exosculate
a stagger with a beat
MC5 said:
How many? What percentage? Sillyness!
Council housing : you only get the investment if you vote to privatise your estate
- Thread starter William of Walworth
- Start date
How many? What percentage? Sillyness!
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
exosculate said:
I'm not being silly. It's hard not to be sucked into the bullshit that is social housing and not come out of it unscathed. It's a constant political football combined with the ideology of the deserving and non-deserving poor, with 'gatekeepers' not even aware that they're involved in crisis management. No I cannot give you percentages.
exosculate said:
Like MC5 I've had the misfortune to meet, and in the past try to work with plenty of housing officers. Not just housing officers but the whole bureaucratic local authority housing structure. I include HA's in that as within the housing 'profession' both are interchangeable.
I didn't say right to buy has changed underfunding, but in some areas it has led to more vibrant and less bleak, grey, and uniform 'soviet style' housing schemes. Right to buy is not my preference for social housing. I prefer the ideas around tenant self management, hopefully free of authoritarian minded local housing bureaucrats.
Follow the link to CCH where it explains how Local Authority and Housing Association tenants can become self managing.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
i'm for self management but with some qualifications, i have worked for a tmo, and the tenant board had the veto over local authority nominations, and they often didn't house people because "they didn't like the look of them"..
regarding housing officers, yes there can be crap ones, but there are also many people who are very good and committed to social housing...
regarding housing officers, yes there can be crap ones, but there are also many people who are very good and committed to social housing...
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
sacx said:
Have you ever thought that many tenants don't want the commitment & responsibility that comes with self-management?
And do tell me what you do for a living, & I'll make some petty generalisations about people who do your job.
I thought the Mitchell article contained some inaccuracies. He has over-played the private sector element of housing associations to make them sound like Foxtons or something. He says they are "financed by private sector money" - while it is true that they take out loans from private sector sources for new building (the grant rate is considerably lower than it was pre-1988 when it was 90%), HAs income for day-to-day management & maintenance comes from rents.
Also, he says that "RSLs replace secure tenancies with assured tenancies which are not the same in law and allow the eviction of tenants in arrears" HELLO! If Mr. Mitchell doesn't know that secure tenancies allow (and always have done) the eviction of tenants in arrears, he shouldn't have been writing this article! I assume he does know, but has worded this to make a misleading point.
He says "the tenant participation that Toynbee praises withers under RSLs" and then goes on to quote ONE unsourced example of tenant board members in Hackney. I have worked for 3 RSLs and all had extremely good tenant representation - I speak as a person who recruited & trained tenant board members & we always wanted more! They are also supportive of tenants' associations & provide financial & material support for them.
Lastly, he states that "councils are ultimately subject to democratic control, and can be thrown out, whereas RSLs cannot". This is a spurious argument. If you were a disgruntled tenant in a rock-solid true blue local authority like Kensington & Chelsea, your vote against the current council is probably pissing in the wind. (Although K & C, run by a TMO & apparently very good, are not really a good example). What about Lambeth - a notoriously inefficient council & landlord - can't say the democratic process Mitchell speaks of has done its unfortunate tenants much good.
However, I am completely opposed to Prescott's effective veto of the "fourth way" on both ideological & financial grounds. Mitchell does make a very good point about the money (& time) wasted on promoting something many tenants don't want. It is also a nonsense to force a council who manages its housing stock well into changing landlord. The desire to see local authorities as enablers rather than providers goes back to the Tory government & I cannot see the ideological reason for Prescott wanting to continue this process.
oryx said:
I can't disagree with yr experience but others tell a diffrent story, eg Circle33 - all that hooha a few years back with Marge Hodge, and recently Canalside in Hackney. The point being that RSL's aren't obliged by regulation to provide meaningful tenant participation.
Nooen could disagree with what you've said about council's, but there is theoretically an opportunity to vote out your landlord which can be built on by determined activists, not so with RSL's...
kensington and chelsea is an interesting case study, as they are the only TMO which is also an ALMO (to my knowledge). as a result, all tenants are shareholders and have a yearly vote on the continuation of the ALMO and its existing management. which means it has to be extremely tenant-focused (relatively speaking).
kea said:
Thats sounds like a very good system, but have you any idea of WHEN that council transferred to it, and was it after a democratic vote (I'd assume it was). I ask because to my limited awareness the vogue for Tenant management was quite some time ago, now.
One large complex of Southwark estates not far from Borough Tube Station, Tabard Gardens, voted to become Tenant Managed around 1995 or 96. I hear that the running of those estates has improved immensely (they're old ex-London County Council/Greater London Council brick estates mainly from the 1930s, and needed lots of repairs).
But the direct Tennt Management model doesn't appear (?) to be readily available ten years later ... correct me if I'm wrong.
Oryx -- interesting and informative post .... would like to respond properly later ...
William of Walworth said:
the TMO existed before the ALMO; they had to lobby specially to be made an ALMO as they didn't meet the government's criteria. the ALMO was set up 3 years ago i believe.
their site is here if you want to have a look -
http://www.kctmo.org.uk/tmo/
well 'the right to manage' is still around - info here -
http://www.tpas.org.uk/sub_page.asp?artid=270&id=1&cat=3&nameCat=
i think the problem is that setting up a TMO wouldn't address the financial situation, unless a TMO was set up which then applied to become an ALMO to access the extra funding that's available through that route. and since k&c is pretty exceptional, i don't know how keen ODPM would be on more places going down that route.
also, most TMOs are smaller than K&C, which is borough-wide.
sacx said:Well I can only give my opinion of housing officers and I've always found them to generally be ineffectual at best and downright small minded reactionary petty bureaucrats normally
There's also a danger of seeing local authority housing through rose tinted specs. My experience of council housing before the right to buy was of drab estates with every front door painted the same colour. If you were lucky enough to have a front garden you were given the regulation 4 rose bushes and not expected to change it. If you lived in a high rise you got dirty, dark, piss stenched lifts and hallways, waste disposal that never worked and fungus coming through the floors, walls and ceilings.
Rather than arguing for more local state, or private control, why not argue for cooperative housing, with tenant self management and real control over the immediate environment?
http://cch.coop/coopinfo/index.html
ps. It's out of print now but if you ever come across a second hand copy of Colin Ward's "When We Build Again" I'd recommend it.
I don't see council housing through rose tinted specs
-- I've lived as a tenant for 13 years and I have few problems, while knowing perfectly well that many other tenants have a different view.I'm actually hugely in favour of the co-operative ideal (or maybe, as a somewhat more limited alternative, the Tenant Managemment model) and I'm a great admirer of Colin Ward.
But this constantly repeated propoganda line about council housing being drab, bureaucratic, monolithic, serried ranks of identically coloured doors and tenants hedged with petty regulations is in my opinion and experience out of date in many places. It isn't completely untrue by any means, but if I was sacx I'd be VERY uncomfortable with how close that sort of 'Council estates = Eastern European" stuff sounds to early Thatcherite, pro sell-off propoganda, and to some areas of Nu-Blairite think.
I painted my door black as soon as I moved in, could have been pink or purple if I'd wanted, and no one said a damn thing. I installed a security gate -- no problem. I installed a net to keep the pigeons off the balcony -- no problem. I (or Stig
) can decorate the interior any way we like. A co-operative group of garden design students were given a Council grant in 2003 to give tenants balcony boxes and loads of seeds -- we were allowed/encouraged to pick whatever seeds/plants (from quite a wide selection) we liked ... I could go on.In my experience, the sort of people who drivel on about council housing being oppressive and monolithic often do so from a dodgy ideoological direction (eg Toynbee) and have rarely any direct PROPER experience of what living on an estate is like, or of what tenants really think.
Admittedly I live on a better than average (brick clad) estate, and admittedy the Aylesbury and Heygate, nearby, are huge, unforgiving, 1972-era slab blocks, dirty rainwashed concrete in colour, and in poor repair. But the money exists, quite alot of it actually, to invest in them -- just allow tenants to stick with the Council FFS ... or go Tenant Co-op/Tenant Management Board if they want. The current propensity for hiving off to ALMOs/Housing Associations, leaving tenants no guarentee of the same security of tenure or of rent rises being controlled as much as they are now (although there are threats on that front too), leaves me not in the least surprised that so many tenants are opting (when allowed to express an opinion) to stay with their Council.
I appreciate that there are a huge variety of standards in Council housing, between estates let alone between Councils. But my hackles rise when the Thatcherite-sounding, pro-privatising sounding propoganda about drab monoliths is trotted out -- sacx may be inadvertantly allying himself with some rather dodgy agendas in talking like that
and he should recognise that in the Council Housing sector, there is far more of a variety of experience than he seems to acknowledge.
Cheers kea -- will look at those links later ... 
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
William of Walworth said:I don't see council housing through rose tinted specs
I'm actually hugely in favour of the co-operative ideal (or maybe, as a somewhat more limited alternative, the Tenant Managemment model) and I'm a great admirer of Colin Ward.
But this constantly repeated propoganda line about council housing being drab, bureaucratic, monolithic, serried ranks of identically coloured doors and tenants hedged with petty regulations is in my opinion and experience out of date in many places. It isn't completely untrue by any means, but if I was sacx I'd be VERY uncomfortable with how close that sort of 'Council estates = Eastern European" stuff sounds to early Thatcherite, pro sell-off propoganda, and to some areas of Nu-Blairite think.
I painted my door black as soon as I moved in, could have been pink or purple if I'd wanted, and no one said a damn thing. I installed a security gate -- no problem. I installed a net to keep the pigeons off the balcony -- no problem. I (or Stig
In my experience, the sort of people who drivel on about council housing being oppressive and monolithic often do so from a dodgy ideoological direction (eg Toynbee) and have rarely any direct PROPER experience of what living on an estate is like, or of what tenants really think.
Admittedly I live on a better than average (brick clad) estate, and admittedy the Aylesbury and Heygate, nearby, are huge, unforgiving, 1972-era slab blocks, dirty rainwashed concrete in colour, and in poor repair. But the money exists, quite alot of it actually, to invest in them -- just allow tenants to stick with the Council FFS ... or go Tenant Co-op/Tenant Management Board if they want. The current propensity for hiving off to ALMOs/Housing Associations, leaving tenants no guarentee of the same security of tenure or of rent rises being controlled as much as they are now (although there are threats on that front too), leaves me not in the least surprised that so many tenants are opting (when allowed to express an opinion) to stay with their Council.
I appreciate that there are a huge variety of standards in Council housing, between estates let alone between Councils. But my hackles rise when the Thatcherite-sounding, pro-privatising sounding propoganda about drab monoliths is trotted out -- sacx may be inadvertantly allying himself with some rather dodgy agendas in talking like that
Good post mate.
I'm fortunate enough (IMO) to be buying my own house but I read Austin Mitchell's article with shock & anger. Things like this go on & unless you're directly involved they can pass you by.
I expect my local MP will be knocking on my door soon and this is another piece of the ear bending he'll get.
I think that the measure of a civilsed society in the 21st century is how it protects it's most vulnerable members and this Government falls well short on my measure.
The trouble is that for a lot of the public this doesn't even appear on their radar - it's not been covered by TV News of the Mirror or the Scum
I expect my local MP will be knocking on my door soon and this is another piece of the ear bending he'll get.
I think that the measure of a civilsed society in the 21st century is how it protects it's most vulnerable members and this Government falls well short on my measure.
The trouble is that for a lot of the public this doesn't even appear on their radar - it's not been covered by TV News of the Mirror or the Scum
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
bigbry said:
There was actually a pretty good piece in the Mirror at the end of last year.
see the back page of this pdf:
http://www.hackneyindependent.org/hackind/pdf/decenthome.pdf
William of Walworth said:I don't see council housing through rose tinted specs
I'm actually hugely in favour of the co-operative ideal (or maybe, as a somewhat more limited alternative, the Tenant Managemment model) and I'm a great admirer of Colin Ward.
But this constantly repeated propoganda line about council housing being drab, bureaucratic, monolithic, serried ranks of identically coloured doors and tenants hedged with petty regulations is in my opinion and experience out of date in many places. It isn't completely untrue by any means, but if I was sacx I'd be VERY uncomfortable with how close that sort of 'Council estates = Eastern European" stuff sounds to early Thatcherite, pro sell-off propoganda, and to some areas of Nu-Blairite think.
I painted my door black as soon as I moved in, could have been pink or purple if I'd wanted, and no one said a damn thing. I installed a security gate -- no problem. I installed a net to keep the pigeons off the balcony -- no problem. I (or Stig
In my experience, the sort of people who drivel on about council housing being oppressive and monolithic often do so from a dodgy ideoological direction (eg Toynbee) and have rarely any direct PROPER experience of what living on an estate is like, or of what tenants really think.
Admittedly I live on a better than average (brick clad) estate, and admittedy the Aylesbury and Heygate, nearby, are huge, unforgiving, 1972-era slab blocks, dirty rainwashed concrete in colour, and in poor repair. But the money exists, quite alot of it actually, to invest in them -- just allow tenants to stick with the Council FFS ... or go Tenant Co-op/Tenant Management Board if they want. The current propensity for hiving off to ALMOs/Housing Associations, leaving tenants no guarentee of the same security of tenure or of rent rises being controlled as much as they are now (although there are threats on that front too), leaves me not in the least surprised that so many tenants are opting (when allowed to express an opinion) to stay with their Council.
I appreciate that there are a huge variety of standards in Council housing, between estates let alone between Councils. But my hackles rise when the Thatcherite-sounding, pro-privatising sounding propoganda about drab monoliths is trotted out -- sacx may be inadvertantly allying himself with some rather dodgy agendas in talking like that
A couple of points. I've lived in council housing for over twice the time you have so I'm not "drivelling" on about something I have no experience of. Also you managed to ignore what I really said which is that prior to the right to buy council estates were drab and monolithic. If you want to distort that into support for Thatcherism that's your perogative, but you're wrong. The reality is that many working class people have bought the houses and flats they previously rented (the figures speak for themselves), and why the hell shouldn't they? Again if you think that's allying myself with a dodgy agenda you're wrong. The dodgy agenda in my opinion is the idea that working class people should see local state/authority management as the best alternative available. There are other alternatives like self management through cooperative housing.
Anyway I've made my point and I'll let you get back to discussing life in the London Boroughs.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
but what you're doing here is just what the tories always try and argue - that if irt wasn't for what they did, nothing would have changed at all! and that's just bollocks (or at least, it aint necessarilly so). It's like the argument that BT got so much better after privatisatin - toitally ignoring the fact that he technoligies had changed massively as well allowing a much better service.sacx said:
Yes, many estates, most maybe, were largely ignored and simply left to get on with it in their own way, and the council never really gave a fuck. But why did it take wholesale privatisation to change that? Because the tories wanted it to, that's the only reason. Getting decent tenant representation onto a local council owned and run housing board could have made a massive difference without the need to privatise - but obviously the tories didn't want that and sold privatisation as the only way forward.
Defending council housing doesn't mean defending many of the shite policies and practices that only an idiot wqould deny took place, it means defending the right to affordable social housing for all. Simple as that.
sacx said:
Please reread my post carefully -- I did not say YOU were a Thatcherite at all
-- I just wondered about the side/counter effect of your post 
belboid said:
No belboid what I'm saying is that it has changed, whether you like it or not! As you say the councils never gave a fuck, with one or two exceptions they never fought to defend social housing when it mattered, when the privatisation began.
As for your slogan "defending the right to affordable social housing for all", sorry mate but that's rubbish! By your own admission councils didn't care, imo they still don't and most people know that. It's just an empty ideological slogan touted round by state socialists who are stuck in a loop of revisiting old battles they lost years ago. Old Labour, New Labour, Tory they're all shite!
