London SE1 community website

Planning for people who live in Southwark now

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Current: 5 of 8
Friday 29 August 2014 11.11am
I've been reading the 'Staying Put 'anti-gentrification' guide which has been referenced earlier in this thread.

Let me say first of all that it's clearly been well researched, is (easily) readable and is put together in a clear and logical way - but I do not agree with it's over-arching premise that a comprehensive review and reform of Council Estates in Central London is a taboo that should be prevented and resisted at all costs. In the longer-term that position is not going to be sustainable for the strains that London is undergoing - and there needs to be some space allowed for a diversity of different views - and some time and space given for people to discuss how Council Estates should be developed in the future as part of the solution to housing London's ever increasing population.

There is also a quite significant contradiction within the document which I would like to outline here - given that the document has been promoted on this thread. In the section covering the Heygate Estate (page 9) - it cites the lengthy decanting process as a barrier to some of the original residents returning to the estate:

'Many elderly residents and families just could not face the stress of moving twice. The whole decanting process took the best part of ten years, until the physical eviction of the last leaseholders in November 2013.'

Whilst I accept that this statement is totally correct - what the document does not disclose - is that the 10-year decanting process was in large part due to the time it took for the very last leaseholders to move out - extended in no small part due to the application to Southwark Council for a CPO process (at major cost to the public purse) which the 'Staying Put' document advocates later on in the document as one of the tools available to residents - (page 22).

Despite promoting CPO - 'Staying Put' later acknowledges that:

'Recent experiences show that the chances of a successful (CPO) challenge are small...' but that '...calling for a CPO usually receives a lot of media coverage and can be useful...'

In conclusion - there are parts of this document that, in my assessment, evidence the crossing of a line between the as-advertised self-help guide for residents - and which could be entering into the realms of general anti-establishment activism.

Hopefully I've got this completely wrong - but I think that the local working taxpayers who in the end are funding these CPOs deserve some clarification.
Friday 29 August 2014 4.14pm
Yet again Floodplain, you call for more diversity whilst at the same time seem to want to rid certain sections of our community from the area.
Friday 29 August 2014 8.14pm
Yet again, Boroughonian, you seek to silence anyone expressing a view contrary to yours with cheap shots like that.

As a taxpayer, I have no issues subsidising Council Homes for working people - indeed there is a very powerful argument to which I subscribe - that building more Council Housing increases the 'Public Wealth', creates jobs in their construction and management and ameliorates the appalling situation of Councils wasting public money on paying millions in rent to private landlords.

But reform is long overdue due in terms of allocating Council Housing to favour local people who choose to work - in fact, precisely those for whom it was established in the first place.

Taxpayers have a very big issue funding feckless individuals of working age and in good health who have been jobless for years, sitting around enjoying the privilege of a Council Home in Central London - an area which has the highest levels of employment in the Country.

I know that it is very hard for you to accept the self-evident truth that taxpayers fund subsidised social housing. The uncomfortable truth is that taxpayers have a voice also - and the right to query how their money is being spent - including asking reasonable questions which quite clearly you do not want to be aired on a public forum.
Friday 29 August 2014 9.41pm
Cheap shot? You talk of unemployed ghettos yet seem to want to create exactly that, I have asked you numerous times, I will try again, how long would a person be unemployed (or sick, because they wont escape your ideal) before he/she is to be aimed out of the area?
I'm a taxpayer too, I don't appreciate the feckless workshy either, I just feel that your ideas are contradictory and unworkable.
Friday 29 August 2014 9.59pm
floodplain, now that you're back, can you go back to page 1 and clarify what you meant by 'embarking on our initiative'? thanks
Saturday 30 August 2014 8.29pm
Boroughonian,

Let's try a simpler version of the proposition. (Probably a waste of time, as no doubt you will continue to mis-represent and sensationalise my proposals.)

Council Homes should be allocated to give priority to local working people

It's really that simple.

Why do I propose this?

Because this would reward people who work and who have a stake in their area. It also acts as an incentive to compel those who might otherwise choose to live off benefits to find a job. Because it also more closely represents society as a whole, since most people actually work. Because it will improve the quality of Council Tenants and create better, more stable communities. Because it would represent a return to the original principles upon which Council Houses were conceived.

How do you explain to working people who have to commute 2 hours to London because they cannot afford a home in London nor qualify for the privilege of a Council Home that feckless benefits recipients are sitting around enjoying the privilege of a Central London Council Home?

Impossible.
Saturday 30 August 2014 8.34pm
Pros,

I was referring to the proposals you outline in your opening post on Page 1 of this thread.
Saturday 30 August 2014 9.40pm
Floodplain wrote:
Boroughonian,
Let's try a simpler version of the proposition. (Probably a waste of time, as no doubt you will continue to mis-represent and sensationalise my proposals.)

Council Homes should be allocated to give priority to local working people

It's really that simple.

Why do I propose this?

Because this would reward people who work and who have a stake in their area. It also acts as an incentive to compel those who might otherwise choose to live off benefits to find a job. Because it also more closely represents society as a whole, since most people actually work. Because it will improve the quality of Council Tenants and create better, more stable communities. Because it would represent a return to the original principles upon which Council Houses were conceived.

How do you explain to working people who have to commute 2 hours to London because they cannot afford a home in London nor qualify for the privilege of a Council Home that feckless benefits recipients are sitting around enjoying the privilege of a Central London Council Home?

Impossible.

Like I say, contradictory.

It's not that i'm sensationalising or misrepresenting your recent posts, it's just that I know, from your posts prior, where your coming from, your original stance was benefit claimants shouldn't be living in the area, until it was pointed out that most benefit claimants are workers.

Could you tell me where these ghettos of unemployed are in SE1 please? Who's sensationalising now?

Like I said before, I do not appreciate the workshy either, it's just that I'd rather deal with the problem rather than sweep it to somewhere else.

Anyway, so your saying that when a person falls into unemployment, for whatever reason, they would be allowed to remain in their homes?
Sunday 31 August 2014 7.58am
I know it's far from PC these days, but I tend to agree with Floodplain. IT's a sad phenomenon of our times that the benefit culture has gone mad. How we turn the clock back I dont know, and how you weed out the wheat from the chaff I also dont know, but someone has got to grasp this particular nettle sooner or later.
Sunday 31 August 2014 8.52am
I agree Jackie, but shipping people out of the area is not grasping the nettle, we will still have to pay for them wherever they are.
Let's not forget, we stopped training our children quite some time ago.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Current: 5 of 8

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions