything comes down to minimising costs - separate stair cores with robust finishes won't cost thousands.
Then you get idiots with entitlement issues who think that they shouldn't have to pay for any of this
Entitlement issues. Fuck you.
You work in social housing sector and say this. Fucking piece of shit.
Disappointed that you should feel that way as I consider you to be one of the more considered posters here.
In the years that I've been doing this one of the primary considerations has been to build balanced communities. Mix and tenure have always been a consideration, but more than that we've also had to consider how to balance the community alongside the financial constraints.
It always saddens me that people see nothing more than sales prices and an irrational expectation that we should all be housed for naught.
Again that surprises me. We've often had good conversations about stuff and I'm surprised to be on the receiving end of such vitriol.
"entitlement issues" that says it all. I've had it up to here with reading housing stuff about "mixed communities" etc. This is straight out of New Labour types like Adonis. Tories are just continuing what New Labour started and you are buying it.
Btw I'm not slagging off all those who work in social housing sector. Talked to one recently and says he doesn't like his job now. It's not why 25 years ago he started his career in housing.
Ok maybe I didn't express myself as clearly as I might, and I know it has been discussed on the boards before, but in service charge terms your apportionment comes down to what you occupy.
In private developments the developer may want bells and whistles to attract purchasers, and expensive but vulnerable finishes can be charged back to purchasers
In social cores the priority is to keep finishes and fittings robust so occupiers don't get crippling service charges.
The annoying thing is that a high proportion of social applicants are dissatisfied because they haven't been given white goods, furnishings etc.
It always surprises me that people reject huge flats because no-one is giving them a TV. That is the sense of entitlement I'm talking about, and I see this all the time.
Where are you getting this ridiculous bullshit from? No one here has presented such a ridiculous argument and that goes for that offensive "entitlement" crap you're spouting too. And then you wonder why Gramsci gets annoyed. You sound like a controversy-courting right wing columnist in The Sun.
You see this "all the time"? Sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. I know plenty of people who are desperate for housing and whether there's a TV on offer or not is just about the absolute last of their considerations.
People expect to be given TVs?!
Twattor 's TV post is reminiscent of Alternatve für Deutschland stories about refugees expecting a new car when they arrive in Germany.
Obviously this TV comment is a single case in your experience Twattor? Or maybe anecdotal based on other unspecified people's experience? Or maybe you work with people with Leaning Difficulties and some unfortunate and naive "user" thought they got the whole shebang when they became a tenant?
I would be really interested to learn of the circumstances leading to your remark.
Due to excessive repetition of political matters during the election I have come to know that both Channel 4 and Channel 5 have reality TV shows concentrating on the exaggerated claims of council tenants, aspiring council tenants and slum landlords. Maybe the "evidence" originates on Channel 4 or Channel 5?
it's not in the slightest bit a non sequitur - gentrification is a one way street, council house building in areas both rich and deprived would serve to counteract this
yes I'm sure people are rejecting huge flats all the time
Taylor Wimpey's website is already offering one bedrooms for £525,000 up to 3 bedrooms at £720,000 - in Block A.
Presumably these are off-plan and will also be marketed in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Macau and Hong Kong, as normal.
I haven't checked, but my recollection of the planning meeting was that there will be 2 blocks of "market" and one of "affordable".
Again I imagine they will try to off-load all the private first, especially since house prices have now hit a gentle downwards curve and there is the Brexit uncertainty coming up.
The affordable housing will almost certainly be "shared ownership" where you pay a mortgage to be a tenant (or pay rent to have mortgage on SOME of the flat) according to how you look at it.
Looks like there was some sort of assault involving women (doing the assaulting) in the supermarket opposite the Barrier Block. It's been taped off.
There's regularly incidents there. A few days ago there was a traffic jam back to the POW because some very young guy - stripped to the waist - was having an altercation with people outside the shop. They were restraining him, and he was raving.
Meanwhile his much older female minder or girlfriend was standing in their stationary car blocking all the east-bound traffic, holding open the open-top coupe door and doing a "It's not worth it!" impression.
It would be good if someone invented a pherenome to irradiate off-licenses and betting shops which caused young men and women to slow down to half speed.
Are you working for an HA, or a local authority?
HAs had/have a statutory obligation to "balance" their communities. However, in many cases that has been taken as an excuse to develop more non-social housing - i.e. housing at "affordable" (70-80% of market) rent, and at full private rent - than social housing, using the excuse of providing a balance of tenure. The problem is that the balance of tenure generally suits the income of the association, not the needs of the area that they serve.
Local authorities have been developing plans to shake the same money tree for at least the last decade, although in many cases these plans have only started coming to fruition in the last 5 or so years.
I have nothing against the development of housing IF it is what is needed, and what is needed is a majority of social housing, with a minority of other tenures. It's not about being nimbys prejudiced against anything that isn't a squat - that'd be rather self-defeating for those of us threatened by regeneration - it's about not wanting block and blocks and blocks of semi-occupied cunt-hutches being thrown up for foreign investors to buy. I don't know about you, but I find the idea of "buy to leave" housing morally fucking offensive.
Yes, and code for "lets get rid of some of it".
If not insults, then partisan, ignorant, uninformed shit.
How naive are you? Legislation can stipulate all it wants. Ultimately the power is in two sets of hands - the hand of the landlord, and the hands of the local authority whose duty it is to police the landlord. Guess which set of hands have disengaged from the struggle for the last 20 years?
Really? I've not noticed this, except in rare circumstances, yet you speak like it's a common occurrence.
Has it occurred to you that for some social applicant, white goods have to be left where they are for many reasons (a few examples: Because the cooker is gas, and you're offered a new-build with no gas supply, or you're moving from a furnished private rental where the white goods belong to the landlord, or you're skint and have no recourse to the sort of funds necessary to buy new or even second-hand white goods)?
Bear in mind that the Social Fund has been residualised into the ground, and that charities that help with such things have been squeezed so that their per household spend is less than half of what it was 10 years ago.
That's not "dissatisfaction" you're talking about, it's angst - "where am I going to find the money for a fridge/cooker/washing machine?"
There are very few "huge flats", and I suspect that if you've experienced people refusing them due to lack of a telly, it's a vanishingly-rare experience for you, unless you live in Bizarro-world.
All for lack of a 50" flatscreen.
I had a text today from Thames Water informing me that the leak I reported (Carlton Mansions) was fixed. If anyone is going past soon, can you check and let me know so I can follow up if it's not been done?
I tried the Shrub and Shutter at the weekend. It was great, such tasty food and drinks and the staff were friendly. They catered well for a vegan with no notice, just adapting the vegetables dishes. She was very happy with her grub. It's small and gets right noisy and quite young later, so if you don't like that, eat early like I did to avoid the worst.
I know some of the staff there and they are lovely people but the proximity of an expensive (and therefore exclusive) cocktail bar smack bang in front of a particularly poorly off council estate will continue to rile me.
I completely understand.
what the fuck is that bloody drilling about
Separate names with a comma.