You're obviously not a council tenant ...
<later edit : apologies, that's bollocks, I had forgotten that you said you had been for many years>
<later edit : apologies, that's bollocks, I had forgotten
that you said you had been for many years>
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I don't expect most of the councils to do it at all - unless they are all but forced to by us. But we have won several of the recent ballots to oppose ALMO's, and the tide is certainly moving away from blanket acceptance of the notion.sacx said:
And a damned good thing too.
oryx said:
actually, assured tenancies makes it easier for the RSL throught the use of ground 8 (two months rent arrears and there is nothing the judge can do about it). on the democratic debate front, it is possible to question the council with the help of councillors (the landlords which you have elected). with ALMOs, that won't be possible.
William of Walworth said:
actually I believe there are problems with the management organisation. I can't remember the details, but our common friend does know the details. there is actually a campaign to return to direct council control.
Really?
I must be out of date, I haven't heard much recently from over there. Let me know more at some point ...
I must be out of date, I haven't heard much recently from over there. Let me know more at some point ...
William of Walworth said:Really?
I must be out of date, I haven't heard much recently from over there. Let me know more at some point ...
I believe that although it is council owned, peabody housing association is involved in the management. it is akin to privatisation by the back door. I'll dig out some of the leaflets on the campaign and pass on the info as soon as I can.
>>> Gd
Got your PM. May not be able to make that meeting (short notice etc. -- no leaflets for it on OUR estate ) but hope to see those leaflets at some stage.
Peabody = in effect privatisation do you say?? Would like to know more detail on that ...
Got your PM. May not be able to make that meeting (short notice etc. -- no leaflets for it on OUR estate
) but hope to see those leaflets at some stage.Peabody = in effect privatisation do you say?? Would like to know more detail on that ...
my friend recently got a job working for an 'independent' body conducting house to house research for a transfer scheme. He was given a double sided script to help people make their decisions. One one side it said
'Stay with the council - forget investment and your home will rot'
and on the other side
'Transfer and everything will be sweet'
or words to those affect. The body commissioning the research stands to make a bomb from implimenting the transfer. Its blatent propoganda.
There are 3 choices - 'stay with the council', 'stock transfer' or 'more information' . Once my mate saw throught the bullshit he encouraged people to stay or ask for more info
I am gonna scan the info above if anyones interested?
Oxford IWCA did a wicked leaflet called FACT about the issue
'Stay with the council - forget investment and your home will rot'
and on the other side
'Transfer and everything will be sweet'
or words to those affect. The body commissioning the research stands to make a bomb from implimenting the transfer. Its blatent propoganda.
There are 3 choices - 'stay with the council', 'stock transfer' or 'more information' . Once my mate saw throught the bullshit he encouraged people to stay or ask for more info
I am gonna scan the info above if anyones interested?
Oxford IWCA did a wicked leaflet called FACT about the issue
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
See the current Private Eye (Rotten Boroughs) for more on Clapham Park .ViolentPanda said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Justin said:
I did. Fucking depressing reading.
I had a word with a relative who still lives there and (surprise surprise
) the blocks that are scheduled for demolition are mostly the early phase of building (c 1950) of the estate, which goes from the junction of Poynders Rd and King's Avenue as far as (IIRC) Plummer Rd. These are the ones that also happen to be set in the midst of the largest areas of open (grassed over) ground, so it looks like the tenants of the rest of the estate stand to lose quite a bit of play-space, to the benefit of the developers.I'm torn about the whole thing. The blocks that are being demolished include where I used to live, and they are pretty shitty, no central heating, damp and mouldy walls, those horrible 1950s metal window frames that let gusts of air through even when they're closed, etc etc, so I can understand the appeal of being decanted to "nice" new flats. If, however, it comes at the expense of the practice of local democracy, then I have to say "fuck the Clapham Park Project".
