Lambeth Housing / ALMO 17 Feb

[ViolentPanda]

Dear Mr Panda

I think if you examine my post I never mentioned anything about who started DCH.

I associated it with left wing labour mp's and unions. As you have been so keen to inform me, a cursory examination of their website will reveal this to be the case.

Their EDMs are tabled by Labour Campaign Group MP's - and who should be attending their recent event to lobby Parliament?

"Chair. Austin Mitchell MP;
Tony Benn;
Jim Murphy Secretary Cardiff Fed;
John Allot National Officer, Amicus;
Michael Meacher MP;
Adam Wilkinson, Save Britain's Heritage;
Alan Simpson MP;
Cllr. Mike Tansey Sunderland Councillor;
Billy Hayes General Secretary, CWU;
George Galloway MP;
Cllr. John Lines, Lead Member for Housing Birmingham;
Chris Baugh Ass. General Secretary, PCS;
Carol Swords Tower Hamlets tenant;
Paul Holmes MP;
Brian Pordage vice chair, TAROE;
Cllr. Paul Russell, Lead Member for Housing Southampton;
Keith Sonnet Deputy General Secretary, UNISON;
Lynne Jones MP;
Cllr. Leslie Christie Gravesham;
Jack Dromey Deputy General Secretary, T&G;
Gerald Kaufman MP;
Alan Walter chair Defend Council Housing;
Kelvin Hopkins MP;
Cllr. Lynne Gray Lead Member for Housing Lincoln City;
Chris Murphy Executive Member, UCATT;
Frank Dobson MP;
Frank Chance chair Birmingham DCH;
Cllr. Liam Smith Lead Member for Housing Barking & Dagenham;
Derek Simpson General Secretary, Amicus;
Kate Hoey MP;
Cllr. Bob Pendleton (tenant and West Lancs);
Gavin Strang MP;
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Apologies and messages of support received from Jenni Marrow (Scottish Tenants Org), Clare Short MP, Clive Betts MP and Colin Fox MSP. "

So no Labour or Union connections then.

Interesting. You chide me for supposedly misrepresenting you, and then misrepresent me.

care to indicate which of those MPs and trades union leaders are "loony left"? I made the count 2, 4 if you stretch the meaning to cover anyone who's been "off message".

And what's this from the Socialist Worker in 2002

'Unison is now pledged to affiliate to Defend Council Housing. "But we can't be complacent," warned Tracey Twist. "They'll be back with privatisation under some form." '

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=5423

Which doesn't say anything except that a single union has affiliated to a housing pressure group, not a "loony left" union, just a union whose members count among themselves a large proportion of council tenants.
If you use affiliation as a gauge of "loony leftness" you'd have to number the most rightwing TU in Britain's history, the EETPU under Eric hammond, as "loony left".
Why, because they affiliated to the Swappie-connected ANL in the 1980s.

I appreciate you may not agree with my point, but theres no need to denigrate others in making yours.

How did I denigrate you (I presume that's who you mean), was it by drawing attention to the thinness of your argument?
Was it by calling you "ill-informed"?

Drawing someone's attention to their errors isn't "denigration", it's "correction".

 

[Loupylou]

I'm not a fan of ALMOs, but i can't see how the old boy would be dealing with tenants that were more distressed since Islington housing went to an ALMO, apart from people not being able to get to the neighbourhood office because it's closed down. Loads of Neighbourhood Offices have closed down in Islington over the years there's only going to be about 4 left soon out of (i think) over 20 originally.

The thing about ALMO's though is that at tenant level nothing changes. The neighbourhood office is the same, the same crap staff are behind the counter, the same crap contractors are still doing the repairs. It is still 'the council' but loads of money has been spent on a rebranding.

Marty touched on why the Government wants to set up ALMOs- it's technically so that more funding can be acessed which doesn't get siphoned off into dubious other council projects. ALMOs are ringfenced financially, but they are still 'the council'

I worked in a neighbourhood office while the Islington ALMO was in consultation. It seems that the powers that be seem to think that the offer of a new kitchen and bathroom is incentive enough for people to vote for an ALMO, but what they don't tell you is that by Housing Corporation decree you ought to have a new kitchen and bathroom by 2010 anyway- difference is that ALMOs are promised more funding for these 'decent homes' targets and Councils are mostly skint. The council is basically stuck. If it doesn't set up the ALMO it doesn't get the funding, yet it's still required to do the improvements.

So the Council has no other option to get the funding really, unless it deceides to offload some of it's housing stock for cash to a Housing Association, and then it's losing assets at the same time. That's why they prefer the ALMO deal because they keep the stock and get the funding too.

This whole ALMO thing isn't the fault of the Local Authorities really it's a government idea. Whatever way it's still crap for the tenants who aren't given enough info to make an informed decision either way and IMO are swayed with propaganda. Which way would most people vote if a lovely new kitchen and bathroom was being dangled in front of them like a carrot...

Agree with a lot of this post except that 'the ALMO is still the council' bit - you are still a council tenant but in name only as all housing services are run by a private company which is obviously profit-driven.

The retired guy I mention is contacted by distressed people who he knows from being active as a tenants' rep etc who can't get thro to ALMO & because no-one has the authority to get the company to carry out works / services etc, as they do now: if you go to a councillor they won't be able to help you.He resigned from ALMO board in disgust at their undemocratic practices (e.g even if they took a vote & the majority of the board voted against what the ALMO wanted to push thro' they are over-ruled. Also the bit which I mentioned before about not being allowed by Law to discuss anything outside board room that may be detrimental to the company's image if it got into the public arena.).

re the bit about the Council having no option. The councillors are voted in - in Lambeth New Labour didn't mention ALMO & the fact they had already drawn up the bid during the election campaign cos they know it would lose them votes. They did not have a mandate to procede like this from residents.
I know that it seems 'not worth' fighting against what might seem inevitable, but this sort of apathy is seeded by the Council who ring their hands in public but do not use their position to promote the veiws of those they are answerable to - the borough's residents.
In this country we all know & feel the apathy that drains fight against something like this which is so serious - a decision that cannot be undone once in place. People are so divided & materialism rules so the strength of people joining together is not experienced by most people who tell you 'what's the point, I've got what I want'. Well what they've got is fuck all if they don't care about what happens to others.

The £ IS there for privatisation from the Govt, but NOT to invest directly - that is irrational. New Labour is all about (& ONLY about) making shed loads of £ for their mates in the private sector & givng said CEOs of these companies ministerial positions & vice versa. I think that is fundamentally wrong, so I personally don't feel I have a choice but to fight it along with others. Any slight amount of research into the fine print of ALMOs & the experience of existing ALMOs will reveal that it is privatisation by the back door. It then comes down to whether that is something you agree with or not, taking into account who is going to make a huge profit out of it all. Council housing wasn't built (& let's not forget it was a Tory PM - MacMillan who started a massive state housing building prog) so that in only a matter of 2 generations some wankers are going to come along & make themselves
even richer on it. Just as Peabody & Guiness DID NOT build housing for poor people so that the current management could do the same thing.

The bit you mention about Housing Offices being closed down - this is a very common strategy by Councils - they run down services in order to push thro privatisation. After ALMO in Islington, the company has run them down even more.

Normski you clearly have a problem with trade unionism & outspoken Labour politicians, so I gather you are right - wing. I respect your veiw but we are coming from the opposite spectrum. Violent Panda is quite right about grass roots level of campaigners/ supporters not caring about leftie-infighting. I don't even understand all that & can't be bothered with it. It's very divisive & the only importance it has is that it weakens campaigns by turning people against each other. It's not the issue here & you've made a blanket statement about DCH which is irrelevant for those who believe in statutory housing & keeping that going, which you don't. What I am less happy about is that you try to stop people finding out info for themselves by inferring that the people involved in the campaign have something wrong with them by using a term coined by right-wing press under Thatcherism - 'Loony Left'. I've never had a problem with those who've been in SWP or any other faction, some of the SWP people I've met are sound as a pound, I respect how hard they work & I don't agree with everything they say, but I'm not prepared to shy away from campaigns just because they have SWP people involved. Don't get me wrong - I had to get over this prejudice due to some bad experiences a few years ago, but I realised it's just too simplistic to stereotype people like that. As long as they don't try to get me in the SWP, I'm fine (they don't). They're a lot less evangelical these days. For me it's about the issue & what common ground you find with people rather than carping about their politics, because it's how people treat others that's important. I would say the same about right-wing people as well, but they do tend not to be so open-minded due to the nature of their politics.
I found your post undermining as the fight we have is enormous, & the spirit of U75 is to support grass roots campaigns, as U75 was born out of that ideal itself. But on the other hand it's good to have opposing veiws cos that brings out the information needed.

Just been sent this article about ALMOs.
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/article/?id=1448637

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just been sent this article about ALMOs.
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/article/?id=1448637

Interesting.
maybe I'm being cynical, but this smells as if central government is waiting until after the local elections in may before pushing the ALMO programme forward, and devil take the local authorities who'll be running up extra costs hanging around waiting for central government to pull their fingers out of their collective arses.

 

[Lisarocket]

Agree with a lot of this post except that 'the ALMO is still the council' bit - you are still a council tenant but in name only as all housing services are run by a private company which is obviously profit-driven.

What i meant is that this 'private company' is staffed entirely by ex Council housing workers up to the highest level and is based in council buildings and answerable to the Council, so it is effectively still the council. Well it is in Islington...

All of my old colleagues became 'Homes for Islington' workers when the ALMO was set up. One of them has found his job is no longer required, so he's just been passed back to the council. The only thing that's changed is his ID badge...

IMO it's just a rebranding excersise, which also ringfences the finances so they can't be misused by other bits of the council.

Believe it or not, councils were still out to make profit on council housing before ALMOs existed. The way they used to do it was by giving management contracts to Housing Associations to manage their stock. The contracts had huge penalties for not managing within the very tight budgets set by the council (which they couldn't manage at that cost!). This usually resulted in the contracts being unprofitable for the HAs, but profitable for the council. It mostly led to the conclusion that the managed stock couldn't be managed within budget and ended up in a situation where the stock was transferred to the HA at a peppercorn amount or at negitive equity. This caused loss of more council stock than setting up an ALMO does as the housing remains in ownership of the council. Loads of this happened in Islington before the ALMO was set up, but hasn't happened since.

I worked for Hyde HA when they had a management contract with Islington and left just before the stock transfer. I didn't really agree with the islington stock transfers or the PFI schemes on the street properties that are there for the next 30 years...

Don't think i'm supporting ALMOs though, just passing on my knowledge of them. I think they are a big waste of money as loads of the existing council funds are spent on rebranding rather than improving the housing.

 

[Loupylou]

Just been sent agenda of Sat meeting - just one thing - do you think this thread should go on another part of forum e.g 'protest / direct action' bit, or South East, in future?? always confuses me that when it crosses over....
Anyway copied from email -

Final reminder to bring everyone you can to this Saturday's public meeting calling for direct investment in council housing ( the 4th Option ) and to campaign for a ballot on the ALMO proposal. (organised by Lambeth Defend Council Housing and Lambeth Unison)
We have allocated over an hour for questions and contributions so everyone should get the chance to speak. If you don't want to get up and speak and prefer to submit a written question , there will be question papers at the registration desk. Please note that you do not have to submit a written question in order to speak in the open session.

AGENDA

Chair : Joyce Wilson , Lambeth Tenants Council

1pm-1.30pm Registration and welcome , tea and coffee

1.30pm-2.20 Main speakers : Kate Hoey MP, Alan Walter Chair, national Defend Council Housing , Jean Kerrigan Lambeth Tenants Council, John Allison Tenants and Residents Association Ocean estate , Tower Hamlets (who just voted against stock transfer )

2.20 pm Collection for Lambeth Defend Council Housing campaign - Rita Fitzgerald

2.30 -3.30 Questions and contributions - all welcome

3.30 - 400pm Panel to sum up and respond to questions - Brian Potter ( Islington Tenants and Leaseholders Association ) Kate Hoey, Alan Walter , Jean Kerrigan, John Allison

HOW TO GET THERE :
Go to Lambeth Town Hall, Acre Lane , opposite Macdonalds , and walk up 50 metres towards Tescos , the entrance to the Assembly Halls is on your left.

 

[Loupylou]

Just noticed Brian from Islington - bloke I mentioned above, is speaking - Great!

 

[Loupylou]

Lisa - thanks for your posts & info - it's interesting what you're saying & useful to know, except I have to disagree that the ALMO is answerable to the council - they're not & it's the 1st stage of full privatisation. The ALMO is unaccountable. that is a myth promoted by those in favour of ALMos.
I didn't think for a moment you're pro-privatisation etc! Also I know what an aftermath there has been from councils' mismanagement / misappropriation of budgets etc. this is the major prob when fighting privatisation, & the council use this history to push these schemes thro', but usually the same incompetent senior management get the ALMO senior managment jobs so if they can't run things properly now, how are they suddenly going to run an ALMO better?! It's the same in all the other public sectors that are now being privatised. these people just see public bodies as a cash cow to be milked. i really hate it, where will it end?

 

[ringo]

I thought it was already a bit late for this. On my estate we've already had the voting forms delivered this week to decide who our reps are going to be. They all say they'll do their best, none give any hint to their political persuasion so make it very difficult to tell what's what.

 

[normskii]

I thought it was already a bit late for this. On my estate we've already had the voting forms delivered this week to decide who our reps are going to be. They all say they'll do their best, none give any hint to their political persuasion so make it very difficult to tell what's what.

Isn't the point of these reps that they are residents rather than politicians? Of course I realise people can be both, and probably are, but I would have thought thats why its not made clear on the blurb.

In terms of the timing, isn't the whole thing going to the vote at once rather than seperate estates? That's what I thought anyway.

Bizarre idea to do everywhere at once, its as if they sat around the table and thought "how can we really make sure we lose this vote".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Anyone else have a glossy leaflet enttled "Calling Lambeth Residents: The Lambeth ALMO - Issue 2, Feb 2007" delivered in a high white A4 envelope?

It pretty much boasts about the setting up of a shadow ALMO board "to help develop the ALMO", and presents the usual partisan message about "decent homes" without presenting any of the negative points.

 

[aurora green]

Yeah, I recieved this high gloss, non-recycled page this morning.
It presents the whole thing as a fate accompli, if you ask me.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, I recieved this high gloss, non-recycled page this morning.
It presents the whole thing as a fate accompli, if you ask me.

Yep.

I reckon that's the idea though, make even those who're against the ALMO feel like it's not worth fighting.

After all, the people who compiled the leaflet are a PR company, they're going to want to swing people in the direction their paymasters require, aren't they?

 

[aurora green]

...guess I might try and make it to the meeting tomorrow after all, if only to collect some appropriate literature to deliver to my neighbours..
Plus there's an annoying almo poster in my communal hall that could do with else pinned next to it, after all, people deserve to hear the other side.

 

[dynamicbaddog]

Does anyone know if there's any defend council housing campaigns active in other london boroughs? I live in Lewisham and there's going to be a ballot whether or not we go over to Hyde. Hyde have put loads of newletters and leaflets, and have organised lots of local events but I've not heard anything from the other side of things.

 

[Loupylou]

Does anyone know if there's any defend council housing campaigns active in other london boroughs? I live in Lewisham and there's going to be a ballot whether or not we go over to Hyde. Hyde have put loads of newletters and leaflets, and have organised lots of local events but I've not heard anything from the other side of things.

I believe there is DCH in Lewisham - will get details for you, but probably not til after w/end.

 

[Loupylou]

I thought it was already a bit late for this. On my estate we've already had the voting forms delivered this week to decide who our reps are going to be. They all say they'll do their best, none give any hint to their political persuasion so make it very difficult to tell what's what.

On your estate you already have an ALMO - it's a TMO ALMO i.e. a so-called 'tenant-led ALMO' or TALMO.

the ALMO referred to in this thread etc is one for the parts of Lambeth that don't have TALMOs (most of the rest).

I saw an ad in Tues SLP for board members for ALMO.
Lambeth do not have to give vote as tenancy will remain (for the time being) with Lambeth. You are only entitled to a vote by law if they are doing stock transfer i.e. to a Housing Association.

 

[Loupylou]

Does anyone know if there's any defend council housing campaigns active in other london boroughs? I live in Lewisham and there's going to be a ballot whether or not we go over to Hyde. Hyde have put loads of newletters and leaflets, and have organised lots of local events but I've not heard anything from the other side of things.

By the way - Hyde are shit.
as I recall they are the largest HA in the South East.

 

[jpm]

You are only entitled to a vote by law if they are doing stock transfer i.e. to a Housing Association.

Not true. There is no legal requirement for a vote.

Basically, transfer may not go ahead if the majority of tenants are opposed to it. The model almost all councils use to establish tenants' views is through a properly conducted formal ballot, carried out by an independent body.

 

[Loupylou]

Not true. There is no legal requirement for a vote.

Basically, transfer may not go ahead if the majority of tenants are opposed to it. The model almost all councils use to establish tenants' views is through a properly conducted formal ballot, carried out by an independent body.

Maybe there's some confusion - if you change landlord from Council then you have to be given a vote by law.
Out of the 3 privatisation options, i.e. PFI, ALMO & stock transfer, only stock transfer means you will be changing your landlord. Therefore you have to be given a vote - I discovered today that they only have to do this if it is more than 500 'units' (homes).

That is why there are campaigns for ballots re ALMOs & PFIs - cos you're not entitled to them by law.

The Council will say that there are majority of tenants in favour, as they are saying re ALMO in Lambeth, when that is clearly a lie. As you indicate, if majority of tenants are against, they can't go ahead, as with PFI, but they lie to & manipulate tenants.

Unfortunately, from my own bitter experience re PFI, & from numerous testimonies from tenants who've fought hard for ballots re ALMOs & PFI elsewhere, & where stock transfer ballots have happened, a fair ballot IS NOT the general experience at all. There are many tactics used by Local Authorities to get the result they want.

E.g - the ballot is called a 'test of opinion' - not every tenant gets a vote - it's one vote per household, or leaseholders' votes aren't counted or something like that;
the wording on the ballot paper is slanted so that many people would vote for the privatisation option (e.g 'do you want new bathroom & kitchen? Tick YES!');
tenants are given very short notice of the ballot (1 or 2 weeks);
ballots are called during summer hols when many people are away & there is no provision to accomodate those who are away;
(the worst) - a massive amount of money is spent by the Council on glossy pamphlets, DVDs, slick consultants, promises such as on my estate where they promised every resident under new scheme whose home is going to be demolished a house with a garden: all sorts of promises are made that are nor stuck to after they get the pro-privatisation result. Yet for those opposing the privatisation option, we have to scrabble together whatever funds we can e.g Lambeth charged us £400 for use of a room in Town Hall today to get opposing arguments across. Lambeth spend huge amounts of OUR MONEY from rents on getting private shemes thro', which should be spent on repairs etc.
£19 million has been set aside by Govt to get ALMOs thro nationwide.


Today's meeting went very well - 200 people attended, many new to the campaign, to hear the other side of the story as residents have rec'd glossy leaflets this week from Lambeth promoting ALMO, but it doesn't explain the risks / whole truth etc.

Next Lambeth Defend Council Housing meeting Mon 5th March - I'll post fuller details nearer the time.

 

[normskii]

By the way - Hyde are shit.
as I recall they are the largest HA in the South East.

That's true actually. They are a bunch of jokers with no clue.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Loads of Neighbourhood Offices have closed down in Islington over the years there's only going to be about 4 left soon out of (i think) over 20 originally.

The thing about ALMO's though is that at tenant level nothing changes. The neighbourhood office is the same, the same crap staff are behind the counter, the same crap contractors are still doing the repairs. It is still 'the council' but loads of money has been spent on a rebranding.

but what they don't tell you is that by Housing Corporation decree you ought to have a new kitchen and bathroom by 2010 anyway- government idea. /QUOTE]

same in southwark over the last few years. from 16 to 8 neighbourhoods.

it is still officially "the council" as they are the legal owners, but your councillors are powerless as they are Arm LenghtsMOs

you don't even have to have that new kitchen or bathroom if you want too. that's on the regulations on the relevant government website but they won't tell you that (especially the crap overcharging contractors....).

 

[guinnessdrinker]

edited:spoke a little bit too fast.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Next Lambeth Defend Council Housing meeting Mon 5th March - I'll post fuller details nearer the time.

it's sounds interesting even though I live in Southwark, not Lambeth. can I come as an observer?

 

[jpm]

Maybe there's some confusion - if you change landlord from Council then you have to be given a vote by law.

No confusion from me. You're just wrong on this point. From the Housing Transfer Manual 2005 http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/571/HousingTransferManual2005programmePDF1570Kb_id1152571.pdf:

10.24 The Secretary of State cannot grant consent to transfer if it appears to him that the majority of the tenants are opposed to it. Whilst not a legal requirement, we consider that a properly conducted formal ballot, carried out under the auspices of an independent body, is an effective way in which an authority can demonstrate satisfactorily that a majority of tenants are not opposed to the transfer.

 

[Loupylou]

No confusion from me. You're just wrong on this point. From the Housing Transfer Manual 2005 http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/571/HousingTransferManual2005programmePDF1570Kb_id1152571.pdf:

10.24 The Secretary of State cannot grant consent to transfer if it appears to him that the majority of the tenants are opposed to it. Whilst not a legal requirement, we consider that a properly conducted formal ballot, carried out under the auspices of an independent body, is an effective way in which an authority can demonstrate satisfactorily that a majority of tenants are not opposed to the transfer.

Thanks for clarifying that & posting link. I have less knowledge of stock transfer as I have been involved in the PFI process & currently ALMO, & I am aware that under these schemes, tenants have less of a leg to stand on due to not changing the landlord.
I do still challenge that in practice, the ballots are conducted properly - tenants across the country all have exactly the same experiences.
After all the ODPM promoted privatisation so despite their nice words, they were not a body that tenants could go to & expect to be assisted if they had concerns about how ballots are conducted, that's for sure.

another point is that once transferred to a Housing Association etc, there is no right whatsoever to being consulted let alone opinions being taken into account when the company is taken over by another or the housing stock is transferred to another. So tenants vote to be with one landlord, then have no say in whether they stay with that landlord.

Out of interest - I read the bit about ODPM considering other methods of establishing tenants' veiws, but Local Authority would need to apply & state why a ballot would not 'suit their needs' - do you know what other methods could be used & if they ever have been?

 

[Loupylou]

it's sounds interesting even though I live in Southwark, not Lambeth. can I come as an observer?

I'm sure you'd be most welcome, will confirm soon.
I believe there is a Southwark DCH group - will also get you details for that.

 

[Loupylou]

Please see thread under 'protest / direct action' called 'Calling Lambeth Residents ALMO Shadow Board'
IMPORTANT & URGENT !!

 

[jpm]

Out of interest - I read the bit about ODPM considering other methods of establishing tenants' veiws, but Local Authority would need to apply & state why a ballot would not 'suit their needs' - do you know what other methods could be used & if they ever have been?

Good question. I have no doubt it has happened before, albeit the exception rather than the rule. I would guess that a thoroughly conducted independent survey would suffice, but the key bit would be explaining why a ballot would not be suitable.

I think the way it's being handled on the Aylesbury Estate (and i'm not an expert here) is it's effectively a number of trickle transfers - that is ones under 500 properties - which do not need a place on the large scale voluntary transfer programme. However, it still requires agreement from the DCLG. I think key to this transfer is that every tenant is being given the option of staying with the council, albeit in a property off the estate. Hence, no-one will be transferred against their view!

 

[Lisarocket]

I'm not quite sure, but this ALMO idea may be dead in the water till next year now.

Islington had to get at least a 2 star rating in their audit to be allowed by central gvt to set up the ALMO.

Lambeth have just scored 1...

The rules may have changed since then though, but it's only a couple of years ago...

 

[Loupylou]

Good question. I have no doubt it has happened before, albeit the exception rather than the rule. I would guess that a thoroughly conducted independent survey would suffice, but the key bit would be explaining why a ballot would not be suitable.

I think the way it's being handled on the Aylesbury Estate (and i'm not an expert here) is it's effectively a number of trickle transfers - that is ones under 500 properties - which do not need a place on the large scale voluntary transfer programme. However, it still requires agreement from the DCLG. I think key to this transfer is that every tenant is being given the option of staying with the council, albeit in a property off the estate. Hence, no-one will be transferred against their view!

They can stay council tenants as long as they don't want to move back to the estate.
Residents of Aylesbury were balloted a couple of years ago re stock transfer- 71% voted to stay with the Council, so Southwark's response is to pull the flats down & rebuild it as Housing Association. So the tenants will be transferred to HA against the vast majority of the vote. Once the Council is heel bent on privatisation, there are more ways than one to skin a cat...
It's not just a question of people being able to leave & live somewhere else - people generally want to stay in their communities with the people they know - especially somehwere like Aylesbury.
It's not like rolling up a carpet & laying it down somehwere else. 'Regeneration' has been shown to shorten people's lives.
Also less flats for rent will be built than exist currently & there will be over-priced so called 'affordable' flats for sale to make up the gap.
Anyway. most tenants will have to move back there - the HA aren't going to build a whole estate & then leave it empty because no-one wants to be a HA tenant. There aren't enough council houses for all tenants to move to anyway.
I heard that Southwark want to build on Burgess Park - a decant??