We got transfered by.....the abstain votes...one tenant took it to a judicial review and the big wigs took the non votes as a YES.
We now are going to play a game called 'Spot where the million has been Spent'. Our estates look worse. Yes we were all promised new kitchens.....
well it is new bankrupt stock.....when I compare the NEW kitchens to other boroughs ours look very old fashioned.
Next comes the illusion of openess, transparancie and freedom of info. No way....they will not hand out any info on contracts, proposed new work, plans, budgets, tenders or quoting procedures. I keep in touch with Defend Council Housing to keep them informed.
From the accounts I can gather they seem to have concentrated on their own pensions and have managed to make sure their own future is bright.
We get quoted this and that and told work will start, millions will be spent but the blocks and estates look in dire need of something.
When I look at the PCT's borough profile , the red shaded areas are where the population die , slow, deprived deaths........younger than the affluent residents. There should be an improvement but sadly the morbidity rates are rising.
Recently I visited Peckham where they have spent £75 mill and knocked down some of the bigger blocks leaving only the lift shafts and chimneys.(these need Virginnia creepers and ivies planted) New landscaping, youth clubs and places for to play, hallways tiled? no graffitti, balconies and gardens........
Then I visited Lisson Grove Estate...again a bit of imagination internally and ....much nicer, sleeker kitchens installed.
Return back to where allegedly £70 mill has been spent.......?????? all I can see is depressing slums. They are awful to look at. Before any transfer we argued that some of the land and properties were acually donated and legally were not to be used for profit.They were gifts to the poor and meant to stay as housing for the poor.
But as I said the Big Wigs came striding in the High Court and we got sold down the River.
On a good point though I have been trying to get more involved and attend more and more meetings. I used to say.....'The houses belong to the people....they should go back to the people' Now I watch old locals get evicted. Keyworkers buy.
Even if I have to draw visuals /plans myself I will show them what a little bit can do to make it overall a better place. Private residents also lose out as the Councils lose their biggest assets. Our whole borough has lost out. All we can do is warn others.
We now are going to play a game called 'Spot where the million has been Spent'. Our estates look worse. Yes we were all promised new kitchens.....
well it is new bankrupt stock.....when I compare the NEW kitchens to other boroughs ours look very old fashioned.
Next comes the illusion of openess, transparancie and freedom of info. No way....they will not hand out any info on contracts, proposed new work, plans, budgets, tenders or quoting procedures. I keep in touch with Defend Council Housing to keep them informed.
From the accounts I can gather they seem to have concentrated on their own pensions and have managed to make sure their own future is bright.
We get quoted this and that and told work will start, millions will be spent but the blocks and estates look in dire need of something.
When I look at the PCT's borough profile , the red shaded areas are where the population die , slow, deprived deaths........younger than the affluent residents. There should be an improvement but sadly the morbidity rates are rising.
Recently I visited Peckham where they have spent £75 mill and knocked down some of the bigger blocks leaving only the lift shafts and chimneys.(these need Virginnia creepers and ivies planted) New landscaping, youth clubs and places for to play, hallways tiled? no graffitti, balconies and gardens........
Then I visited Lisson Grove Estate...again a bit of imagination internally and ....much nicer, sleeker kitchens installed.
Return back to where allegedly £70 mill has been spent.......?????? all I can see is depressing slums. They are awful to look at. Before any transfer we argued that some of the land and properties were acually donated and legally were not to be used for profit.They were gifts to the poor and meant to stay as housing for the poor.
But as I said the Big Wigs came striding in the High Court and we got sold down the River.
On a good point though I have been trying to get more involved and attend more and more meetings. I used to say.....'The houses belong to the people....they should go back to the people' Now I watch old locals get evicted. Keyworkers buy.
Even if I have to draw visuals /plans myself I will show them what a little bit can do to make it overall a better place. Private residents also lose out as the Councils lose their biggest assets. Our whole borough has lost out. All we can do is warn others.
I cant write in 30 seconds
We got transfered by.....the abstain votes...one tenant took it to a judicial review and the big wigs took the non votes as a YES.
We now are going to play a game called 'Spot where the million has been Spent'. Our estates look worse. Yes we were all promised new kitchens.....
well it is new bankrupt stock.....when I compare the NEW kitchens to other boroughs ours look very old fashioned.
Next comes the illusion of openess, transparancie and freedom of info. No way....they will not hand out any info on contracts, proposed new work, plans, budgets, tenders or quoting procedures. I keep in touch with Defend Council Housing to keep them informed.
From the accounts I can gather they seem to have concentrated on their own pensions and have managed to make sure their own future is bright.
We get quoted this and that and told work will start, millions will be spent but the blocks and estates look in dire need of something.
When I look at the PCT's borough profile , the red shaded areas are where the population die , slow, deprived deaths........younger than the affluent residents. There should be an improvement but sadly the morbidity rates are rising.
Recently I visited Peckham where they have spent £75 mill and knocked down some of the bigger blocks leaving only the lift shafts and chimneys.(these need Virginnia creepers and ivies planted) New landscaping, youth clubs and places for to play, hallways tiled? no graffitti, balconies and gardens........
Then I visited Lisson Grove Estate...again a bit of imagination internally and ....much nicer, sleeker kitchens installed.
Return back to where allegedly £70 mill has been spent.......?????? all I can see is depressing slums. They are awful to look at. Before any transfer we argued that some of the land and properties were acually donated and legally were not to be used for profit.They were gifts to the poor and meant to stay as housing for the poor.
But as I said the Big Wigs came striding in the High Court and we got sold down the River.
On a good point though I have been trying to get more involved and attend more and more meetings. I used to say.....'The houses belong to the people....they should go back to the people' Now I watch old locals get evicted. Keyworkers buy.
Even if I have to draw visuals /plans myself I will show them what a little bit can do to make it overall a better place. Private residents also lose out as the Councils lose their biggest assets. Our whole borough has lost out. All we can do is warn others.
We got transfered by.....the abstain votes...one tenant took it to a judicial review and the big wigs took the non votes as a YES.
We now are going to play a game called 'Spot where the million has been Spent'. Our estates look worse. Yes we were all promised new kitchens.....
well it is new bankrupt stock.....when I compare the NEW kitchens to other boroughs ours look very old fashioned.
Next comes the illusion of openess, transparancie and freedom of info. No way....they will not hand out any info on contracts, proposed new work, plans, budgets, tenders or quoting procedures. I keep in touch with Defend Council Housing to keep them informed.
From the accounts I can gather they seem to have concentrated on their own pensions and have managed to make sure their own future is bright.
We get quoted this and that and told work will start, millions will be spent but the blocks and estates look in dire need of something.
When I look at the PCT's borough profile , the red shaded areas are where the population die , slow, deprived deaths........younger than the affluent residents. There should be an improvement but sadly the morbidity rates are rising.
Recently I visited Peckham where they have spent £75 mill and knocked down some of the bigger blocks leaving only the lift shafts and chimneys.(these need Virginnia creepers and ivies planted) New landscaping, youth clubs and places for to play, hallways tiled? no graffitti, balconies and gardens........
Then I visited Lisson Grove Estate...again a bit of imagination internally and ....much nicer, sleeker kitchens installed.
Return back to where allegedly £70 mill has been spent.......?????? all I can see is depressing slums. They are awful to look at. Before any transfer we argued that some of the land and properties were acually donated and legally were not to be used for profit.They were gifts to the poor and meant to stay as housing for the poor.
But as I said the Big Wigs came striding in the High Court and we got sold down the River.
On a good point though I have been trying to get more involved and attend more and more meetings. I used to say.....'The houses belong to the people....they should go back to the people' Now I watch old locals get evicted. Keyworkers buy.
Even if I have to draw visuals /plans myself I will show them what a little bit can do to make it overall a better place. Private residents also lose out as the Councils lose their biggest assets. Our whole borough has lost out. All we can do is warn others.
Similar threads
- Poll
